Whatever emerges - and more is likely - the British monarchy, and its reach into the Commonwealth, has remarkable resilience.
It will take far more than prosecutions of the King’s brother on serious criminal charges to bring down the monarchy’s constitutional role.
Periodically, there are calls for New Zealand and Australia to become republics. Several former prime ministers, including Helen Clark, Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins, have said it was their preferred option.
None, though, was willing to pursue it. They recognised it could be divisive and that any consensus on a republic would be difficult.
John Key said becoming a republic was eventually ‘‘inevitable’’. Christopher Luxon describes himself as a ‘‘soft republican’’, but with little public appetite, change was not a priority.
Senior politicians and most New Zealanders welcome visiting royalty warmly.
Even Australia, with stronger anti-English Irish roots and the lingering shadow of the 1975 dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, has maintained the legal status quo.
New Zealand faces its own acute complications because of the Māori relationship with the Crown and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Treaty was signed by British Crown representatives rather than any ‘‘settler’’ government.
While legally any ‘‘Crown’’ obligations pass to the government or to any future republic, the matter is bound up in emotion, history and tikanga.
Māori leadership has often spoken of an additional connection with the monarchs. They have been described as a ‘‘repository of honour’’ in Crown-Māori relations.
Further, any proposal for special roles or rights for Māori in a republic would stir division, whatever the rights or wrongs.
It’s worth remembering the 2009 Head of State Referenda Bill, from the Greens’ Keith Locke. It was drawn from the members’ ballot and failed at the first reading.
The referendum proposed three options: a head of state elected by a supermajority in Parliament (as proposed in Australia), an election using STV (as in Ireland), or the status quo.
Labour and the Greens backed the Bill at first reading. National, Act and the Māori Party opposed it. New Zealand First was not in Parliament. The Bill failed 53-68.
It was often said the death of respected Queen Elizabeth II would accelerate change.
Charles III, however, has won support with good sense and sensibility. Andrew Mountbatten Windsor’s demotion from royal status, albeit belated, reinforced that point.
Charles’ statement after his brother’s arrest that the ‘‘law should run its course’’ was appropriate.
Prince William and Catherine, Princess of Wales wait in the wings. Their distaste with their uncle has been clear, and they retain popularity among younger generations to bolster ‘‘the Firm’’.
Civis is in the camp that has never put royal personages on a pedestal. Thus, the plummet of one of their number is not quite the shock it might be for those of more romantic or idealistic persuasion.
A hereditary post from a distant land is anomalous. Nevertheless, given the history and their pragmatic usefulness, Civis wouldn’t be ditching them any time soon.
A little ancient pomp and ceremony also still has its place.
Former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys had the right idea. He once said, ‘‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’’
In 2002, then Prime Minister Helen Clark said, ‘‘the idea of a nation such as New Zealand being ruled by a head of state some 20,000km away is absurd. It is inevitable that New Zealand will become a republic. It is just a matter of when the New Zealand people are bothered enough to talk about it - it could be 10 years, or it could be 20 years, but it will happen.’’
Well, here we are 24 years later, and even former prince Andrew’s behaviour won’t bring down the House of Windsor.
