When you are not a signatory to a historic peace treaty, but need to be in order to govern, interpret it to suit your ideology and call that interpretation; its principles.
An interesting read. The guy in the video, I'm not sure that he's even right about the City of London being the maker of the treaty. It was maybe more James Busby and whoever he represented as he was buying up 1,000s of hectares from "representatives" of Maori in the Bay of Islands area.
As for the Treaty (or Te Tiriti) is it anymore than an agreement to take on British Law in an attempt to make peace in these islands?
Himself mostly it seems to me. Very busy buying up land from about 1835 or so.
I think the Treaty was an agreement to take on British law lock, stock and barrel myself. There didn't seem to be any attempt to integrate it. What came after that was maybe but I havn't studied it anywhere enough to know. I think that we also have to be careful to avoid laying our 21st C back on what was a different country in the 1840s/50s and so on.
I mean insofar as Queen Victoria was the head of a country that maybe coalesced around whatever the City of London (finance) was in 1841 maybe she represented that same capital (money rather than the city). But I'm not sure how Busby fittted into that. He ended up in the Hunter Valley in NSW, one of the first winegrowers there (from a country that had no wine growers at the time).
Agree with most of your first comment. With reference to your second comment, I do have some questions for the sake of reasoning the situation at that time.
Who was Queen Victoria to William IV, King of England, wearer of the St George State Crown?
Could a woman inherit the throne according to the Habsburg line of succession rules? Why did she have to wear a different Crown?
What ramifications did William IV's acceptance of the native's declaration of independence have on the desire of the Vatican and City of London backed Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family's desire to forge a worldwide economic empire through contracts? It is after all, the Roman way.
Warfare through Diplomacy, the Romans and the Byzantines and all successive centralization cults have always strived for One God, One Empire, and One Religion. William IV allowing natives in the Pacific to declare their independence is an offence to those types.
Is that what the treaty was for? To undo what William IV did with He Whakaputanga.
An interesting read. The guy in the video, I'm not sure that he's even right about the City of London being the maker of the treaty. It was maybe more James Busby and whoever he represented as he was buying up 1,000s of hectares from "representatives" of Maori in the Bay of Islands area.
As for the Treaty (or Te Tiriti) is it anymore than an agreement to take on British Law in an attempt to make peace in these islands?
Good point, who was Busby an agent for? And I would lean toward agreeing with you, and maybe that's the most important part of the Treaty.
An agreement to integrate over 2000 years of written law into our law.
Himself mostly it seems to me. Very busy buying up land from about 1835 or so.
I think the Treaty was an agreement to take on British law lock, stock and barrel myself. There didn't seem to be any attempt to integrate it. What came after that was maybe but I havn't studied it anywhere enough to know. I think that we also have to be careful to avoid laying our 21st C back on what was a different country in the 1840s/50s and so on.
I mean insofar as Queen Victoria was the head of a country that maybe coalesced around whatever the City of London (finance) was in 1841 maybe she represented that same capital (money rather than the city). But I'm not sure how Busby fittted into that. He ended up in the Hunter Valley in NSW, one of the first winegrowers there (from a country that had no wine growers at the time).
Agree with most of your first comment. With reference to your second comment, I do have some questions for the sake of reasoning the situation at that time.
Who was Queen Victoria to William IV, King of England, wearer of the St George State Crown?
Could a woman inherit the throne according to the Habsburg line of succession rules? Why did she have to wear a different Crown?
What ramifications did William IV's acceptance of the native's declaration of independence have on the desire of the Vatican and City of London backed Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family's desire to forge a worldwide economic empire through contracts? It is after all, the Roman way.
Warfare through Diplomacy, the Romans and the Byzantines and all successive centralization cults have always strived for One God, One Empire, and One Religion. William IV allowing natives in the Pacific to declare their independence is an offence to those types.
Is that what the treaty was for? To undo what William IV did with He Whakaputanga.
I'll have to upgrade my knowledge (or lack of it) on William IV. I'll get back to you on this.
I get the feeling that the effort to rebrand the Waitangi Treaty has failed.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/te-ao-maori/350164521/he-whakaputanga-declaration-independence-explained
So now the effort to rebrand moves to the earlier document? This is going to be interesting.