Talk:Paramount Chief of Fiji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fiji,
a WikiProject related to the Republic of the Fiji Islands.

Contents

[edit] Suggest to merge with Queen of Fiji artcile

think this article shuld be merged with the existing queen of Fiji article, repetitive


There is some overlap, and both articles should be trimmed to reduce that. I would oppose merging them, however, as they are two distinct offices, albeit held by the same person, and the roles are different. David Cannon 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
maybe it would be good to include the British sovereigns who held the title or held rights to the tile title Tui Viti (Paramount Chief)- Namely Victoria, Edward VII, George V, George VI and Elizabeth. As the title is synonymous with the British sovereign, it think its fairly accurate the Prince Charles will succeed to the title with the passing of the Queen, unless specifically ended by Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs. Seriously doubt this will happen Fiji's Chiefs are themselves quite proud of the royal family and their links to Fiji. Also to make the article more interesting it would be good to put the order of precedence in the article for the Fiji Chiefs

1. Paramount Chief of Fiji (Tui Viti) Queen Elizabeth 2. Paramount Chief of Kubuna (Vunivalu of Bau) Vacant since 1989 3. Paramount Chief of Burebasaga (Roko Tui Dreketi) Ro Teimumu Tuisawau-Kepa 4. Paramount Chief of Tovata (Tui Cakau) Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu

All other chiefs in Fiji come after the above in regard to precendence and again depends on the province they come from

Think the separate Tui Viti article can be merged with this one, maybe as a separate heading origins of the title and how Queen Elizabeth is rightfully entitled to it
Let's ask a number of Fijian Wikipedians about this. As far as I'm aware, the Tui Viti title was abolished with the cession. British Sovereigns assumed the role, but not the title, per se. But User:Xorkl000 and User:Laulad may know something about this that I don't, so let's ask them. David Cannon 11:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Elizabeth?

While, as I understand it there is no specific official title for the role of Paramount Chief of all of Fiji, isn't it incorrect to translate that title into the Fijian version of Queen Elizabeth's name. While the title is presently hers, it doesn't belonmg solely to her so I propose it's probably incorrect to translate "Paramount Chief of Fiji" as "Ilisapeci-Na Radi ni Viti kei Peritania", (English: Elizabeth Queen of Fiji and Britain) Matt Bray 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting comment and is honestly a tricky one to confirm, from the official GCC in council records for 1962, the Chiefs of Fiji, officially bestowed Queen Elizabeth the Title "Ilisapeci-Na Radi ni Viti kei Peritania" and in 1998 the GCC Council again reaffirmed their allegiance to her by officially announcing her as Paramount Chief of Fiji but with no official Fijian translation. As far as historic records go, the highest title among Fijian Chiefs would be Tui Viti, which again is contestable considering only the chiefs of areas under Ratu Cakobau's sphere of influence recognised it as such. But prior to cession Ratu Cakobau was as such officially recognised by majority of the major Fijian Chiefs, if not all and the Europeans. Taking into consideation that Ratu Cakobau surrendered sovereignty of his kingdom (Fiji) to Queen Victoria in 1872, and as the wording goes on the deed of cession to her and her descendants, it is pretty much safe to say that Queen Elizabeth is a rightful claimant to and holder of the title Tui Viti,and it basically makes sense because if Queen Elizabeth had been male, the GCC Council of 1962 would have bestowed the title "Tui Viti kei Peritania" or "King of Fiji and Britain", "Ranadi being the feminine equivalent. As Ratu Cakobau had willingly given up sovereignty and title to Queen Victoria (no records after cession refer to him as Tui Viti but only as Vunivalu of Bau) I dont think anyone today from his line could rightly make a claim to it, unless the Queen herself surrenders it back. So essentially the Tui Viti title merged with the British crown in 1872 and has remained with the head of the British Royal family since. It should be noted despite Fiji being a republic many chiefs have indicated sentiments of being pro-monarchists. The Late Tui Nayau Ratu Mara attempted to convince the GCC to restore Fiji to a Constitutional Monarchy in the 90's and comments in recent years from Ratu Epeli Nailatikau and the current President Ratu Iloilo suggest them to be pro monarchists.
Just some interedting points to add to the discussion.

[edit] Head of State?

I'm confused, is HM the Head of State of Fiji, or does she just have a special status? Therequiembellishere 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy answer to that. Fiji retains all the symbolism of a monarchy (look at the flag, ensigns, coat of arms, motto, currency, etc) but behaves as a republic independent of the crown. Clearly, QEII remains a figurehead of sorts, though she is not in practice the Head of State. Nearest parallels are probably Rhodesia 1965-70, and Grenada 1979-83. Nudge67 05:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that Constitutionally, the Queen is not recognized. Constitutionally, she is a nobody. However, the Great Council of Chiefs (a body representing Fiji's chiefs) recognizes her as Fiji's most senior chief. The flag and other symbols retained from the colonial and Commonwealth Realm era (which ended in 1987) have not been changed, for historical reasons - for much the same reason that some southern states in the USA retain the flag of the Confederacy as part of their own flag. David Cannon 09:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

would it be better to merge this article with the Tui Viti article, leave the lay out as it is just make it a section of the Tui Viti article, some thoughts on the topic would be appreciated, Vinaka, Maikeli MB 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)