On the one hand, awesome to see young women having a role in leadership. On the other hand, monarchy is pretty much the worst form of government.
From the article:
the role of monarch is not hereditary: The successor is determined by tribal representatives from across the nation.
The ceremonies took place in Tūrangawaewae Marae on the North Island, which is the seat of the Maori King movement.
The political institution developed in the 1850s, when Maori tribes decided to unify under a single sovereign in the face of an influx of British settlers and demand for their land, as well as broader political marginalization.
Today the role of the Maori monarch is largely symbolic. As a former British colony and current member of the British Commonwealth, New Zealand’s official monarch is King Charles.
So I don’t think this is monarchy in the way that you are thinking. The “Maori Monarch” is more of a political leader than anything, so in a US context, it’s kind of like the NAACP selecting a new president.
I read that but it also seems to indicate that she’s a third generation monarch in her family. Maybe it’s not officially hereditary but it’s a bit sus. Not to mention that monarchies are bad for reasons beyond their (typically) hereditary nature.
I also think the presidency is a harmful institution but I know most people aren’t there yet.
