Will the Queen's absence at Sir Edmund Hillary's funeral spark a republican revolution in New Zealand?
Sir Edmund and Queen Elizabeth II made for an odd double act. But they have always been closely linked in the public mind since Hillary's ascent of Everest was announced on the day of the Queen's coronation in 1953. Both events were said to herald the start of the second Elizabethan age.
Now, even in death, it seems Hillary cannot escape his association with the British monarch. An almighty row has broken out in New Zealand because neither the Queen nor any member of her family is going to be present at Sir Edmund's funeral tomorrow.
"It is a slap in the face for all New Zealanders," says the Sunday Star Times.
Is the strength of the language used a sign of the depth of reverence for Sir Edmund in New Zealand, or a sign of angry republicanism - or both?
"Buckingham Palace has, at a stroke, infuriated all of New Zealand and turned mild monarchists into red-hot anti-royalists. As PR botches go, it's epoch-making and hilarious. But as an insult to this country and its deepest values, it is unforgivable," the Sunday Star Times goes on.
"Edmund and Elizabeth's twosome was for many monarchists a kind of symbol of the close bonds between their countries. The fact that she can't be bothered even to send a minor princeling or pint-sized princess to farewell him should tell even them that these bonds are broken."
Blogger Strange Land is also fuming.
"The only charitable construction I can put on this is that they are trying to send us a signal that they are irrelevant, and that New Zealand should become a republic," says the post.
The royal family have been "badly advised", according to Kiwiblog. And in a comment on that post, Gavin Knight recalls how the "royals got it wrong on Diana".
"My feeling snubbed on this is because our head of state is not attending our state funeral, or sending one of her senior family members in her place," he says.
Professor Noel Cox, of the Monarchist League of New Zealand, is also reminded of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, but only because of the "hysterical reaction" of the press and the public.
He says: "Sir Edmund, who we have always been told was a modest man, would have been hurt and upset that his death would be used for political purposes, or as an opportunity to attack the Royal Family."
Craig Ranapia says the row is being over-spun, and a post on Newzblog urges both monarchists and republicans against using Hillary's death to "push their own agenda".
Holden Republic denies that the republican movement is leaping on the snub to advance its cause. But he does say: "Whatever way you spin this, it looks bad for the Royal Family."
What do you reckon?
