Talk:Constitutional monarchy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Constitutional monarchy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reserve powers in Commonwealth realms

As the author of the paragraph in question, my apologies if it reads as being biased, but in fact the propositions advanced are a relatively straightforward matter of constitutional law. It is present in the "Popularity" section of the entry, because an ongoing problem endangering exercise of the reserve powers in the Commonwealth realms is the lack of public understanding of those powers and their purpose in upholding parliamentary democracy (e.g. Grenada 1983). (I will try to hunt down some relevant references in the political journal Parliamentarian, for your reference.)

The paragraph as I wrote it was: " Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Westminster monarch and her representatives retain significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded only in times of extreme emergency (e.g. Australia 1975, Gr[e]nada 1983, Solomon Islands 1994), usually to uphold parliamentary government. On these occasions a lack of understanding by the public of the relevant constitutional conventions can cause controversy: for example, in the 1975 Dismissal of the Whitlam Government in Australia, Governor-General Sir John Kerr was blamed for his intervention over the Supply crisis (much to the bewilderment of British and Canadian constitutional commentators). Instead the blame for the crisis and its outcome should have been directed at the then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, who was politically responsible for refusing Supply and causing the immediate crisis, and who was formally responsible for the Whitlam Dismissal under the Westminster conventions concerning exercise of the reserve powers." [Note a typographical error in the original passage of the word "Grenada", that should be corrected.]

The two dominant 20th Century studies of the Crown's reserve powers in the Commonwealth are by H.V. Evatt and Eugene Forsey, written independently in the 1930s and 1940s. Both were originally doctoral theses, in constitutional law (Evatt, University of Sydney, Australia) and constitutional history (Forsey, Oxford University, UK). Both scholars went on to become eminent legal and political figures, Forsey in Canada and Evatt in Australia. For these studies of the reserve or prerogative powers of the Crown, see Evatt and Forsey on the Reserve Powers, Legal Books, Sydney Australia, 1990; subsequent studies on Grenada can be found in Forsey's later commentary in Evatt and Forsey (ibid.), and in Fraser,P., "A Revolutionary Governor-General? The Grenada Crisis of 1983", Constitutional Heads and Political Crises: Commonwealth Episodes 1945-1985, Macmillan, London 1988. For discussions on the Solomon Islands, I refer you to the 1994 judgements of the Appellate Court of the High Court of the Solomon Islands (Francis Billy Hilly and Others v. the Governor-General of the Solomon Islands, 1994). And now for the key issue, my statements regarding public blame over the 1975 Whitlam Dismissal in Australia:

(1) The proposition that Governor-General Sir John Kerr was blamed for his intervention over the Supply crisis, at least by Whitlam's supporters, is not controversial. Whitlam's own speech at his sacking famously included the phrase "Well might we say, 'God Save the Queen', for nothing will save the Governor-General".

(2) The bewilderment of British and Canadian constitutional commentators is also a matter of historical record: the obvious examples are that both Dr Eugene Forsey (by this stage a life-Senator of the Canadian Senate) and Lord Hailsham (the former Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, and an extremely eminent legal scholar) both went so far as to write defences of Kerr's actions, remarking that public acrimony and blame should have -- as a matter of law and constitutional convention -- been aimed at the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, rather than at Kerr. Their defences were reproduced by Sir John Kerr in his book, Matters for Judgement, Sun Books, Melbourne 1988.

(3)This proposition of "blame", far from being a politically partisan one, is a formal component of ministerial responsibility under the Westminster system throughout the Commonwealth realms. The idea is that, what are now known as "reserve" or "prerogative" powers of the Crown, can be retained to defend parliamentary democracy under conditions when resort to judicial intervention is either impossible or undesirable. This is done by formal "responsibility" (and the consequent political acrimony and blame) being formally allocated to a "responsible minister". Normally that responsible minister is the incumbent prime minister, although in a constitutional crisis (such as 1975) that Prime Minister may be sacked or resign and an alternative minister be sworn in. For a full discussion of the (extremely complex) conventions surrounding this process, see: Todd, A., Parliamentary Government in England, Longman Green, London 1869; also Sir Robert Peel's speech to the British Commons in 1835, upon assuming the Prime Ministership (Emden,C.S., Selected Speeches on the Constitution, Oxford University Press 1939) and Sir Victor Windeyer's and Professor G.B. Adam's discussions of the history of ministerial responsibility (Windeyer, W.J.V., Lectures on Legal History, Law Book Co. of Australasia, 1949; Adams, G.B., Constitutional History of England, Jonathon Cape, London 1935). Alternatively, the relevant arguments are presented in my book (Greenwood, N.J.C. For the Sovereignty of the People, Australian Academic Press, 1999), although Amazon or Barnes and Noble won't have copies until later this month) Fraser was the co-signatory to Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam; he was unambiguously the responsible minister for that action, and was sworn in as Prime Minister by Sir John Kerr.

So saying Fraser was the appropriate figure to "blame" is not a partisan assessment, but a formal description of his position at law. As Hailsham in particular spelt out in his defence of Kerr, the Westminster system has formal mechanisms in place if the public disapproved of the Dismissal: they could vote against Fraser and his party in the upcoming election triggered by the Dismissal, making his position (and arguably that of Kerr) unsustainable. The reserve powers are supposed to help uphold parliamentary democracy; but failure to understand this constitutional machinery seriously endangers both these safeguards and the Crown's popularity; hence the positioning of this paragraph under the heading of "Popularity".

I hope this resolves any anxiety that that paragraph contains "opinions being passed off as fact". There are, however, certainly plenty of other passages (NOT written by me!) in this Wikipedia definition that are vulnerable to that accusation. I'm happy to address them, with verifiable references, when I next have time to give this encyclopaedia entry the full attention it deserves. NigelGreenwood 13:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Have re-edited the allegedly POV para, to make non-partisan attributions clearer. Have added another POV marker, to the sentence, "In the Canadian instance, the constitutional powers surrounding the monarch are almost entirely ignored; not even the Prime Minister is noted in the constitution" which, as a matter of law, is simply wrong: although the prime minister is not named, he or she was NOT "ignored", but deliberately omitted to avoid judicial interference in a purely political office. (Will provide some references in the next day or so, discussing this point.) Any objections if I simply delete the "Canadian instance" sentence?NigelGreenwood 10:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Have deleted the sentence "In the Canadian instance, the constitutional powers surrounding the monarch are almost entirely ignored; not even the Prime Minister is noted in the constitution." I don't know who wrote it, but for a discussion of the legal reasons why Canadian and Australian legislators (and British civil servants) omitted reference to things like the office of Prime Minister and some of the monarch's powers when writing constitutions, see Quick, J., and Garran, R., The Annotated Constitution of the Austraian Commonwealth (reprint of 1901 edition), Legal Books, Sydney 1976. Or ask me. Whichever you prefer.

Unless anyone objects, will now remove the POV marker attached to the paragraph that Valiantis had concerns about, especially now it's been edited? Let me know if there are any issues there? NigelGreenwood 01:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

... interestingly, on 25 March 2007, someone determined to excise all mention of Forsey and Evatt massively edited the page and so your references are for naught ... 01:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Marrying the Bourgeois

The article says that the marriage between a royal and a bourgeois is now more common and does not have the political concequences it once would have had. A comment to that would be, that the marriage between a commoner and a royal can indeed strengthen political (or popular) ties between countries. One case being the marriage between HRH Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark and HRH Crown Princess Mary of Denmark (formerly known as Mary E. Donaldson), formerly an Australian citizen. Following the engagement and, in particular, the wedding, imports/exports between the two countries exploded and the focus on Denmark in Australia and vice versa was and is (to some degree) tremendous. It also opened the door for many diplomatical (however symbolic) moves between the two countries. After the wedding, Australians were quoted that they'd rather be a Danish Commonwealth than a British one. Of course this was of little practical relevance, but it indicates that Denmark was more popular to many Australians than their own "motherland". And even if this has no direct impact on british/australian relations, it goes to show how two countries can be brought closer on many levels by a royal marriage. I'm not saying that this is the rule more than the exception. A similar event between a Danish royal and, say an American citizen may not be noticed much in the US. But between countries of relatively similar size, it can certainly have a huge impact. (USA has 20 times the citizens Australia has, and 80 times the population of Denmark, whereas Australia "only" has five times the citizens Denmark does)--Nwinther 11:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Divine Right of Kings of England

The article notes: "Historically, the English had not believed in the "Divine Right of Kings": ever since Magna Carta in 1215, the monarchy had been regarded as a contractual political instrument." Yet the article on the Divine Right of Kings notes that the British monarchy is the only monarchy in Europe which uses religious coronations rather than inaugurations, and that the British royal family's motto is Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and my [birth] Right - i.e. I rule with God's blessing). Could somebody please clarify or edit the sentence in question? Patiwat 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding, proven to a degree by the English Civil War, that the English People did not support Divine Right, whilest the holders of the office occasionaly did. The English may have retained the forms of 'Divine Right' long after the actual practice of ruling in that style ended, much like the Romans maintained the forms of the republic under the Ceasers. Bo 14:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a good explanation that I think should be added to the Divine Right of Kings article. Patiwat 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

They occasionally did? They may have retained the forms? I'm sorry, but have you read what the pound and pence in your pocket says to this day? Well, it says ELIZABETH·II·D·G·REG·F·D, that is Dei Gratia REGina, Fidei Defenstrix, which, in case you have forgotten your Latin, means Queen by the Grace of God, and Defender of the Faith. No comment on the "Ceasers". 91.104.109.165 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

The trivia section "Canada, whose constitution demands the unanimous agreement of 10 provincial legislatures and the House of Commons and Senate for any change to the office of the Queen, has the most complex requisites for changing its status as a constitutional monarchy. Arguably, the Queen is more securely entrenched in Canada than she is in the United Kingdom." is arguably wrong. The Canadian constitution may demand unanimous agreement of 10 legislatures and the house of commons and the senate, but I doubt that it is the most difficult-to-change constitutional monarchy. Denmark f.i. has a constitution that needs to pass "Folketinget" (The Parliament), then pass a newly elected parliament, then pass a public vote (a majority consisting of at least 40% of the eligeble voters must accept it). Finally the King or Queen must themselves authorize it by signature. I doubt the Canadian model can be called more secure for the monarch than one where the monarch him/herself must pass the law. --Rilmallion 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate to burst your bubble Rilmallion but the it would be a fair guess to say that in all the Commonwealth Realms the Queen or the G-G must sing the bill into law. For example in the Commonwealth of Australia the proposed change must be put to the people, with more that 50% of the people supporting it, plus more that 50% of the States. The bill must then go through the House of Reps and the Senate, then to the G-G for Royal Assent. It is therefore possible that if Australia was ever to become a republic, the G-G would be the one making the change legal, or the Queen/King if they were present in Australia, or asked to do. 203.36.120.5 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vatican?

The Vatican City finishes the article's list of constitutional monarchies. It's indisputably a monarchy, and it has a written constitution, but does that make it a constitutional monarchy? Otherwhere in the article we claim that Denmark under absolutism was not a consitutional monarchy despite having a constitution. This is in contradiction to listing the Vatican; which should we follow? –Henning Makholm 22:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I inserted the claim about Denmark some time ago, in good faith, without noticing then that .va was listed).

For consistency (and for lack of response) I have now removed the Vatican from the table. –Henning Makholm 17:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Vatican City must be an elective monarchy. Not sure if it's constitutional, as the Pope is held to be infallible in matters of Church doctrine. - MSTCrow 20:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it is elective, but I'm not sure that has any direct bearing on whether it is or is not constitutional. I don't think that papal infallibility matters either way; power over doctrines of faith is quite far removed from the pope's role as temporal ruler of the Vatican state (which the dogma of infallibility does not support). –Henning Makholm 16:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Why constitutional monarchies survive

I find it strange that there is a section called "Why constitutional monarchies survive". Why would they not survive? the word survive implies that they are struggling, but why? there seems to be an assumption that the system is bad, but why? i think we should replace it with a section "Why occasionally some constitutional monarchies are replaced with republics". 129.12.200.49 20:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Both section titles are horrible from an encyclopedic standpoints. Most of the material in the section would be more appropriately titled "current issues" or perhaps even "the future of constitutional monarchies". –Henning Makholm 05:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't that require a headline in a number of other articles like "the future of the republic", "...of the dictatorship" "...the autocracy" etc. for reasons of consistency. Other than that, I agree with your comment.--Nwinther 08:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have any obligation to that kind of consistency. Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not require us to treat everything as if it was the same, only with minor variations in parameters. We should have a section on the future of autocracy if and only if there is something encyclopedic to say about that particular topic; there is no point in having an empty or trivial section just to parallel a case where there is something to say.

For the record I don't particularly like "the future of constitutional monarchy" as a section title (I had hoped that somebody would suggest a better one), but I don't think that consistency is among the valid arguments against it. –Henning Makholm 08:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to a more appropriate heading in regards to what the article is about to "Present-day constitutional monarchical status".

Also wanted to say if a few others should be put on the list that's not there, like Qatar, Bhutan & even Swaziland? That-Vela-Fella 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bhutan and Nepal

Hoping someone could clarify whether Bhutan and Nepal belong on this list.

The article on Bhutan says that "Politics of Bhutan takes place in a framework of a traditional absolute monarchy, currently developing into a constitutional monarchy." the first Parliamentary elections will be held next year, but it is unclear from the article whether the country has formally adopted a constitution yet.
Nepal's constitutional monarchy appears to be in the endgame stage, but I don't know enough about the interim constitution to figure out whether the country is still effectively a constitutional monarchy.

Tom Radulovich 19:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm following it, Bhutan is suppose to have a referendum to accept or not the proposed constitution prior to the upcoming elections. I have yet to see a date set for it. Could still happen in the next few weeks, as could the status of Nepal's current ongoing situation. That-Vela-Fella 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow seem to remember that there won't be a referendum in Bhutan, but AFP claims there will be -- as Upper House elections will already be held on 26 Dec, I think this is nonsense. Nepal is *technically* still a monarchy, though the king currently is not head of state. —Nightstallion 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

However, Earth Times states the constitution *will* be ratified in a referendum -- but elections will be held before that apparently? scratches head —Nightstallion 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Elections beforehand will be for the Council, but the main one will be next year in 2 stages for the lower house. So a referendum can still occur to ratify the constitution beforehand. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there won't be much time -- with Council elections on 26 Dec and the first round of the Assembly elections in February... We'll see. —Nightstallion 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy and Fascism in Spain?

There have been monarchies which have coexisted with constitutions which were fascist (or quasi-fascist), as was the case in Spain...

Would Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictatorship under the reign of Alfonso XIII's reign be considered 'fascist'?

It my have been, as his son José Antonio founded the Falange, a Spanish Fascist party afterwards. Also "Imitating the example of Benito Mussolini in Italy, Primo de Rivera forced management and labor to cooperate by organizing 27 corporations representing different industries and professions." But I'm sure the statement had more to do with the time of Francisco Franco & the long regency he had. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First continental constitutional monarchies

It is written in the article that UK is the oldest constitutional monarchy, but it also states that the form is different from the continental constitutional monarchies. I have always been told that Norway was the first constitutional monarchy, and they invented the system as a way to abide by the peace settlement after the Napolion War which forced them into a personal union with Sweden. The constitutional monarchy allowed them to abide by the settlement, but without actually granting the Swedish king any power over Norway. I don't have any sources on this though. Carewolf (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Long commentary moved from article

Edited by Gordon J Sheppard (British Subject, 80 years of age, retired)

Wickipedia in this section “Constitutional monarchies today” displays this information:

“In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centers around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favor of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.”

Particular attention should be paid to these words:

A. While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians,

B. the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.

It will be noted that throughout all the references to “Constitutional Monarchy” in the Wickipedia encyclopedia, they all refer to the options of Monarchy. Never ever to the People (or Subjects). Monarchy chose and elected to become a “Constitutional Monarchy” of its own volition, without any consultation whatsoever with its Subjects. That the Reigning Monarch was required to protect. In the Reigning Monarch’s relinquishing that responsibility and, that role, and, in becoming a “Constitutional Monarchy”; The People (or Subjects) were completely ignored. Not considered at all.

With reference to “A” above: an ‘interventionist monarch” protecting “Subjects” from the abuses or illegal actions by politicians; is not an option of the ‘Reigning Monarch’; it is an absolute requirement of the duty of Monarchy, and, of the Reigning Monarch, as determined by the compact it has with the people: “The Original Contract”.

The Original Contract is an 'unwritten' contract betwixt King and Subject. For the Subjects protection. It exists, and it is entrenched in English Law. It is best described by Henry Powle The Speaker of the Convention parliament of 1688. He, speaking in the special conference held in the 'Painted Chamber' of the House of Commons, to determine whether King James the Second had 'abdicated the throne' said this:

"It is from those that are upon the Throne of England, when there

are any such, from whom the People of England ought to receive

Protection; and to whom, for that Cause, they owe the Allegiance

of Subjects; but there being none now from whom they expect

Regal Protection, and to whom, for that Cause they owe the

Allegiance of Subjects, the Commons conceive,

The Throne is Vacant." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdsaflyinghigh (talk • contribs) 13:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reigning Monarch is required to provide protection of its Subjects, in this way. Each Reigning Monarch in the line of succession is required to Act as ‘Head of Government’ – monitoring parliament – in the interests and protection of its Subjects. Failure to protect the People (Subjects), automatically ‘breaks the original contract’; and thereby abdicates the Throne’.

In “B” above it will be seen that Monarchy chooses or elects to abandon “Absolute Monarchy” – and all of its responsibilities – to its Subjects; as enshrined in the “Original Contract”; and reverts to the lesser role of ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ purely in vested interests of its own. And, yet, in doing so, in the Great Britain case, makes no attempt of provision of a new ‘contract’ with its Subjects. No attempt was, or is made to release Subjects from their statutory obligation: of giving allegiance to the Reigning Monarch for as long as a Monarch shall reign.

Sir George Treby in his speech at the Convention (Parliament) of 1688 in the special debate with both Commons and Lords, at the request of the Commons, as to whether King James the Second had “abdicated the throne”. Made a very important speech in this regard. The Commons had declared that James II had “broken the original contract between King and People” and that thereby “The Throne was Vacant”. In this debate held in the Painted Chamber, both Commons and Lords considered whether this was true. The Lords, being required to give consent to what the Commons had declared. Speaking of King James II Sir George Treby said this:

He therein in faith, I will no more keep within my limited Authority, nor hold my Kingly Office upon such Terms. This title I had by the Original Contract between King and People; I Renounce that, and will Assume another Title to myself; That is, such a Title, as by which I may Act, as if there was no such Law to circumscribe my Authority.'' (Ref: Convention Speeches 1688)

In reality; this is exactly what British Monarchy said, and did, when it became a “Constitutional Monarchy”. It "Assumed another Title to itself". It abandoned its duty. In England and in English Law the Reigning Monarch cannot ‘break the original contract’ and remain on the Throne. In failing to act as “Head of Government, monitoring parliament, and protecting Subjects: abdicates the Throne. Either there is an “Absolute Monarchy” or “No Monarchy” at all.

The Throne Is Vacant. Why? Because each succeeding Monarch in the ‘line of succession’ ever since the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy” has ‘broken the original contract’ and has abdicated the throne. With respect to Monarchy’s position with regard to “Constitutional Monarchy” and, how Monarchy’s responsibilities are affected in respect to the “Original Contract”; particular attention should be paid as to what the Earl of Clarendon says about this in the same ‘Convention’ debate. He also was speaking about King James II but, as he says here, it applies also to each succeeding Reigning Monarch as well:

“irrespective of that analysis of the Law from the standpoint of the Divine Right of Kings upholding the Lineal Descent and its Authority: “The protection of the Subject” would be as binding on the Successor, as it was, on the Deposed. And if the Successor “Breached the Contract” as well; he also could be deposed.” (Ref: Convention Speeches 1688)

Monarchy failed to understand that. Or simply did not care. When, it breached the “Original Contract” and became a “Constitutional Monarchy”. Parliament made no provision for the ‘Subject’ either. No one thought about the ‘Subject’ at all. No one re-negotiated with the ‘Subject’ for a new ‘contract’ for their protection; protecting them from the abuses of the ‘business’ of parliament and parliamentarians. There was no provisions of a written constitution, or a Bill of Rights, or access to a Supreme Court of Law. When the British Monarchy became a “Constitutional Monarchy’ the Subject wound up, with no protection (in law) at all. It is impossible to fully understand all the ‘implications’ of “Constitutional Monarchy” without the full knowledge and understanding of all of this.

Birdsaflyinghigh (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References: ‘Convention Speeches’, “Parliamentary History of the Glorious Revolution” by David Lewis Jones, published by Her Majesties Stationery Office, ISBN 0 11 701390 0. First published 1988.

map and the commonwealth realm

Could we ad a colour to the map indecating the commonwealth realms?Lemonade100 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There already is one under commonwealth realm article isn't there? Taifar ious1 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Personification and Embodiment

I am interested in the personification and embodiment of nationhood and national soverignty that constitutional monarchs represent. This is not fleshed out. I have asked on the Anthropomorphism how this concept can be expressed there, and how it can be further fleshed out here. Might anyone have comments and suggestions?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Power of president

In the description of Mixed Monarchy, I change "...In which the Monarch has the abilities of a President.." to "...In which the Monarch function as the head of Government...." as several republics have presidents with limited powers.Kingvald (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Ancient Examples?

I know the term was coined by Enlightenment Europe but I feel the article should mention some ancient examples that fit the basic requirements.

Sparta had 2 kings at once, as well as a Council of Elders, but it was really the Democratically elected Ephors who held the most Power.

The Roman Kingdom fits as well I feel, the Senate was there right from the start and the Kings powers where limited, at first at least.

Also Athens even as an Outright Democracy after 500 B.C. still had it's Kings for religious proposes.

And as a Christian I kind of feel Ancient Israel/Judah's Monarchy qualifies as Constitutional (The Constitution being the Torah), The King did have to follow his own Laws (Thou they often didn't) and power was shared with the Levitical Priesthood and the Sanhedrin.

And as a follow up to that I think the Hasmonean Kingdom can count as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

UK does not have a constitution

It is asserted in the table that England gained a constitution in 1688. This is not true.

Parliament made an offer to Queen Mary and the man who would become William III in 1688 that they could jointly assume the throne on a take it or leave it basis as outlined by the Bill of Rights, proposed by Parliament, but not subject to Royal Assent.

Elements of the Bill could be subject to an ordinary legislative process at a later date, and they have been recently in [[Neil Hamilton]'s] case angainst the Guardian.

The bill of 1688, which properly remains that and not an Act of Parliament contains no special or reserved powers by its enactment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.136.24 (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does have a constitution, but not as most nations do in one form. See here on it: Constitution of the United Kingdom. It just developed over time to what it is today. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The UK has an uncodified constitution- this means that the important doctrines etc that govern the country are from a variety of sources such as the human rights act, PACE, the doctrine of judicial precedent (ratio decidendi) etc etc. For a mopnarchy to be constitutional, it doesn't mean the country has a written constitution, just that the Monarch fulfills a role as official head of state but the country is actually run by a parliament and prime minister. This is probably worth putting into the article. HJ Mitchell (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the UK has a constitution, it is just the combined acts of parliament, equity and common law. However, the last answer seems to have missed the point; the title of the column is misleading if it states the British constitution to be 1688. The UK did not exist in 1688, it would be more accurate to change the column name to something like "date of legislation establishing the constitutional monarchy" or change the date to a larger time frame, ie from the glorious revolution to the early Victorian era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.16.211 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Australia and Canada

Is it really worth listing commonwealth countries such as these on top of the UK? They are governed by their own legislatures, but share the same Monarch- Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, so listing them together is redundant. HJ Mitchell (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Those places listed are just a few examples within the paragraph, even if they share the same monarch. I see no problem with it since the full list is done further down the article itself. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Australia, Canada and new Zealand as well as other past/present colonial states should be mentioned only as colonial states not under list of constitutional monarchy states.--Korsentry 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

The Queen of Canada is not Her Britannic Majesty, it is Her Canadian Majesty. The crown was divided 78 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.10.110 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to toss my two cents in, I have to agree with the above statement. They may share the same person as Monarch, but the Crowns are quite clearly separate. Korsentry is simply wrong (If I am reading the statement correctly) that Australia, Canada and New Zealand should be mentioned only as Colonial states, as they are legally and clearly Constitutional Monarchies in their own right, regardless of sharing the same person as Monarch. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

"While political scientists may champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity" While true, the wording of this paragraph is hardly NPOV. Could someone change it to sound like an unbiased description of reality rather than cynicism? I would, but I'm too cynical a human being to come up with a more neutral context. 96.48.136.235 (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes

[I suggest changing "written or unwritten" to "codified, uncodified or blended." Although the British Constitution has long been described as "unwritten" the term is, I think confusing to new students of politics: there are many acts of Parliament which are understood to be "super-acts" which govern all other acts. Likewise, the constitutional decisions of the judicial branch of the House of Lords are written but they are found in casebooks rather than in a single document. Likewise, the Canadian Constitution consists of the practices adopted from Britain before or at Confederation plus the provisions of the list of acts set out in an appendix to the Constitution Act, 1982. In introducing my students to the Canadian Constitution I describe it as a blend of codified and uncodified provisions.] [It is a mistake to describe the Monarch's powers as "minor". I would describe them as "residual." "Royal prerogative powers" are those powers not yet taken over from the monarch by Parliament. However, this does not make those powers "minor." In late December 2008, the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, went to the Governor General to ask her to end the current session of Parliament immediately and to start a new session sometime later. Because he was doing this in order to avoid having to face a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons it was held by many constitutional thinkers that the Governor General could, legally and properly, have refused to accede to the prime minister's request. Hence, the powers of the Governor General are residual but not minor.] --Mposlung

The above text is written by Mposlung. I have moved from the article to the talk page. Discussions regarding article changes should be posted on the article talk page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

definitions by religion?

In the table "List of current reigning monarchies", some are noted as "Islamic". Should the faith of each of the others be noted for completion's sake? e.g. "Christian Kingdom" "Buddhist Kingdom" etc? --87.194.211.85 (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think so unless the kingdom's or the monarch's title clearly expresses a specific religion. Also for some of them a specific religion would not apply anyhow because some do not have a specific official national religion. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceremonial Head of State

I have an issue with the opening of the article that refers to "the monarch is the ceremonial head of state". While this is true in cases such as Japan, it is untrue in the case of the Commonwealth Realms.

While I agree that many of the duties carried out by HM (Or her representatives) are "ceremonial" in nature, her status as Head of State in the 16 Commonwealth Realms is quantifiable, and not at all Ceremonial. The fact that HM (Or her representatives) do hold Reserve Powers to ensure the functioning of Government makes this quite clear in my opinion.

Where as the Emperor of Japan, who hold no Reserve Powers at all, can accurately be described at "Ceremonial". Both are Constitutional/Limited Monarchies, but there remains serious differences between the two.

I submit that his should be changed from "the monarch is the ceremonial head of state" to something along the lines of "the Monarch may have strictly Ceremonial duties or may have Reserve Powers, depending on the constitution."

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but I did not notice any discussion about it earlier. Dphilp75 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has said anything about this, I am going to go ahead and add it. I'll be happy to discuss further if needed! Dphilp75 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden is viewed. But I know Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and the other 15 commonwealth realms is head of state. So no probs with the changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Vatican City (again)

I'm of the opinion that the Vatican City should not be listed as a constitutional monarchy as it is in fact an elective absolute monarchy.

Even by checking the reference at the Vatican City page will show that "...the Pope has supreme executive, legislative, and judicial power over both the State of the Vatican City and the universal Roman Catholic Church.".

My understanding has always been, and I think the references agree that Vatican City has been (And likely always will be) an Absolute Elective Monarchy.

Thoughts? Dphilp75 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland not having its own King?

I don't understand why the trivia section states that Iceland was the only Kingdom never to have its own Monarch. Is this because Iceland's King was the King of Denmark? If that is the reason, then all the current & previous Commonwealth Realms except the U.K., and Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, and any other case of Personal Union, are/have been 'Kingdoms without Kings', so Iceland is far from being the only one. Or is there some other reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well in the case of Aruba and the NA it is quite simple that they are part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, just like the Netherlands, so they are not kingdoms in their own right, just parts of one and the same kingdom. On the other hand as part of a kingdom they should be indicated on the map. ThW5 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed that reference as it could be seen as misleading, since the Danish king was also a separate king of Iceland when it got independent. When the choice came later to continue to remain a monarchy with it's own king or republic, it chose the latter in 1944. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

List of current Monarchies

I'm wondering if this list actually even belongs in an article on Constitutional Monarchies, or at least if in its current form it belongs here. The list current contains several Absolute and Elective Monarchies, which I am unsure why they need to listed on a page about Constitutional Monarchies. Perhaps this list would be better over on Monarchy? Dphilp75 (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Having had no responses yet, I'm going to give it one more day for anyone to pipe in, and then I am going to remove any on the list that are not actual Constitutional Monarchies. That is, those that are more appropriately described as Elective/Absolute Monarchies. Dphilp75 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I only got to this now.

Perhaps some countries seem incongruous with constitutional monarchy only because we're looking at it purely from the Western democratic point of view; a country doesn't have to mimic the Westminster model exactly to be a constitutional monarchy... Does it? Morocco, for instance, allows the king to personally wield an amount of power not permitted in countries we'd think of as constitutional monarchies in the sense that's predominant in our regions, but the King of Morocco's role is all as per a constitution.

Could the solution be to split the list? Perhaps along the lines of "parliamentary constitutional monarchies" and "semi-presidential constitutional monarchies." I make those suggestions based on the definitions of different types of heads of state at the article head of state, where a "parliamentary" head of state "possesses executive power but the exercise of this power is done on the advice of a cabinet" (the case in the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, etc.) and a "semi-presidential" head of state "shares exercise with a head of government" (the situation in Morocco, Jordan, Tonga, etc.). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. My exception came from (for example) Vatican City being on the list, which is, by any definition, an Absolute Elective Monarchy with no "Constitutional Limits" to speak of. (Thanks to many convenient dogmatic loopholes, the Pope can make any decision he pleases!) Saudi Arabia would be another example of an Absolute Monarchy by any definition, both of which are currently included in this list.

Again, I will give it a couple of days for anyone else to pipe in before I make these changes. Dphilp75 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course; any that simply are not in any way constitutional monarchies should be removed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional monarchy does not means democracy

Constitutional monarchy does not mean democracy. So democratic constitutional monarchy is another thing.--147.84.132.44 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

blended constitution

The term "blended constitution" doesn't seem to exist outside this article. While it is actually a good one, it is not immediately self-explanatory one. What to do with it? Bazuz (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed it before. I actually don't know what it is supposed to mean, and if it is not a common term in English I would support deleting it from the lead. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have been introduced in this very page:

Talk:Constitutional_monarchy#Suggested_changes Bazuz (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Seems to be purely unsourced WP:OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So, what do you think ought to be done about it? Bazuz (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian Debate

A signficant and long standing debate exists regarding the nature of the abolition of the Hawaiian monarchy. One point of view asserts that the the Hawaiian monarchy was corrupt and consequently collapsed while the other point of view asserts that the United States overthrew the monarchy. Regardless, I believe that this article should refrain from characterizing the abolition and rather state the time periods for the monarchy. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.61.154 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Oops, here's my signature tonite for this comment.99.117.61.154 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a complex issue, and like nearly all historical questions does not have one brief simple answer, rather it came about due to a number of distinct factors. There is abundant evidence that the Hawaiian monarchy was corrupt, but it is very rare that corruption alone is sufficient to bring down a government. It is certain that there were Americans involved in deposing the monarchy (that is to say Hawaiian residents of American origin) but as far as I know there is no reason to believe anyone in the the US government was involved in any official capacity, at least not until after the overthrow was an accomplished fact. But then again, backdoor deals are not uncommon in Washington diplomacy, and there is no way the USS Boston and the marines that landed could have acted under official orders unless Benjamin Harrison's government knew about it well in advance. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Types of "constitutional monarchies"

The article should emphasize the differences between the various examples "constitutional monarchies." On the one extreme, you have cases like Norway, where the monarchy has no official powers whatsoever. At the other extreme are cases like Bahrain, which is only nominally a "constitutional monarchy." The king appoints all the ministers, so it's really a de facto absolute monarchy. Then in the middle are cases like the UK, Canada, Australia, and other "Commonwealth Realms," where day to day governance is carried out by an elected parliament, but the monarch (or his/her governor) legally can, and on occasion actually does, over-ride the elected officials. -Helvetica (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That may truly be the case for many of these differences, but if it does get done, then it should also be backed up with sources clearly showing those 'extremes' and anything in-between since it might get challenged by some. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary monarchy redirects here?

But the term is not even mentioned in the article...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary Monarchy still redirects here. Parliamentary monarchy has been a stand alone article since it was altered from a redirect to this article in December 20012. However I think that this is a mistake. I have been looking at sources and have come to the conclusion that it is no better defined than is constitutional monarchy, and worse some reliable sources use it to define in in such a way as to completely contradict each other's definitions. See for example:

Orr, Campbell, ed. (2002), Queenship in Britain, 1660-1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (illustrated ed.), Manchester University Press, p. 3, ISBN 9780719057694 — Argues that Britain moved from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional democracy around 1832 when the monarchs powers were further limited.
Schmitt, Carl (2008) [1928], Seitzer, Jeffrey (translator) (ed.), Constitutional Theory (illustrated ed.), Duke University Press, pp. 313–314, ISBN 9780822340119 {{citation}}: |editor-first= has generic name (help) — Argues that the German Empire was constitutional monarchy while a monarch with more limited powers such as France's constitution under Louis-Philippe 1830–1848 was a parliamentary monarchy.

I therefore propose that the page is again made into a redirect and that a footnote is added to this article explaining that non of these terms (constitutional monarchy, parliamentary monarchy, or crowned republic) have precise and universal definitions and that considerable overlap between the terms exists. -- PBS (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Normally (and especially in German literature) parliamentary monarchies are referred to as "ceremonial monarchies" with a weak monarch and a government (mainly or completely) dependend on parliament. -> parliamentary system --Bahrmatt (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Qatar

Qatar is an emirate and as such belongs in the category of absolute monarchies (in which article it is currently listed). As there was no sources provided in the recent edits that supported a claim of it being a constitutional monarchy, I have reverted them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Norway

I’d say that Norway is de iure a constitutional monarchy in which the power of the king is not reduced on ceremonial duties. Although this might not depict the de facto circumstances in Norway, the monarch is the person who chooses the cabinet according to Article 12 of the Norwegian Constitution: “The King himself chooses a Council from among Norwegian citizens who are entitled to vote. This Council shall consist of a Prime Minister and at least seven other Members.” So he is the “formateur”. Moreover, due to article 22 of the constitution the monarch is also allowed to dimiss the cabinet. Thus, the government is dependend on the monarch. Article 25 states that “the king is Commander-in-Chief”. “The Executive Power is vested in the King” (Art. 3). Summing up, I would argue that the Norwegian monarchy is – at least de iure – more than just ceremonial. This surely does not challenge the fact that Norway is a democracy and a constitutional monarchy, but I think that this information should be added to the text since it paints a more realistic picture of Norway. --Bahrmatt (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, only Sweden falls into the category of ceremonial monarchies as far as the constitution is concerned. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Spain are quite similar in terms of the constitutional powers of the monarch, but the royal prerogative is exercised subject to ministerial responsibility and parliamentary government. The UK is somewhat similar, but differs from the latter in the sense that it doesn't have a consolidated written constitution. 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Table of current monarchies

Why is this table displaying at the end of the article, instead of under the heading of current monarchies? The text for it is located in the body of the article, but it displays at the end? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the table is now displaying properly; must have been a formatting glitch that got fixed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Canada's Constitution

In the column "Last Constitution", some editors have been adding a reference to the Constitution Act, 1982. That was not a new constitution for Canada. The basic federal, monarchical structure of the Constitution of Canada was established in 1867, by the Constitution Act, 1867. That Act is still the foundation for the constitutional structure of Canada, and is the source of the monarch's powers, which is the key point for this article.

The 1982 Act did not establish a new constitution. It significantly amended the Constitution, by adding the Charter of Rights and an amending formula, but did not affect the monarch's powers, which are still derived from the 1867 Act. Amendments to a constitution do not mean that there is a new constitution. If that were the case, other dates on this page would have to be changed, such as the 1688 date for the UK Constitution. There have been countless changes to the UK constitution since 1688, but the basic structure still dates back to the Revolution Settlement.

Since the 1982 Act is not a new constitution, but an amendment to the existing constitution, I have removed the reference. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The table heading is misleading, then, since the country's last constitution was in 1982, which incorporates the 1867 act. As well, Canada is unquestionably a constitutional monarchy but you have not provided a citation corroborating that Canada is a kingdom, despite constitutional reference that it is a Dominion (which was implemented specifically to not designate it a kingdom); thus, I have restored this reference and will continue to do so until proven otherwise. 174.89.106.169 (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph Incorrect.

The Introductory paragraph describes a ceremonial constitutional monarchy, not any constitutional monarchy. The paragraph on executive monarchy directly contradicts the opening paragraph. I believe a new introductory paragraph should be written, and mention should be made of the tendency to refer to ceremonial constitutional monarchies as simply constitutional monarchies. If anyone can find links to the inherent bias of the last sentence that may also be of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.209.118 (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this. The previous version we've had, which describes that a constitutional monarch is formally defined and limited by the law, is more accurate. A constitutional monarchy does not have to be a full democracy; it just means that the monarch is a public office/official that abides by the law, like any other, so I would say it's closer to rule of law. The modern ceremonial, parliamentary monarchs are already well-described in the subsection. I will soon revise the opening lead if there's no further input to this. Abstractematics (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Made the edit so that the ceremonial monarchy sounds more like a particular type of a constitutional monarch. Abstractematics (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I want to crate an new article relative with constitutional ceremonial monarchy. Can you help me please?178.59.111.104 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Australian Constitution

I think this article is oversimplifying the issue. I refer to the Australian Constitution as an example:

Section 61: The executive power ... is vested in the Queen...

Section 2: A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

Section 58: When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure. The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

Section 59: The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

I think the gist of the Queen's power is applicable to any Commonwealth realm. The executive operates in the name of the Queen, and the Queen does legally have a right to disallow a law passed by Parliament.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Queen does not act except on advice, and what Australian Prime Minister is going to advise her to disallow his (or her) own legislation? That makes no sense. Of course, an Australian PM could ask her to disallow the legislation of the immediately previous administration, but in that case why not merely repeal the law? s59 is moribund, has never been used, and is most unlikely ever to be used.

The "executive power" vested in the Queen doesn't amount to much. It's basically whatever remains of the royal prerogative after the Constitution gives the major powers to the Governor-General, and whatever needs to be done to perform tasks that arise from time to time. It's not some sort of supreme authority that eternally resides in Buckingham Palace. Professor George Winterton's excellent study, "Parliament, the Executive, and the Governor-General" can help you here.

Likewise the "powers and functions of the Queen" are pretty trivial. The Constitution assigns the major powers of Government to the Governor-General and that is that. The Queen cannot take them back, because she cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution. She can let him appoint deputies - and she could take back that power to herself if she wanted - but realistically the Queen's powers are pretty trivial in the big Australian picture. --Pete (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The article says that "the governing powers of the monarch are restricted by the terms of a constitution". However, the "restrictions" you are talking about are matters of convention, not part of the constitution.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

How so? Surely you are not suggesting that the Queen of Australia has the same powers in Australia as the Queen of the United Kingdom has in the UK? --Pete (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"The Queen does not act except on advice" - that is convention.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see where you are coming from. Well, yes, the Queen could act without advice, but she would shortly thereafter cease to be Queen unless there were some extraordinary circumstances. She really only has two major powers: that of appointing (and presumably dismissing) the Governor-General, and disallowing Acts. If she appointed a Governor-General without, or contrary to, advice then it would be like a Prime Minister attempting to govern without confidence. It would be an unworkable situation. Likewise if she unilaterally disallowed Australian legislation, contrary to the desire of Parliament. the normal processes of Parliament would become unworkable.

Perhaps more to the point, a constitutional monarch acting unilaterally would be a threat to the governments of all the other Realms including the UK. There would be no confidence in the monarch. The last time anything like this occurred, the monarch lost his job, and the time before that, his head. So, while it's a technical possibility suggested by a literal reading of the Constitution, no serious authority gives it any credence.

Incidentally, convention underpins the Australian Consitution. There is no mention of the Prime Minister, nor of Cabinet, yet they are the central actors in Australian government. It is also assumed that Ministers are members of parliament, even though there is no actual requirement in the Constitution. In fact it is directly stated that they need not be MPs (s64). In theory, the Queen could appoint a Governor-General without advice, and he could dismiss the government and appoint anybody he wanted as Ministers to run the executive government and it would all be perfectly legal and constitutional. But never going to happen. --Pete (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sentence in Lead

While most monarchs may hold formal reserve powers and the government may officially take place in the monarch's name upon request of the royal family, the royal family sets public policy and chooses political leaders.

I don't think this makes sense. Firstly, it originally said "does not set" and "does not choose". Now, I can see that in some cases, this might not be true. But saying the opposite is certainly not true, and the sentence as it stands now is incoherent because the initial clause doesn't fit. Secondly, I don't understand the reference to the royal family. In most cases, the family has no political role, only the monarch does.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've modified this. I think that in some non-European monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Swaziland and the Arab Gulf Emirates, members of the reigning dynasties sometimes exercise influence over selection of the next monarch (formal), of occupants of Cabinet posts and public policy, but I have not seen their authority defined by the constitution so much as by tradition. FactStraight (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitutional monarchy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202194643/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/QueenandCommonwealth/WhatisaCommonwealthRealm.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/QueenandCommonwealth/WhatisaCommonwealthRealm.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Emperor of Japan

First of all, I kindly ask Mediatech492 not to revert all of my edits when she or he disagrees with only one. Reverting orthography fixes is ridiculous and disruptive. Secondly, if there is a problem with referring to the monarchs of Japan as emperors, take it to Talk:Emperor of Japan. Insisting here that the monarch of Japan is not an emperor, while he is called an emperor in dozens of more relevant articles, is quite silly. Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You may want to cease your own aggressive WP:OR pushing on such an easily disproven fact. The Japanese sovereign is called "Tennu", and the word "Emperor" does not exist in the Japanese language. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mediatech492: That doesn’t matter, to give you an example, various Indian monarchs were not literally titled ‘emperor’, but, are retrospectively referred to as ‘emperors’ in English-language sources.
Please also see WP:COMMONNAMES]; the Japanese monarch is titled the Emperor of Japan by a majority—if not all—of reliable sources, so there really is any reason for you to remove the statement regarding Japan being the only remaining country to have an emperor. If you still have any issues, please first direct them to the talk page for the Japanese emperor/monarch and acquire a consensus there before doing anything here.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course the word "emperor" does not exist in Japanese language. It does not exist in any language other than English. You may be surprised to learn that the word "Japan" does not exist in Japanese either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

So your fallacious reasoning is, that since people use the wrong word a lot then that make the wrong word correct. Very well, since you insist on being an idiot I won't bother you any further. 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs)

@Mediatech492: I think you meant to reply to me, so here goes nothing:

So your fallacious reasoning is, that since people use the wrong word a lot then that make the wrong word correct.

Nope, my reasoning is that reliable sources translate the word, ‘tenno’, as ‘emperor’, so, we are bound to use that translation. It’s not wrong, it’s English, the language doesn’t have a direct translation for ‘tenno’ in much the same way as Japanese doesn’t have a direct translation for ‘emperor’. Wikipedia is bound to call a thing by the name with which reliable sources call it (WP:COMMONNAME). What you’re proposing is—quite ironically—original synthesis.

Very well, since you insist on being an idiot I won't bother you any further.

I don’t think that I am being the idiot here, I would again request you to first take all this to Talk:Emperor of Japan before protesting the Japanese monarch’s status here.

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 23:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC); edited 23:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC) and 14:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC).

Start of the UK section

The current UK section starts with the Glorious Revolution. However, since 1325 both houses of Parliament have had to be called to pass new taxes. This shows that restraints have been placed on the English Monarch since the 14th century. Would it therefore be worth adding to this section constraints on the monarchy in England from before any form of Union between England and Scotland given that it is an example of constitutional constrains on the monarchs in the territory that would become a part of the UK and was a practice carried on into the UK's constitution?

Given the large scale nature of the change to this article that I am proposing, I will wait for comments from the community and will only move to change this situation if there is support for this change. Nerdfighter Reed (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yh3907 (article contribs).