Talk:British monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British monarchy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Older Discussion

Should the article "Sovereign" be directed toward this article referring to the *British* monarchy alone? Are not other monarchs sovereigns as well? -- --Larry G 00:08, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was confused that the article actually directed to "British Monarchy", (here), but that there was already a "Sovereign" disambiguation page.- --Larry G 06:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The section on the "fount of honour" is a bit silly. It proclaims that The Sovereign cannot hold an honour, yet in the picture above The Queen can quite clearly be seen to be wearing the insignia of certain Commonwealth orders. The Queen is the Sovereign of all Orders of chivalry and may wear the insignia of all of them. I would change this section but for the fact it forms part of a paragraph telling us that the Sovereign can accept dignities from other heads of state. The two examples are blatantly wrong, but I am not sure about the precedent itself. Can the author clarify? Wiki-Ed

Can't we go back to the old way? The Scots kings are in no way British monarchs and neither are the English kings before the union. From this list you cannot tell who ruled what territory and the various short-lived English "houses" are given the same prominence as the entire history of Scots kings. British Monarchs should be limmited to those who were British monarchs. --rmhermen

Good point --

Alternatively, though, why not just point that out on the page itself? It wouldn't hurt to have a brief blurb on "Scotland and Wales were separate until 1603 and whenever Wales was finally annexed; England was a Bunch of little Kingdoms, then one larger kingdom, then joined with Scotland at the death of Elizabeth." That way, people who don't know the difference might learn something! JHK

I don't see your point. Britain existed long before England or Scotland did and any kingdoms which existed on the island were definitely European and British even if they didn't rule the whole of Europe or the whole of Britain. The Kings of the Picts fought the Scottish invaders for many years before they were finally outmanoeuvred. It makes little sense to say that they were Scottish but it's quite reasonable to say that they were British. Likewise once the Scottish and the English had established kingdoms in Britain (rather than Ireland or Denmark/North Germany/Holland, it is reasonable to think of them as British rather than as foreign invaders. -- Derek Ross

A small problem with the British monarch pages is that several monarchs are referred to as "the first" when they shouldn't be. Technically, a monarch is not "the first" until there is a "second", much like there wasn't a "First World War" until there was a "Second World War".

On February 27, 1998 the House of Lords agreed to give a monarch's first-born daughter the same claim to the throne as a first-born son thus ending 1,000 years of male preference.

Is this true? According to the BBC the Bill was withdrawn on that date, though the government said that the Queen did not object to the change. As recently as last year the Govt. said it hadn't the time to change the succession law, according the the Grauniad --rbrwr

No, it was merely proposed, not enacted. Gritchka 13:33 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've taken out. I might research and write something better to go in its place later. --rbrwr

Your change is correct. Mav left a message on my talk page. I checked with the Buckingham Palace and Downing Street press offices. They could not remember a change, which they would if one had been made. Also, if the change had been made, the Princess Royal, as the Queen's second child, would now be number 4 in the Order of Succession. The Palace confirmed that she is still at no. 8. Any change would require legislation also in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. No such change has yet been made.

While the Blair government has promised to support a change, it probably won't happen for a while, not least because of the Australian complexity, in the aftermath of the republic referendum. Passing an Act on the royal succession could re-open wounds there that are still tender.

JTD 20:14 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Yep - that's why I asked. These damn "this day in history" website people (like http://www.on-this-day.com and whatever source Zoe is using) copy and modify each other's work and never seem to check their facts. So when mistakes are made by one those errors are copied and often made worse. It's like the children's camp game "telephone" where you whisper a statement to your neighbor's ear and they whisper the statement in the next person's ear and so on. The message at the end of that exercise is often very different from the original. I've been checking their info for a while now - some days are great, others are filled with errors. If anybody has a better source for daily historical event information I would love to hear about it (the damn fact checking is taking way too long for on-this-day info). --mav

I think JTD has (unusually) misdirected himself about Australia. To the best of my recollection there is not specific succession legislation in place here, at either the State or Federal level, but rather the succession goes according to a generic "heirs and successors" rule which would automatically pick up on whatever happened in the UK. (Reminder: "automatic" doesn't mean "no Australian involvement" but rather "no subsequent involvement once things start going by themselves".) PML.

There isn't, but under the Australia Act the UK can no longer legislate for the Commonwealth of Australia. Under the current law, the Australian throne automatically passes to the person who inherits the British one. But since the Australia Act there is some confusion as to whether a change in Britain's succession law automatically affects the Australian succession (even if it isn't technically a law change, merely a knock-on effect in Australia's case, in which case it wouldn't be blocked by the Australia Act) or whether as a result of the Australia Act (I think section 5, though I could be wrong) Australia has now to regulate any changes itself in Aussie law. It may well be that just to be on the safe side Australia will decide to produce its own mirror image law matching a UK one, just to cover all eventualities. Otherwise, there might be legal questions thrown up that might have to go to the High Court in Australia, and that could bring up the whole monarchy issue again. And given that complexity, my suspicion is that Howard's government dropped the hint to Blair - please don't do anything for a couple of years that might get Australian republicans all fired up with plans for "Referendum II: The Revenge of the Republicans!' ie, let sleeping dogs lie, especially as William ain't about to marry a catholic let alone produce a daughter. JtdIrL 06:48 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I think that establishes my point; that if no action is taken within Australia beforehand, all events within Australia after the "Demise of the Crown" would proceed automatically. That might well involve the courts, but they are supposed (in this area, at any rate) to be involved in Lex Dicere and not Lex Dare - and so, despite involvement of human beings, it would be by way of implementing a mechanism. I would certainly expect less discretion than the Council of Accession has. PML.

The point is that there is a 'grey area' which is a matter of differing legal interpretations. Monarchists might not like it to be left grey, 'just in case . . . ' while republicans would be happy too. But monarchists who would like clarity would probably, to paraphrase St. Augustine, prefer 'clarity, but not yet'. Politicians by experience (including my experience) run a mile from legal complexity. And this is one case: on the one hand, there is the vaid argument that as the succession to the Australian throne is linked to the UK one, no Aussie law change is needed. On the other hand, there is the counter-argument, that post the Australia Act, any legal change in the UK would not be enough, with Australia's law remaining as was the law before the Australia Act. So for example, if after a legal change in the UK, Princess Anne moved from 8th in line to 4th in line, would that automatically apply in Australia, or would Aussie law remain in the pre-1986 state, with Anne being 8th? In such circumstances, Attorneys-General tend to advise the most cautious approach, which would be rather than raise a legal question in the future, to pass an Act in the Aussie parliament matching that in the UK, so that all doubt would be erased. The last thing they would want would be for Anne, or a daughter of Prince William, to become monarch in the UK, followed by lawyers working over the complex laws as they apply to Australia. They may know in reality Anne or that daughter's succession would be automatic, but the last thing they would want to do is have to have some legal queries that they may have to explore, especially when that would give Australian republicans an excuse to demand an immediate referendum on a republic.

Having repatriated the constitution with the Australia Act, even if it was not a legal necessity many Australian monarchists might as a matter of principle wish for the repatriation of the laws governing succession to the Australian throne. Indeed it might make tactical sense for monarchists to insist that post the Australia Act, the basic law should be changed to separate the succession completely from UK law, with a separate Australian succession act, albeit one matching the change in UK law. It is a very blurred area, and you can be quite sure the last thing Canberra, London and Buckingham Palace was in any blurring whatsoever, hence the desire in all three not to stumble into this constitutional minefield, at least not for a couple years, until the dust of the republic referendum has settled. JtdIrL 05:06 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I think that rather misses what I was driving at, which is much simpler. suppose the Queen died tomorrow; then there would be an Australian succession. All that the above discussion goes to is what it might deliver. But it is clear that even without separate Australian steps, whether in anticipation or in some hurried way, there would still be an Australian succession. The wisdom of having separate steps, or the possibility of things working out differently from the UK, in no way means that they would not work out to produce some result if there were no intervention. PML.

You are missing the point, PML. The succession law regulates the order of succession. There is a dispute as to whether, post the Australia Act, the United Kingdom can change the Order of Succession for Australia, or whether in relation to the Australian throne, that must be done in accordance with exclusively Australian law. Yes there would be a succession, for the current Australian law matches the current UK law. But if the UK changes the law, there are lawyers who argue that because of the Australia Act that will not change allow automatic change in the Australian succession law, unlike heretofore, that would leave Australia with the old succession list. Hence the argument that if there is a change to the UK law, that will require Australia through its own parliament to keep them identical. If for whatever reason the first three in line, the Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales, were to simultaneously die in an accident (eg, while all three were at the same ski resort) or if Charles and Harry renounces, while William marries a catholic and so is debarred, or if both William & Harry marry catholics, or if Camilla becomes a catholic, the issue of who is number 4 in the list could become crucial. And lawyers argue that a change in the UK law would not automatically change the Aussie order of succession, producing a Queen Anne II in the UK but what in Aussie? In theory, under Aussie law Andrew would be fourth in line, but equally, the Aussie law it is supposed to follow the UK succession, except that the UK and Aussie orders of succession would be legally different. It would be a case of 'The Queen is dead. Long live . . . em who exactly in Australia?' That is why, to avoid confusion that could end up in the courts, the argument is that Australia should separately pass a Bill regulating succession identical to the UK. It simply is not as straight-forward post the Australia Act as you seem to think. STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:09 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Who moved this to [[British monarch]]?

We have a series of articles on {name of country} monarchy. This is part of that series. It belongs under British monarchy not [[British monarch]].
British monarch implies a discussion on . . . a British monarch (ie., the person). This article is about monarchy, about the institution, not the person.

I have moved this page back to where it belongs, with the right name that fits into the series of articles. FearÉIREANN 00:25 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Queen Elizabeth II withheld such consent" ...

In the Political Powers section.

"In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II withheld such consent on the "Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill," which sought to shift the power to order a military strike on Iraq from monarchical control to parliamentary control."

Factually correct but pretty emotive language. It was a member's bill by a very independent member of the labour party. Could we clarify? I'm thinking something fluffy like:

"This was not a government-backed bill. Had the government supported it, it is unlikely consent would have been withheld."

No, I definitely don't agree with that clarification. (Also, the specific clarification you suggest is just speculation.) The language as it stands is accurate and factual. The Queen's actions with respect to this bill were important because they reinforced the notion of monarchical prerogative and the attendant responsibility with respect to the waging of war. This is relevant because in certain political circles, Canadian opponents of the Iraq war being one example, there is currently a debate as to whether the Queen bears ultimate responsibility for the Iraq war. Canadian proponents of the monarchy argue that the Queen bears no responsibility and that the blame for the entire enterprise can be layed at the feet of the British and American elected governments. Canadian opponents of the monarchy point to the Queen's assertion of her prerogative powers with respect to this bill as clear evidence that her responsibility is not merely ceremonial or theoretical, but real and actively asserted. (This debate has important implications in Canada in ceremonies where individuals must pledge allegiance to the Queen; a nontrivial, unusually vocal minority of Canadians believes the Iraq war was a criminal enterprise as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal and that pledging allegiance to an individual holding ultimate responsibility for such a crime is unacceptable.) --Chris Thompson 21:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Canadians need to find an identity already. The main reason they support having an unelected foreign lady as their head of state is because it makes them a little different from the U.S. That's just sad. --69.47.102.177, 15:43, 14 Jan 2005

An uninformed, unintelligent opinion from an anonymous user. You can put as much credence into that as you want. --Alexwcovington (talk) 20:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have this entirely wrong. The Queen did not refuse a bill. What happened was that parliament may only discuss the Royal Perogative (which the act of declaring war is) if the Queen agrees first. The Queen however acts on the advice of the Prime Minister when she makes this decision. The Prime Minister asked the Queen to refuse a discussion of the royal perogative to declare war so she did. He did this because he did not want parliament to take over his right to ask the Queen to declare war. It was a PM versus parliament argument not a Queen versus parliament one.

[edit] Royal Prerogative

I've finally found the link to a report on the powers of the Royal Prerogative made by a Parliamentary committee some years ago. It's a good read for anyone interested in the powers of the monarch:

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_19.cfm

I like this bit in particular...

"the King (and Queen) can do no wrong (for example the Queen cannot be prosecuted in her own courts)"

Perhaps someone here could add some of the useful (and highly official) information to wiki? Thanks. :)

David.

[edit] Monarcy in 21st Century

Hello all. This is really a great article on a top which I know very little about. I think a really good section would be about the checks and balances of the monaracy in the 21st century. Take an impossible/worst case scenario, i.e. Queen Elizabeth declares the Prime Minister a traitor, has him executed, declares the UK a dictatorship, and orders a military strike on the United States. That would never happen, of course, but what measures are in place to prevent that it never could? I read alot of the monaracy "has the power but normally would never use it." I think it would be a great topic to talk about what would happen if the monarach tried to. Thanks! -Husnock 01:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. The whole British constitution relies on the concept of trust in the constitutional system in place and the careful use of the Royal Prerogrative by the Queen and Her Majesty's Government. The scenario you outlined above will never happen and therefore we don't bother thinking about it! That's the beauty of the UK constitution - we assume nothing silly will happen and if anything does happen (ie an emergency) then actions can be taken to ensure things are in place and if a monarchy or minister gets carried away we would go around the authority of the Crown via Parliament. Just like the Crown can overcome the authority of Parliament via dissolution. So the only real check/balance is that the Crown and Parliament share sovereignty (one cannot exist without the other, yet they cannot ignore each other and can over-rule each other). All very strange, but that's the UK! David.

The section about the Guardian needs rewriting as it's wrong. They attempted to get the Act of Succession declared incompatible with the EHRC but *lost* the court case. The Judge quite rightly ruled that succeeding to the throne is not a human right!Alci12

[edit] Request for outside input: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927

There's currently a discussion at Talk:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act about the constitutional significance of the Act and its impact on the relationship between the UK, the Crown and the dominions. The problem is that the article as it stands makes some very sweeping but questionable claims about the impact of the Act on the status of the monarch vis-a-vis the dominions. Input from anyone with any knowledge of or interest in this area would be greatly appreciated. This notice may be put up on a couple of other talkpages. Iota 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is there any good reason for the queen of the United Kingdom to exist (except the name)

The monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Irland is paid in an average year $52.8 million for simply existing along with £15 million for the maintenance of the royal palace. The Queen's personal wealth is estimated at £1.15 bn which excludes:

- The Queen's privately owned estates at Sandringham and Balmoralalong with 6 other properties, including Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

- £72m in Jewels

- £7.1m worth of cars

- £3.6m in race horses

- a £102m stamp and medal collection

- £1m in furs

Is this the cost of a royal figurehead?

This informatin is from the very helpful website of the Socialist Party Leicesterand my figures are backed up by several back editons of the indipendent p.s. before anyone asks I am British

My god, these republicans are spawning everywhere! *rolls eyes*

This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. If you can find some better source for the figures than a tripod website (e.g. an actual link to those independent's article), then you're welcome to include that into the article as say "Cost of the British monarchy". And I'm sure you're welcome to write a section on arguements people have on why UK shouldn't have a monarchy if you can do it NPOV. -- KTC 17:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the £170 million a year income from the Crown Estates, all of which the Queen gives to the Government in return for the (far smaller) Civil List, in coming to your overall "cost of the monarchy" figure. Proteus (Talk) 17:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bank of England GBP 5 image copyvio.

As noted in my response on featured article candidate, that image from commons is illegal. [1] I've noted it for speedy deletion on the commons. Someone care to find a legal Series C - E note to illustrate the same point? -- KTC 20:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revise this article

Given the naive and false presentation of the role of monarchy in Britain in this article - nice propaganda though - I, for one, would welcome an objective revision by some of the above commentators. I suggest that the article remove the claim that the monarchy has been reduced to figurehead status and begin with a factual discussion of Royal Perogative as specified in the Parlimentary paper mentioned above. In fact, I'm going to delete the offending sentence as a start on the basis that it is not NPOV.

Steven Zenith 00:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is not biased to claim that the monarch has been reduced to the status of a mere figurehead. The Royal Prerogative is in practice exercised not by the monarch, but by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. -- Emsworth 11:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is not, in fact, the case - as recent reports highlight. There is a complex tension between Parliment and the Monarchy that is not always in the public eye - always has been, and the dynamic ebbs and flows throughout history. The right thing here is to make a simple statement of the facts and not color the article with any POV. Certainly your original wording is what the Monarchy would prefer - and it is popular misconception in the USA - but that propaganda wish does not alter the facts of the matter as outlined in the Parlimentary report. Steven Zenith 01:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Zenith, with the greatest possible deference, I should like to note that there is a difference between the power of the Crown (as a corporation aggregate) and the power of the monarch (as an individual). The prerogative of the Crown, exercised by the Government, is indeed vast. However, the British monarch is a constitutional ruler. The Queen's powers are not as extensive as some of your comments might indicate. -- Emsworth 19:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is in fact, no corporate body of "the crown" the crown is embodied in the monarch - that's the point. When allegiance is sworn it is not sworn to the corporate body but to the Monarch. - Steven Zenith 19:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The view that the Crown is a corporation sole, rather than a corporation aggregate, is not harmonious with modern constitutional practice. The monarch, as a person, has a chiefly symbolic role. The Government does not. This is, in my opinion, a distinction that the article must make. -- Emsworth 19:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the material basis for this view? I assert that there is none. Steven Zenith 19:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I beg to differ. The position of the Crown as a corporation aggregate is not merely my opinion, but also the view of the courts, both in the United Kingdom (Adams v. Naylor) and in the other Commonwealth realms (Verreault v. Attorney General of Quebec in Canada, for example). Thus, I find that there is a distinction between the monarch as a person and the Government, both in theory and in practice. -- Emsworth 19:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With equal respect, you continue to miss the point. There is a clear distinction between The Crown government, which is the body that acts on the Monarch's behalf - by powers delegated by the monarch - and the Monarch that continues to have the power to dismiss ministers and assemble parliment. You are misrepresenting the facts found by the recent Parlimentary committee. What would actually happen if the Queen used the full force of her powers is open to speculation - I expect it would lead to civil war today, but in a few years, as times change, it could equally and legally lead to despotism. Present the facts, not a popular spin on the facts, or if we must then explain the common misconception. You have a popular TV view of the matter. And BTW - constitutional convention means NO constitution. The British people are unprotected. - Steven Zenith 21:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

No. They choose to be unprotected. If they wanted a constitution they could have one through parliament tomorrow. You are seriously overestimating the power of the monarch. A monarch cannot govern on their own. If they acted unilaterally, the government would resign, everyone else would refuse to form a government, and parliament at a stroke could abolish the monarchy. Any monarch who abused their power would be signing their own political death warrant. Don't misrespresent reality by blowing up unreasonable theories until they should something that in practice could never happen. FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 21:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If this were so I would expect you to provide the material evidence that this choice actually took place. The fact is that it has been demonstrably hard to advocate such a written constitution because it would likely disolve the power of Monarchy. The establishment is obstructive to change because most of the civil service is run by the aristocracy and monarchists. Look how hard is has been for elected socialist governements in the twentieth century to bring about such change. This article is supported to be NPOV - not advocating Monarchy - tell it like it is. -- Steven Zenith 21:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I thought for a moment that you were trying to contribute to an objective article.Your comments reveal you want to turn it into a polemic for your political views. For a start the aristocracy doesn't run the civil service; the middle class do. Making such a demonstrably ludricrous claim suggests a somewhat shaky understanding of British politics on your part. Secondly, there is no evidence of the monarchy in any way undermining socialist governments; on the contrary ministers in the 1960s worked very closely with the Queen. You have a lose way with words and seem not to understand how British society actually works, who are its key influencers and who aren't. And a highly simplistic and frankly niave understanding of republicanism. FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 22:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an additional note, it is unknown what would happen if the Monarch exercised full powers - what you have said is speculation and history tells us otherwise - times change - that is why the British people are unprotected. That lack of protection is a fact, not speculation. Steven Zenith 21:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is 100% speculation. The days when the monarchy run, or can run, the UK are long over. If they were to step in any way out of line they'd lose their jobs almost straight away, something that would not have happened as easily earlier. Focusing on the monarchy as some sort of bogeyman is a complete red herring. If you want to change Britain, change the electoral system, change the class structure, change a whole host of things. But frankly the monarchy is a complete red herring to the debate and your argument. You are making a big deal out of nothing, whereas you should be tackling the system of government, overwhich the monarchy has damn all influence any more, and hasn't had in any real sense for well over a century. FearÉIREANN

\^(talk) 22:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not entering into an argument about British politics - I am arguing for a simple statement of the facts in an article about the British Monarchy. You are confused about the nature of this forum. Steven Zenith 23:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

You were right that I should not have said that the "democractic power" was in the hands of the Aristocracy - that was a slip - a more balanced account of power prior to the 1920 vote is that it was also in the hands of male land owners - many of whom where not Aristocrats. Democracy does not mean everyone has a vote. It means that those that have a vote get to participate. The 1920 and 1921 Acts of Parlimnent are key points in the power transistion in Britain away from the Monarchy. The brief account of these dates I provided is warranted. -- Steven Zenith 19:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I will add the information to the History section, where the expansion of the franchise in general is discussed. (I feel that such precision can be safely avoided in the introduction; the broader view taken at present is, in my opinion, sufficient.) -- Emsworth 20:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to add these dates in or shall I? Steven Zenith 00:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I still object to the lack of NPOV in the introduction - you speak a common misconception - keep to the unbias facts. Steven Zenith 21:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would submit that it is a fact that the Queen acts on the advice of ministers. -- Emsworth 22:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

She may, in fact, but she is not compeled to by any principle of law - in fact the reverse is true. Steven Zenith 23:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, she is not compelled to do so by law. But she always does so in practice, so I don't find the introduction biased. -- Emsworth 23:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is the point, who knows what a future King with public support could do? The intro is better. Steven Zenith 23:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Given the nature of the British constitution - that precedent is as important as what can theoretically be done, it seems quite clear that the monarch's powers are quite limited. The last time the monarch fired a ministry without its consent was in 1834. The last time the monarch refused consent to a bill was in 1707. I'm not sure the last time the monarch dissolved parliament without the government's advice, but I imagine it was quite a long time ago as well. The only recent instances of hte monarch having a real say in the choice of a prime minister - in 1923, in 1924, and in 1963 - were anomalies. I think it's pretty clear that Jtd is absolutely right about what would happen if a monarch abused power. The fact that the monarch can only exercise most aspects of the royal prerogative on the advice of ministers is just that - a fact. And it is one which is semi-officially acknowledged, in that there are several powers - appointments to the Garter, for instance - which are specifically reserved to the monarch's personal wishes, and don't have to be done on advice. john k 22:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"were anomalies" should clue you into the problem. My point, however, it not to take a political position but ask that assumptions not be made and to simply ask that the facts be reported. Surely, we would all be surprised if the Monarch acted this way today and the people did nothing. But it remains the fact that times change rapidly and the future is unknown ... any student of history would know this. I would be happier if the wording is qualified and did not sound so much like Monarchist propaganda. Simply state the facts - do not offer opinion - that is NPOV. Steven Zenith 23:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

To exclude the statement that the monarch generally acts on the advice of ministers is extremely misleading. It would give the false impression of the monarch's power in practice. -- Emsworth 23:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not disagree - my concern was that you had presented the view of an impotent Queen - which is factually incorrect and a common misconception. Steven Zenith 23:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

In practice, the Queen is politically impotent. Suggesting the contrary in the article would be inappropriate. -- Emsworth 00:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to keep pushing on you but that is an opinion not entirely supported by the facts. Keep opinion out of it - I think the new intro is just fine. -- Steven Zenith 00:47, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

The new intro isn't fine, it is misleading "The powers of the monarchy, known as the Royal Prerogative, are still very extensive. In practice, however, the Sovereign does not personally exercise most of these powers..." It says does not exercise most, implying that the monarch still exercises some power independently. Well, what are they then? The only two powers that the monarch exercises semi-independently are the power to appoint the Prime Minister and the power to dissolve Parliament, and even these are influenced by precedent and convention. The new intro should not suggest that the Queen exercises any power completelely independent of precedent, or the government, or convention, because that is just untrue. Deus Ex 11:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Making this assertion I expect to see more than heresay. You need to present a material basis for this. -- Steven Zenith 09:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I find it hypocritical and rather ironic that you demand to "revise this article" without any material basis yourself at all. Here are some quotes to start with:

"In Britain the prime minister is still appointed by the sovereign, but the latter's participation in the selection process may now be said to be merely nominal." From Britannica 2003, "prime minster' article.

"The prime minister wields significant powers of patronage and has the exclusive right to appoint hundreds of ministerial and diplomatic posts, as well as the right to bestow certain Anglican church offices and numerous honours and decorations on individuals of his choice. The prime minister ultimately determines government policy, and all measures decided upon at meetings of the Cabinet must be approved by him. Finally, it is the prime minister who advises the sovereign to dissolve Parliament in preparation for a general election, a step necessary if his legislative programs are decisively defeated in the House of Commons. An official residence, 10 Downing Street, is assigned to the prime minister, and he also has the use of Chequers, a country mansionin Buckinghamshire." From Britannica 2003, "prime minster' article. Note that these powers are practice not decided by the monarch anymore.

"She is known to favour simplicity in court life and is also known to take a serious and informed interest in government business, aside from the traditional and ceremonial duties." From Britannica 2003, "Elizabeth II" article. This quote heavily implies that her official duties amount to nothing politically. Note the phrase "informed interest in government business"-interest in the government, rather than actual influence. Deus Ex 15:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just changed the intro again. If you still have problems with it, then I am open to comment, but if you completely disagree with it, then provide credible evidence to contradict it. Deus Ex 23:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In responce to Mr Zenith: As an American I know that many of us are ignorant of British constitutional practices (after all we continue to think of George III as some sort of despot on the French model when in fact he was a constitutional monarch who claimed far less power than Mr Bush today claims); however I find your case to be particularly acute. Firstly: Though you are obvously skilled and logical in your thinking, your remarks show a distinct lack of knowlege of British constitutional practices and you approach the question from the incorrect context. Secondly: You seem to have little regard for the importance of proper context (a defect in thought that is, sadly, quite common for many of us US Americans.) You try to take what appears to be a semiotic approach to a legal and constitutional matter rather than attempting to understand the nature of the proper context which points to a certain degree of intellectual laziness and obtuseness in thinking. Third: The British use a more traditional definition of constitution, that defines it simply as the organisation and powers of government and governmental institutions. For example by the British definition of the word, the US Senates ability to filibuster would be considered part of the constitution of the US as it is one the Senate's recognised powers. Fourth: One important distinction ought to be made: Much of the British constitution is comprised of precedents that are rigourously adhered to by those who take part in the governance of that country whilst the US constitution comprises mostly of written statute (ie the 1789 Constitution) that is often ignored by those who govern the US. (For example, the written and entrenched bill of rights seems not to have prevented the President from throwing US citizens into navy brigs without any form of due process.) The difference is plain: when the British Executive wants certain powers it will first seek to obtain legislation and if it fails will back off, whereas when the US Executive wants certain powers, it simply takes them without bothering with legal niceties. A constitution is only as good as those it governs, Mr Zenith, and the British constution works because the British can better obey their customs and precedents than we Americans can our entrenched statutes. -Erik Seidel

[edit] Charles II

The facts regarding Charles the Second are misleading. There is no clear mention that this Monarch actaully did exercise his prerogative and disolved Parliment to rule absolutely. -- Steven Zenith 21:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Correction, I mean Charles II not George II. Steven Zenith

I'm sorry, that was an unforgivable exclusion. I have added a note to this effect. -- Emsworth 22:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Didn't William III dissolve parliament, too? The more notable thing about Charles is that he prorogued parliament for long periods and ruled without it, not that he dissolved it. At any rate, until the monarch lost the practical ability to appoint ministers largely as he chose (the late eighteenth century, probably), the distinction between dissolving parliament on advice and not on advice is unimportant. john k 23:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ending the Monarchy in England may be more difficult than some in this forum have suggested. The British Monarch holds a absolute veto. In spite of the fact that it has not been used since Queen Anne in the early 1700's does not mean that it can not still be used. All laws MUST receive the Royal Assent, if it does not the law fails or is vetoed. In addition, I must take issue with several parts of the entries directly above. The right to dismiss parliament without the advise of ministers IS important. King Charles II did dissolve parliamnt to prevent them from excluding his Catholic brother from the throne, and no new parliament was called, so it seems common sense that His Majesty must have ruled alone in their absense. King William III did dissolve parliament without ministers consent, how do we know? William also fired/dismissed the Prime Minister (the PM did not quit on his own or he would have resigned). Just because a group of people, or a political party say that a Prerogative/power doesn't exist is ludicrous. If a law has not been passed, and the Royal Assent given to remove a prerogative power from the Monarch, it is still a power that could be used. The powers of the Monarchy cannot be changed without the expressed consent of the Monarch. Even a law to abolish the Royal Assent would need royal assent. Further, it would be an extremely dangerous thing for one chamber of one branch being able to make all decisions without even the remote possibility of a check on them. The House of Lords has allowed itself to be little less than a delay to get whatever the House of Commons wants. The Royal Veto is the British Monarch insurance policy.

[edit] British Crown

Why does British Crown redirect here to British monarchy? As the Crown is shared equally between the UK and Commonwealth realms, shouldn't this justify it's own article? I understand that this is already explained in a section here - however, anti-monarchists (in Canada or Australia, for example) can use this to fuel the argument that there is no distinction between the British Crown and British monarchy, e.g. in reality, the Queen rules Canada not as Queen of Canada, but as Queen of the United Kingdom, as there is no real distinction between these two roles. But the reality is that there is a distinction and the Queen of Canada and the Queen of the UK are legally separate persons, both sharing the British Crown, i.e. the British monarchy does not rule over Canada - the Canadian monarchy does.

Does anyone else think there might be justification for a separate British Crown article on these grounds? Also see Talk:Monarchist League of Canada for why I have brought up this issue. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 08:38 (UTC)

I think the point is that the British Crown is just British. Canada has a Canadian Crown, Australia has an Australian Crown, and so on. The fact that these different legal institutions are all based around the same individual is constitutionally irrelevant. --Jfruh 7 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)

Actually, there is (apparently) legally no such thing as a "Canadian Crown" - as another editor pointed out in the above listed talk, the term "Canadian Crown" has never appeared in any legal documents, whereas the "British Crown" has. This is due to the fact that the British Crown is shared equally, and is not connected to just one legal institution. That fact alone I would think would justify a separate article to reflect this equality, rather than to show what may be perceived as "preference" for a single institution (which might be construed as saying that the legal person of Queen of the UK is above that of Queen of Canada, and so on). SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

Also, the British Crown is not centered around one individual, as for example, the Queen of the UK and Queen of Canada are legally separate and distinct persons. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Although equal in legal terms, on a sentimental level the British angle has a kind of "first among equals" status, so, while less than entirely accurate, it's not unreasonable for an encyclopedia with an international perspective. Maybe we should have something like "Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms" that could be a disambiguation page for all the different meanings. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

The "British monarchy" is also "first among equals" in political terms as the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc would have no impact on the monarchy in Britain whereas the abolition of the monarchy in the UK would almost certainly lead to its extinction in the rest of the Commonwealth Realms.AndyL 9 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Politically-motived opinion and orginal research - not encyclopedic. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

These are Talk pages, not main article pages (the links you cite deal with Wikipedia articles) so your admonition is out of place and little more than an attempt to silence a point you do not like but are unable to rebut. Do you deny that what I say above is almost certainly the case?AndyL 9 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

"Almost certainly" can't be measured. I have no issue with your expression of your personal opinions, just your mixing them up with facts. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Ok, let's deal with facts. The fact is that the system in the "Commonwealth Realms" (outside of the UK) was designed with the assumption that the monarch would be resident in London. Do you deny that?AndyL 9 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

The monarch has to physically be somewhere. The facts have been adequately dealt with several times over. Note also the constitutional implications of the King assuming residence in Halifax were previously considered during World War II. Peter Grey 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Really, where is this issue dealt with? "The monarch has to physically be somewhere" seems a silly statement, on one level she/he can hardly be physically nowhere. If it means more than this then we have the problem that Britain has an unwritten constitution, so it's drastic to say something cannot happen. PatGallacher 2005 July 9 17:55 (UTC)

The fact is that the monarch is present most of the time in Britain. She has spent 2% of her reign in Canada and, I suspect, around that percentage or less in the other Commonwealth Realms.

The fact is that this means there is quite a different relationship between the monarch and a) her British subjects and the British political system and b) her subjects and the political systems in the other Commonwealth realms.

The most obvious constitutional difference is that the duties and constitutional role played by the Governor General in the Commonwealth Realms is played by the Queen herself in Britain. i.e. The Queen, with increasingly rare exceptions, does not give royal assent to bills passed in Commonwealth legislatures or even give the Throne Speech (what in Britain is called the Queen's Speech because the Queen herself gives it). She does not name the Prime Ministers in Commonwealth Realms, does not resolve constitutional or parliamentary crises that may result in Commonwealth Realms and does not have weekly meetings with her Commonwealth PMs.

Now monarchists like to believe that the Queen is fully informed and intimately involved in, let's say, Canadian affairs. The reality is that in the Commonwealth Realms the role of the monarchy has developed so that it is really more of an abstract and theoretical entity, much more so than in Britain.

Let me give you a hard example. We now know that the Queen was not at all consulted on the dismissal of Gough Whitlam in Australia in 1975. This was done by Governor General Kerr in her name but she was not consulted or even informed until after it had happened.

Let me give you another example. We now know thanks to the 30 year disclosure rule that the Prince Philip and the Prince of Wales quite regularly write letters and make phone calls to Cabinet ministers and senior bureaucrats in Britain complaining of this or that government policy (this is actually quite shocking considering all the propaganda we are fed about the monarchy being "above politics"). We also know from biographies and autobiographies that UK Prime Ministers do give some consideration to what the Queen thinks about this or that thing or even this or that minister. It may not be a decisive consideration but its in the picture. That is simply not the case for Commonwealth Realm PMs. There is no evidence of royals writing Canadian or Austrlain ministers complaining about this or that policy or of Canadian or Australian PMs being particularly concerned about what the Queen might think, at least not to the extent as is the case in the UK.

Now you might say but the Governor General acts on HMs behalf so there's really no difference. But there is, the Queen's role in the UK is unmediated, in the realms it is mediated by a GG and she is almost a complete absentee from the process.

Therefore, it's quite clear that her role is much more important in the UK than elsewhere.

Also, the fact that the systems in the Commonwealth Realms are designed with an absentee monarch in mind and have a GG in place Britain becoming a republic would have an impact on the realms where Commonwealth realms becoming republics has had no impact on the Queen's role in the UK.

The fact is if Britain became a republic the Commonwealth Realms would have to figure out which one of them would become the new home for the Windsors, or if some sort of shared custody arrangement should be worked out where, say, she spends one month in each realm.

The fact is they would also have to deal with the royal family's wishes, including the possibility that they would not want to move to Canada or Australia but would prefer to either remain in a British republic as ordinary citizens or live in exile in Europe (or even the US). That would raise the possibility of abdication and having to find a new monarch or even of splitting the monarchy into pieces.

Then there's the question of what happens to the GG and the other political and constitutional impacts of one of the realms suddenly having a resident monarch.

Bosh! you might say. Original research (actually no, because the differences between her role in the UK and elsewhere are well known and the realities of say, her not being consulted about the Australian constitutional crisis are well documented) Speculation! Well the possibility that the UK may become a republic is speculation, but the implications of that on the realms is based on the facts that her constitutional, political and social role in the realms is much more remote than in the UK and, in any case, quite a lot of constitutional theory has to deal with speculation (what happens if this happens in parliament, or if this happens in an election, or if a PM does this or refuses to do that). And the fact is that all these questions arise out of the fact that the Queen is resident in the UK and not resident anywhere else despite the legal fiction that she is as much a Canadian or Jamaican as she is a Briton.

"Although equal in legal terms, on a sentimental level the British angle has a kind of "first among equals" status" No, I'm sorry, its more than sentimental. Even putting aside the hypothetical situation of the UK becoming a republic the difference between her constitutional role in the UK and in the other realms is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see and lacking the tunnel vision caused by wishful thinking and sophistry. AndyL 22:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The Governor General is not a mediator. Peter Grey 23:10, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

He also fails to realise that without the Monarch there is no Governor General. This is typical of the republican make-believe which pretends the Governor General is some sort of stand-alone figure. The Governor General is only, and will always only be, the Monarch's representative within a certain country. Without the Sovereign's authority, the Governor General is nothing. --gbambino 18:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The word mediator has more than one meaning. I didn't say she was a mediator in the sense of being a negotiater. I said the Queen's authority was mediated through the Governor General and meant it in the sense of " acting through or dependent on an intervening agency" . I'm gratified that the only rebuttal you have is a semantic argument (and an incorrect one at that). I take your inability to respond to the substance of my argument as an indication that you are unable to come up with a response but lack the intellectual honesty to concede the point. AndyL 01:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Governor General can be compared to an agent or power of attorney. It still invalidates the alleged 'substance' of your argument. On the subject of intellectual honesty, Crown also has more than one meaning. Peter Grey 02:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"It still invalidates the alleged 'substance' "

How? Do you deny that the Queen plays a different role in the UK than she does in the other Commonwealth realms?

Do you deny, for instance, that the Queen was not advised, informed or consulted on Gough Whitlam's dismissal?

Do you deny that the fact that the Queen is resident in the UK and spends very little time in any one of her other realms has implictation for her relationship with the political systems in question? You claim my argument has been "invalidated" but you provide no proof. Assertion is not fact. Please try harder. AndyL 02:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] disambig page

"Maybe we should have something like "Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms" that could be a disambiguation page for all the different meanings"

Disambiguation pages generally exist to deal with a term that has several possible meanings (and articles on them). This is not the case with the phrase "Monarchy in the Commonwealth Realms". The article Commonwealth Realms can deal with issues relating to the monarchy in the countries in question. AndyL 9 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

I just think that British Crown should either be a disambig or a separate article detailing the legal definition of the term as it relates to the UK and Commonwealth Realms. The fact that Rouleau used British Crown instead of say, Canadian Crown (not a valid legal term?), is IMHO enough cause for such an article to clarify these points. SouthernComfort 02:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

British Crown/Monarchy can mean both 'Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom', and also monarchy as shared between the Commonwealth Realms, sometimes called British Monarchy for historical reasons. See this talk page for a concise explanation. In practical terms, there's never any confusion, but should be pointed out somewhere. Probably a quick disambig sentence at the start of the article would be sufficient. Peter Grey 02:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The British Monarchy is the monarchy of the United Kingdom, NOT the monarchy of all the Commonwealth realms. The British, Canadian, Australian, monarchies, etc., are all distinct entities. Thus, the disambiguation lines are not necessary. -- Emsworth

They share the same physical person and the same succession rules, and do so by design, not by accident. Even in legal terms the distinction can get blurry. It's not like disambiguating is hurting, and it's a lot easier than gutting the article for UK-specific versus international perspective. Peter Grey 16:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that we are unnecessarily conflating the two ideas. There is no blurriness between the British and Canadian monarchies, just as there is no blurriness between the Canadian and Australian monarchies. Shall we also place on the article on the Canadian monarchy a notice that it is from a Canadian perspective? I think not. -- Emsworth

There is no separate dynasty in Canada, and it is a principle of the Canadian constitution that there isn't. What if the opening line were changed to something like this: The British monarch or Sovereign is the head of state of the United Kingdom, and also head of state of each of the other Commonwealth realm, and Head of the Commonwealth. If the Commonwealth realm article is mentioned in the very first line, it may be sufficient to put any further clarification there. Peter Grey 19:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's more reasonable. Unfortunately, it's somewhat inaccurate from a constitutional perspective. Legally, the British monarch and the Canadian monarch are different "persons." -- Emsworth 20:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm, the other problem with that proposed wording is that for people who are unfamiliar with the term Commonwealth Realm, they might get confused because the Commonwealth includes countries for which she is not head of state. How about "head of state of a number of other independent countries which were historically linked to the United Kingdom", with something there (maybe "other independent countries" pipe-linked to Commonwealth Realm? Noel (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem we're seeing trying to describe the Canadian constitution - different legal persons, one physical person, and how to manage the enormous overlap in a general-purose, international encyclopedia. Peter Grey 20:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nukes

It is the Sovereign's prerogative to declare war, make peace, and direct the actions of the military; as usual, the power is used only on ministerial advice.

I listened to an interesting discussion on the BBC Radio 4's "Today Programme" a number of years ago about the command and control of the launching of Nuclear weapons. A former member of the Royal Navy was explaining that one of the checks on the launch of Trident missiles was that as the minister who would request that a launch be made could not order a captain of a sub to the launch, Hence the expression "HMG on behalf of her majesty request and requires that HMS ...", this is because the commanders of the armed forces report to the crown not to the government, and the launch could not be made by the admiral ,in charge of the fleet of subs, without the explicit "advise" (permission) of the relevant government minister. This was constitutionally correct because the Sovereign "direct[s] the actions of the military". This was seen as a valid mechanism to prevent the ordering of a launch by a minister who had become deranged and wished to take out France or some other enemy^H^H^H^H^HAlly without the members of the armed forces breaking their oaths by refusing to obey orders. If someone could find a written record of this idea I think it would make an interesting addition to the article. Philip Baird Shearer

BTW something which came up in the interview which amused and pleased the presenters of Today progreamme was that if the Trident subs did not receive their usual military communications then one of the checks that the captain was to use to see if the UK still existed was to listen for the Today Programme. Philip Baird Shearer 09:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Majority support for the monarchy?

Can the assertion that a "large majority" of people in Britain support the existence of monarchy be reasonably substantiated? This sounds like POV to me. Valiant Son 22:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

According to all MORI polls since the early 1950s when they began polling on the issue republicanism has ebbed between at 7-23%. (The most recent poll, if I remember correctly, put republicanism at 13%.) Support for the monarchy runs from 77-93%. A majority of all classes, creeds, ethnic groups and ages back the monarchy. Even the weakest supporters of the monarchy (ie, they aren't monarchists but don't see any point in abolishing it if it works well and see republicanism as pointless) outweigh the entire support for republicanism by a mile. And the weakest supporters are outweighed by the committed supporters by a considerable degree. That certainly qualifies as a "large majority" by any standards. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)}

Of course the problem with this is that, as with all opinion polls, it depends upon how the question was asked and what the wording was. On many occasions studies of responses based on the format of a question have shown widely varying responses.

The second problem is that of sample. Who has been asked?

The thrid issue comes from the question of whether the phraseology in the article is pejorative or not. It implies that almost nobody supports the establishment of a republic. This is simply not the case. The most recent figures from MORI actually put the level at 19%. This is a substantial level. I'd be happy if the wording was changed to, "a majority", but the use of the word "large" is far too subjective. Valiant Son 23:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

MORI is a very professional organisation. Given that it works for all sides in all debates it cannot allow itself to issue one-sided questions to deliver a result. (In fact it, TNS/MRBI and other highly regarded polling organisations regularly refuse point blank to ask one sided questions. They are ultra-careful to ask clinically neutral to the extent of running mock polls to test out the objectivity of the questions.) Those paying for polls don't want propaganda but facts. The polls were based on qualitative and quantative research involving the required statistical numbers to produce accurate results. MORI is famous for always using a fully representative national sample and they have polled for both British republicans and the Royal Family on public attitudes to monarchy. All aides absolutely trust their reliability. The fact that the results in different polls by them all match show that there were no rogue poll results and that all were fair and accurate to within 3%. And no, BTW a 70% majority is not merely "a majority". Calling it large is an understatement. In polling and electoral terms such numbers are usually called a "landslide" or indeed "a consensus". FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)}

Anyone who understands anything about language will acknowledge that there is no such thing as a "neutral" question. This is simply nonsense. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that MORI are a respected organisation and avoid overtly partisan questions. However, language is such that all uses of it have an emotional impact.

Your statement about a large majority is POV. You may consider it a "large majority". I (and others) would consider it to indicate a "large minority" of dissenting voices. I don't doubt that there is a tacit support for the monarchy within the UK (although it should be remembered that many of the respondents will be anxious about the unknown factors of change and many have no particualr interest either way and so opt for the status quo), but what I take exception to is the pejorative use of the word "large". It is semantically superfluous. The sentence reads perfectly well by stating that there is a majority of support. Valiant Son 11:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen's Veto Power

I was recently thinking about the Queen's reserve power to withhold the royal assent to Acts of Parliament. I was wondering if any constitutional experts agree with my (somewhat disconcerting) possibility. Since most of the time the Government initiates and wins all bills in Parliament, they have every wish for the Queen to grant assent. But what if they lose a vote? Recently, the Blair Government dramatically lost the vote on their anti-terror legislation in the Commons. If this were to pass unamended by the Lords, it would need Royal Assent. However, since Blair disapproves of the legislation, he may see fit to exercise the Royal prerogative to change it. Since the Queen uses all prerogatives on the advice of the Prime Minister, would she be bound to follow Blair's advice if he advised her to withhold the Royal Assent? And if she refused, would this be considered improper defiance of the Cabinet's will? I was wondering if anyone considered this. It seems it would indicate the extraordinary powers the Crown possesses, and through it, the Prime Minister.

If the Government losses a key vote, then they will hold a "Vote of No Confidence" ie asking Parliament to vote on whether the Government should continue. If they loss that, the government would usually resign, and a general election would be called. However, they usually win these, as the MPs who voted against them on the key vote, are unlikely to vote against the existence of their own government. After a win, there is usually a revote and the government would likely win this, or some compromise effort is taken. This happened in the previous Conservative government when they were voting to approve the Maastricht Treaty. Astrotrain 11:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this sentence substantiated ?

"Nevertheless, a large majority of the British public supports the continuation of the monarchy."

All polls put the support for the monarchy at 75-93% and support for republicanism at 7%-25%. Most polls put republicanism at circa 18%. Tracking polls suggest around 13%. That qualifies as "a large majority of the British public supports the continuation of the monarchy." 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] royal family's cars

i hate to ask someone to find this for me but I have searched for a long time on the internet and it I haven't found out what cars the royal family owns other than the mercedes limousin that diana died in and the obvious rolls royces and bentleys.

i'm sure various family members have luxury cars and i would it if someone could post any car that they know the royal family owns.

[edit] Commonwealth Role

As this article is about the British Crown (the Crown's history and operation within the jurisdiction of the UK), should the section Commonwealth role not then be removed, as the British Crown in this sense has no role in the Commonwealth Realms what so ever? --gbambino 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The information is useful, and it could even be expanded to note the history of the previous situation of having one crown, and moving to multiple crowns. Astrotrain 20:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The information is indeed useful, and is included in other articles (eg. Commonwealth Realms). However, your comment doesn't address my point: this article is about the history and operation of the Crown within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The UK Crown operates completely separately from the Canadian, Australian, Jamaican, etc., Crowns. So then, why is there a section for the British Crown's operation in other Realms when the British Crown doesn't operate in other Realms? --gbambino 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But it used to operate in the other realms, therefore it is correct to state

The historic situation- ie before Statute of Westminster etc
The current situation- ie seperate crowns, one monarch etc

I think the current text of the section could be changed, but I would like to see a section addressing the role of the British crown in the Realms (both historic and current) remain. Astrotrain 20:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've tried to re-do the section to better achieve what you propose. --gbambino 21:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good Astrotrain 23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there acceptance of it?

Ok, in summary, laws that had their last update in the 18th century give immense power to one person who must belong to a certain bloodline who must give up their place if there's a male candindate before her. Right. Can someone explain to me whether the people that accept that consider it a tourism attraction or a proper way of governance? Because, I don't want to believe it's the second. However, I tend to think the main reason this thing exists is because UK didn't have any major internal political crisis for a very very very long time so they didn't have a chance to see a change because it may have been more trouble than keeping things the way they work, "if it works and there's no much trouble, don't fix it" kind of thing. I also keep hearing brits humoring "we have an agreement, the queen doesn't make trouble and the people don't behead her". I wonder what's really going on in the background in those "monarchy acceptance" votes.

It's a stable, apolitical and non-divisive way to choose a head of state, unlike the circus and partisanship that surrounds the election of a president. This article sums it all up nicely: The Scotsman: Queen of our time --gbambino 19:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: people that accept that consider it a proper way of governance. No system of governance is perfect - this system works as well or better than any other, and anyone who has lived under an unstable government would appreciate that. Because the UK, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, etc. are democracies, no-one has to justify their acceptance. Peter Grey 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Because sensible people the world over realise that electing your head of state isn't always such a good idea. Proteus (Talk) 23:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Electing a ceremonial president can't really do any harm, though. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt do any harm having a ceremonial president usually (although the current Israeli one is accused of rape and was refused entry to the state opening of parliament) but the big flaw they have compared to a monarch is that noone knows who they are, often in their own country and certainly abroad. Who can name the Presidents of Italy or Germany? Half the people who answer that will infact give the name of the Prime Minister or Chancellor.

People who care, i.e. who are interested in politics, usually can. Naming Horst Köhler and Giorgio Napolitano is rather easy for me, though. On the other hand, do you happen to know the name of the king of Swaziland? You must know, since royals are evidently far more well-known outside their countries by your reasoning... ;p —Nightst a llion (?) 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And you get bonus points if you can pronounce the King of Nepal's name! --203.163.71.197 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of dablink

User:TharkunColl appears to demand the removal of the dablink at the head of this article which clarifies that this page concentrates on the history of the Monarchy from the perspective of the United Kingdom. This dablink helps clarify the nature of the Monarchy over the Commonwealth Realms, and directs readers to where they can find further information. The dablink was also used on this article first, and subsequently copied to Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in New Zealand, and Monarchy in Australia, so that now all four articles link to each other. TharkunColl's edits to articles related to this topic have clearly demonstrated a personal lack of satisfaction with the fact that the Monarchy of the UK is shared with other countries, but, of course, POV should not guide how Wikipedia is composed. --gbambino 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And aside from that being a strange viewpoint, TharkunColl has also breached the good faith requirement :-) --Lholden 07:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction seems odd to me

The introductory paragraph explains that the British Monarchy can trace its roots back to the Kings of the Angles, etc. This seems odd. Scotland is only mentioned via the Union of the Crowns. Shouldn't the British Monarchy trace its roots back no further than the Union of the Crowns under James VI (I of England)? Or, shouldn't the article include how far back the British Monarchy can trace its Scots roots? Right now it seems the opening paragraph described (Albeit however briefly) the history of the English Monarchy.

Kaenei 12:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because it was the English state that annexed Scotland, and not the other way round. TharkunColl 13:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you aware that it was a Scots King who assumed the crown of England having been OFFERED it? Are you aware of the precise wording of the treaty of Union 1707? I'm afraid you are quite, quite wrong.

Kaenei 17:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Scots king was given the English throne because he was descended from the kings of England. The English later tired of the Stuarts and deposed them in favour of the Hanoverians. When the Scottish parliament refused to agree to this, its members were bribed and bullied into voting for their own abolition. On 1 May 1707 a small group of appointed Scottish MPs arrived at the English parliament and took their seats. Whatever the wording of the Act of Union says, it was not a union of equals. TharkunColl 17:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia is misleading those who read its articles. Either Wikipedia takes the word of law, and the word of treaties coming into and changing law, or it changes all existing articles to reflect "Annexation".

This seems a clear indication of double standards -- Efforts are made to seperate "England" and the UK in wording, or when "English" is used instead of "Britsh", but apparently the truth wich has eluded me is that Scotland was simply annexed. Why then is this line of thought only allowed on the British Monarchy page?

We seem to have entered into a "Whatever the law said I know better ..."

Wikipedia is based on fact. The fact is the Treaty of Union -said- such, and that is law. The term "Whatever the Act of Union says, it was not ..." is abhorrent to that notion.

Kaenei 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing "law" with "fact" and there are numerous historical sources that discuss the true nature of the union with Scotland. If "law" was the only criterion allowed, then we would be forced to state that the USSR, for example, was a democracy, because that's what its constitution said. Under English law, the kings of England were also kings of France, because that was part of their title. And Idi Amin was king of Scotland, because he declared himself such. Please go and look up the difference between de jure and de facto. TharkunColl 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Talk%7EBritish_monarchy_b387.html"