Talk:Constitutional monarchy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is related to the WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
 |
Constitutional monarchy is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images. |
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] HELP
hy i was wondering if there were such thin as a constitutional monarchy b/c my daughter is doin a project on it and needs some informantion if nessary..please contact me at ....579-385-2257
thanks you so much and help please...call that # and help i need to ask some more questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.116.79 (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] constitutional monarchy
the constitutional monarchy is very important if you have that government or wat eva.i nean its not the best but the nether lands use it so maby i could use it.im not really sure wat the constitutional monarchy is. and i dont plan on learning about it. oooo kand someone please change the backround to this sit and change the color to green or hott pink b/c blue is a boy color and yah im a girl and want to be treated like one.ooo i also think that this is cool that people can like send discussions or wat eva.but i also think it is kinda weard.lolwell g2g —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.116.79 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
