Talk:Constitutional monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High-importance in Politics.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Constitutional monarchy is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

/archive

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Long commentary moved from article

Edited by Gordon J Sheppard (Britiish 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.

[edit] 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? Taifarious1 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)