Talk:Constitutional monarchy/Archive 1

Queen Elizabeth II
political biography of Queen Elizabeth II is certainly worthwhile, but it belongs in its own article. She is certainly an exceptionally experienced monarch, but few monarchs can claim have her unique experiences:


 * watched the Adbdication Crisis firsthand
 * grew up during WWII, her own mother being "the most dangerous woman in Europe" according to Hitler
 * trained by Churchill in politics
 * how man Prime Ministers?
 * mother lived until 101, her experience still available to her daughter

For all these reasons and many more, QEII is unique, like Pope John Paul II, and it's hard to tell what about her characteristics arise from her training or her personality. Also the article does not make clear enough that QEII devotes this time to UK concerns, and has far less time for other countries, e.g. Canada, where she is the constitutional monarch. Main function of the monarchy in these countries is to let the PM appoint a Governor-General to do all the official receptions.

Also, other monarchs like King Hussein of Jordan (a very effective diplomat), Japanese emperors Hirohito and Akihito should be covered in more depth. These are major historical figures and have shaped what we think of as a constitutional monarch, with very different ideas of democracy.

Queen Elizabeth is used here simply as a practical example of how a constitutional monarchy may function. Others who have practical knowledge on other monarchies can add it other examples. But this stuff on QEII is important here because it explains something which, as Michael Caine might put it, not a long of people know, that monarchs aren't just fairy tale figures for glossy magazines but have practical and useful roles. I'll rephrase the page slightly to make it clear that she is being used as an example.

Re the Queen and Canada. You probably remember how some years ago a Canadian DJ rang Buckingham Palace claiming to be the Canadian PM and was put through to her. He proceded as PM to request the Queen's intervention in a separatist referendum. She fell for the imposter, but showed her superb tact towards a dubiously constitutional request by asking for more information and very subtlely hinting that maybe the suggestion wasn't the best idea. One thing that struck me in dealing with Australian republican politicians who as ministers had dealt with her was the high personal regard they developed for her. I know British Labour ministers who were closet (or not so closet) republicans when they went into power in 1997 sing her praises now.

As to where those skills come from; since Victoria's time the monarchy seems to have developed a passion for correctness. King George V was probably Britain's greatest constitutional monarch. His interventions on Ireland (which I know a lot about, coming from Ireland) were legendary; his role in getting the British Government to allow him to make an appeal for peace and reconciliation, his behind the scenes role in calming nerves and building consensus before the Treaty negotiations, his diffusing a row involving de Valera and an Irish governor-general. (Only in the last few weeks we discovered he made incredible efforts to get a compromise that could have saved the life of Terence McSwiney, the Lord Mayor of Cork who died on hunger strike during the Irish War of Independence. But his efforts with Lloyd George failed and McSwiney died.) [George's desire to 'help' cropped up when Ramsey McDonald formed his first government. Ministers were barely paid, yet as ministers they were required to wear 'evening dress' and 'court dress' on occasion at state banquets, Privy Council meetings, etc. But the cost was a couple of months salary, way beyond the reach of the new ministers. The King did some quiet checking around, then informed McDonald of a place that could supply the ministers with the required clothes at a fraction of the cost as a favour to the King. It was all kept hush hush at the time, but McDonald and his ministers were very touched by the King's actions, while the King apparently enjoyed watching Tory politicians look with astonishment at Labour ministers dressed up, they wondering, 'how the hell did they afford to get the clothes!']

The Queen Mother showed that same passion for 'doing the right thing' by insisting that she would continue working even at 101. (One journalist covering her at an engagement (he's in his 40s) said that at the engagement, she (aged 101) wore him out, 'working' the room, meeting everyone, even extending her scheduled stay of 30 minutes to two and a half hours!) With the notable exception of the disastrous Duke of Windsor, modern British royals seem to have a passionate belief that they are there to help in whatever way they can, including taking the job of monarch very very seriously. And Prince Charles, whatever you may think about what he says, has chosen to get involved in a range of 'quality of life' issues, particularly with the Prince's Trust that has created thousands of jobs in some of the most neglected parts of Britain's inner cities.

So I think Elizabeth II's very active, serious and contributing role as monarch working with governments seems to be an approach that in general this family has shared since Victoria's day. Though other monarchs too make serious contributions on a scale that simply isn't realised, with the media and most people focusing on the private lives or who is wearing what outfit or living in what palace. I did make the point that other heads of state, through long service also have great experience which can be put to work in helping governments. I'm sure others have information that can be added in. Hopefully my mentioning of Elizabeth II is simply a start, that might build a larger page on practical examples of how constitutional monarchies really work. The bit on Elizabeth II is I think very necessary right now in contextualising what a constitutional monarchy actually is. JTD 02:33 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * You are making my point for me, that Elizabeth II is a *poor* example because she is atypical. She is an EXCEPTIONAL and EXCELLENT constitutional monarch, and so the article should say that, and should also point out an ORDINARY and DANGEROUS monarch with similar powers, on paper, but who abuses them or falls for dictators (as the King of Italy did for Mussolini, as Hirohito did for Tojo).  Without these tradeoffs, you simply haven't shown the range of what's possible.  The example you wrote DOES show that exceptional performance is possible, but that is like writing an article on 'corporate executives' that is a love song to Dee Hock, who is NOT typical in any sense of what happens when people have that kind of power.
 * I agree with all your points of substance, and those that focus on the role of a constitutional monarch, like the DJ hoax, ought to be in this article as good examples (likely she SUSPECTED that the DJ was a hoaxer but part of being Queen is that you must take everyone at face value - it's not your job to challenge what people say, it's other people's job to keep kooks away from you so that the embarassment of having to take kooks or hoaxers at face value is minimized).
 * Another one of 'those points' - Blair said that his generation of politicians saw plenty of practical value in a full-time mentor for the Prime Minister and ombudsman for the people and the land, and "someone that I can absolutely trust" in Blair's own words. This also is constitutional monarchy WORKING... but the American revolution and French revolution are examples of it NOT WORKING because the boundaries were unclear, or situation was changing... i.e. monarch unable to adapt to his new role in France.
 * I'd prefer the article focus on King Hussein if a good example is required, as he is less obviously unique. If you don't know what that man did to keep the mideast from blowing up, after the Israelis won the 1967 war, then you ought to.  Among other things he chose his son's wife, Queen Rania of Jordan.  That alone ought to tell you how good a king he was! ;-)  Smarter than Elizabeth in this respect....

---

Better, but this is still more about "monarchs" than the idea of monarchy. Also you have included absolutely NO BAD EXAMPLES, e.g. of misbehaving constitutional monarchs, or the reasons why constitutional limits were put on monarchial powers in the first place, e.g. Britain.

Most of this material will be moved elsewhere. You can do it, or let others do it. But it is woefully unbalanced as an encyclopedia article as it stands, tho your intent is appreciated, you are simply showing a pro-monarchist bias here.

Fact is, most monarchies hold together through simple terror - even those with constitutional limits on their power. Rania of Jordan said it this way: 'if a President loses the faith of his people, he loses an election. If a King does, he loses his life.' That's about right, for almost any nation outside Europe that has a monarch. The dark side of this system is not expressed, and it must be expressed, because it exists.

Although marking the QEII stuff as 'example' helps a bit more, it's not a 'practical' example since other monarchs can't emulate her behavior or the special traits of the British monarchy, therefore the reader doesn't understand monarchy better unless they are already anti-monarchist and think it has no use.

How about an article on the 20th century performance of the Windsor/Hohenzollern family in the British Monarchy? That seems to be more up your alley than the political science of the system of constitutoinal monarchy.

No offense, but to focus on one family in the system of one country, and barely touch on how that system affects even the other countries where they are heads of state, just isn't on. If you want to save this material, give it another few passes, and find some really BAD monarchs.


 * Hi 142.177, why don't you log in using an account? Just click on the "Log in" link in the upper right corner, choose a user name and password and click "Create an account" - woosh, you're automatically logged in. All your edits are then non-anonymous, and you can sign your discussion posts by typing three tildes . We all like to talk to people instead of numbers! --Eloquence 03:27 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * I know how it works, and I refuse to use it, for reasons explained elsewhere. What you like is not unimportant, but my reasons for anonymity outweigh it, my apologies.  Most studies of groupthink emphasize the necessity of truly anonymous comment in breaking it up, and editorial bias is a form of groupthink.


 * If you see a gap, fill it. Find a bad constitutional monarch and write the other side. Vicki Rosenzweig


 * (1) I do mention bad monarchs - Edward VIII, Constantine II, etc,
 * (2) The monarchies you seem to be speaking aren't 'constitutional monarchies', so there are irrelevant to this page. Constitutional monarchies are monarchies that operate a parliamentary system of representative democratic government with a monarch as head of state. The early English and British monarchs who 'misbehaved' were not operating as constitutional monarchs because they exercised dominant or semi-dominant power in a political system that lacked democratic representation or popular parliamentary control. By definition, that isn't a constitutional monarchy. Constitutional monarchy is actually quite a new phenomenon that in reality dates from the appearance of widespread popular franchise and parliamentary control of governments. That sort of information belongs in the history pages of the relevant states.
 * (3) It is hard to be a pro-monarchist when I am actually a republican.
 * (4) most people don't know what constitutional monarchy does and how it functions. This article was woefully inadequate in dealing with that. It isn't now.
 * (5) There is not now, and never has been such a thing as a Windsor/Hohenzollern family. A Hohenzollern has never sat on Britain's throne, never married into the British royal family. The only link there ever was was when the Princess Royal, Princess Victoria, daughter of Queen Victoria, married the Crown Prince of Germany and was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
 * (6) What do you mean, 'save' this material. It isn't your material or my material. It is Wikipedia's material.
 * (7) Monarchy is by definition in large measure about monarchs, just as presidency of the United States is to a significant degree about presidents.
 * (8) This is a template. It is not the finished article. And it already has been OKed by one long standing Wiki-ite who thought it 'very informative' according to a message I received since I finished this draft. If you have information on misbehaving constitutional monarchs (not any other types of monarchies, just constitutional monarchies) add it in. When I get the time and get a chance to find books I have (there are somewhere on some shelf) on Victorio Emanuele III of Italy and Constantine II of Greece, I will be adding in that information too.
 * (9) Please sign your name to your notes on the talkpage. It is a general rule on Wiki. If you don't know how, it is simply 3 ~ marks with no space in between. 4 ~s produces both your name and the date and time of your entry. JTD 03:56 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

SInce 211.28.96.8 seems determined add in dodgy facts and fundamental inaccuracies regarding Australia into this article, here's his claim and the reality:

His Claim: In Australia the post of the head of state is appointed by the Prime Minister  Incorrect. The Australian constitution and law states that the Australian head of state is the Queen Of Australia, who is not appointed but inherited her throne. Presumably in the above quote he means the Governor-General of Australia. But
 * The Governor-General is not 'appointed' by the Prime Minister, he is appointed by the Queen on the advice of what is constitutionally 'her' Executive Council (cabinet) which in reality recommends the appointment of the person chosen by the Prime Minister.
 * The Governor-General is the representative of the head of state, not the head of state himself. (Ditto with the Governor-General of Canada, New Zealand, etc. ) Practical examples:
 * Letters or Credence are letters accrediting ambassadors which are sent by /in the name of a head of state to a head of state or their representative.
 * All Letters of Credence accrediting Australian ambassadors to every state with which Australia has diplomatic representation, are sent in the name of Queen Elizabeth II, not the Governor-General;
 * All Letters of Credence accrediting foreign ambassadors to Australia are addressed to Queen Elizabeth II as 'Queen of Australia' and received on her behalf and in her name by the Governor-General, who is invariably told to pass on the good wishes of the head of state and people of . . . {the United States, Britain, Ireland, France, South Africa, etc} to the 'Queen of Australia.'
 * If the Governor-General was head of state, apart from anything else, the state would have his picture displayed in their embassies worldwide. In fact they display pictures of Queen Elizabeth II as 'Queen of Australia'.
 * If he was head of state, visiting heads of state would raise toasts to him/her at state banquets. In fact, they toast 'The Queen of Australia'.

Having tried seven times to 'doctor' the article on Australia to insist that Australia is a republic (don't laugh!) and been roundly ridiculed and torn to shreds by among other Tannin and myself, 211.28.96.8 now seems to think he can add in dodgy theories about Australian constitutional law onto this page, with his ' implicit claim' (in the line above) that Australia is a republic with the Governor-General as head of state. (If it was true, which it demonstrably isn't, it would be totally irrelevant to this page as this page is about constitutional monarchy, which makes it all the more bizarre that he has chosen to make such a 'claim' here in the first place!)

So far, over the two pages, Tannin, Mintguy and I have had to do 10 revertions of his 'doctorings'. Wikipedia is a credible publication containing credible facts, which is why ludicrous theories cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. If such theories would be laughed at in any political science lecture, and constitutional law lecture, and history lecture, and would not be given the time of day in any other encyclopedia, they sure as hell can't be given any credence here. Having failed to get his wacky theory onto the Australia page, he can't use this page as a substitute dumping ground. JTD 23:04 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Good change, Someone else. well spotted. JTD 23:14 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

The following grossly inaccurate paragraph has been removed.

The Australian government is an example where the constitution was written and voted into effect by its citizens and states, where no monarch or other hereditary title is involved in the operation of the government, and where ultimate authority is derived solely from its judicial system and citizens.

Just about everything in the above sentence is incorrect.


 * 1) Australia does not simply have a written constitution. It has a written constitution + letters patent, conventions, etc. (eg, the constitution doesn't mention a prime minister yet there is one. How? Because of the constitution involves more than just the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. )
 * 2) The monarch is involved in the operation of government;
 * The Queen's representative chairs the Executive Council
 * The Queen's representative gives the Royal Assent to legislation
 * According to Chapter 1 Part 1 Section 1 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act
 * The legislative power of the Commonweath shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament" or "The Parliament of the Commonweath". 


 * According to Chapter 1: Part 1: Section 5:
 * The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the session of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogative the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.


 * 1) ultimate authority is derived solely from its judicial system and citizens. Wrong.
 * Chapter II: The Executive Government:
 * "The executive power of the Commonweath is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and the laws of the Commonwealth.''

Please Daeron, before you continue on your quest to claim contrary to all the evidence that Australia is a republic, try reading the Australian constitution, something you clearly have failed to do. JTD 21:23 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but read original & amendments in 1986, UNSW. Sorry to hear you're still on your quest to claim every dictionary & other encycpedia on the planet has the wrong definition for what the word 'republic' means. I understand your Irish aspirations to have 'republic' mean something grander than it is, but republic is a very generic term. - Daeron.

I'm puzzled. Usually your stuff is good. Why is it on the issue of republic/monarchy you seem utterly incapable of understanding elementary facts as taught even in civics class to seven year olds. So you are right then, and Malcolm Turnbull (Australia's leading republican), Nick Greiner (for pm of NSW), Dr. John Hurst (Convenor of the Australian Republican Movement) Mary Kostakidis of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation, Professor George Winterton, who is Professor of Law in NSW are all wrong. You see, they were members of the Republic Advisory Committee. All republicans. And all say 100% that Australia is a constitutional monarchy. Try reading An Australian Republic, (2 volumes) the report of the RAC. Listen to Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Thomas Kineally. Or are they all wrong. And every dictionary. Every encyclopædia, every embassy, every state, every attorney-general, every history book all wrong and YOU are right! In other words EVERYONE ELSE is wrong and you are right! JTD 02:10 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Fact Sheet 2.4 Issue 2: The Head of State - Report of the Constitutional Foundation. ''Australia is a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy is a system of government in which the head of state is a king or queen but has little real power, acting for all or most purposes on the advice of an elected government.''

''The Australian Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. For Australian purposes, she is known as Queen of Australia. She is represented in Australia by the Governor-General and the State Governors. These are appointed by the Queen from time to time on the advice of the Prime Minister or the relevant Premier. These representatives act on the Queen's behalf on almost all matters. Gradually, over the decades, they have become the effective Heads of State for most purposes.''

BTW, if you read the Australia Act, 1993 (which you obviously haven't), you'd know it explicitly did not amend the constitution. You don't have to take my words for it. Take Section 5.

''Section 5	[Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of Westminster not affected] Sections 2 and 3(2) above -
 * (a)	are subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and to the Constitution of the Commonwealth; and
 * (b)	do not operate so as to give any force or effect to a provision of an Act of the Parliament of a State that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to this Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Constitution of the Commonwealth or the Statute of Westminster 1931 as amended and in force from time to time.''

JTD 03:35 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Mr Jtdirl, I see from the history of this page that you came to this page before I had even seen it and started calling me names here too. Just as on the Australia:Talk page where you made various threats against me, and ignored or removed comments from people like Zoe who politely disagreed with your vision of the universe. Why do you think the managers of Wikipedia haven't backed you up on your revision of the english language? Perhaps because while you continue to sit in your little republician club house, your political bias stands out like a beacon? Or perhaps just because they can accept a well argued point of fact, no matter how much you jump up & down about it, even if you burn every book on the planet. I would rather believe that you were another nit-picking constitutional academic ignoring the realities of a working system of government; however, as you have taken such pride in writing about the 'un-written' British constitution, it is quite clear that your use of the Australian subject is an abuse of Australia for whatever republican aspirations you have elsewhere. - Daeron.

There is always a pattern to your interventions.
 * 1) Make a ludirous claim and 'adapt' text to suit the claim.
 * 2) When it is pointed out to you, quoting at length through documentation and references, you then change your argument to claims of bias, without one shred of evidence.

If as you seem to think, Australia is a republic, why does say YOU are wrong and Australia is a constitutional monarchy. If and when Australia becomes a republic I will be more than happy to describe it as that. But right now, the situation is 100% clear. If you can't under constitutional facts. The issus is closed. Stop twisting sites to support your political agenda.
 * every politician without exception
 * every lawyer without exception
 * every republican campaigner without exception
 * every encyclopædia without exception
 * every reference book without exception
 * everyone on Wikipedia without exception
 * every source document without exception
 * every article of the constitution without exception

BTW, here's what the Australian Republican Movement says:

'''Who is Australia's Head of State? '''

Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Australia's Head of State because:


 * The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).


 * The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution).


 * The Queen has the power to disallow any law within one year of it being made even after the Governor-General has given his assent (section 59, Constitution).


 * The Governor-General only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure" which means that the he can be dismissed by the Queen at any time (section 2, Constitution).


 * Lastly, but probably most importantly in a symbolic sense, is the Schedule to the Constitution that requires all Federal Parliamentarians to swear an oath or declare an affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. This oath of allegiance can only be changed by alteration of the Constitution — unlike the Citizenship Oath, which can be changed by an Act of Parliament, or the Ministerial Oath which can be changed by Proclamation.

The Governor-General is not the Head of State of Australia because:


 * The Governor-General is appointed to represent the Queen, not Australia (section 2, Constitution).


 * It is clear from the above provisions, such as sections 2 and 59, that the Governor-General is subservient to the Queen.


 * Even the Governor-General's power given by section 68 as Commander in Chief is vested in him as "the Queen's representative".


 * No Oath of Allegiance is required to the Governor-General by any member of Parliament or official.

Australia is a constitutional Monarchy and in accordance with these principles the monarch is our head of state. Both the above provisions of the Australian Constitution and custom make it clear that the Queen is intended to be the embodiment of the Commonwealth of Australia.

A recent example of the symbolism and custom in regard to this was the visit by President Clinton to Australia in November 1996 during which reciprocal toasts were given to each nation by giving a loyal toast to the head of state of each nation as the embodiment of the nations. To honour the United States of America, a toast was given to the President. President Clinton responded by giving a toast to the Queen, not to the Governor-General.

SOURCE: Australian Republican Movement Website

''Is THAT clear enough for you now? Or is the Australian Republican Movement also part of some monarchist agenda?''

PS: stop also misrepresenting other people's views on wiki. Zoe did not agree with you; she raised a question which everyone answered. And you will find that your reverts of your doctoring were done by a number of people, not just me. And your changes are generally viewed as a laughing stock, which is why on this issue the reverts were done and will keep being done. Wikipedia is a source of facts, not fiction. It is your problem if you cannot tell the difference. Stick to writing on topics that you know about, and there clearly are a lot of those. But don't doctor sites to misrepresent the facts. Wikipedia deserves better and you clearly have more ability and more to contribute to Wikipedia than undermining your reputation the way it has been undermined by this fantasy you have. Whatever status Australia has will be decided by the people of Australia, not your unilateral miswriting of sites, which has by the way now been formally complained about on Wikipedia. Issue closed. JTD 20:01 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Following is discussion moved here from problem users

There is an ungoing problem with Daeron which I thought was over but he has now started phase 2. After a war to make the Australia page claim that Australia is a republic (which as the entire world knows is wrong), and 7 reversions by a number of people, he stopped doctoring that page to move on to Constitutional monarchy which he doctored, again to suggest Australia is a republic. After 3 reversions there he stopped. Now he has restarted by 'adapting' pages linked to Australia to repeat his nonsense. First he added in a factually inaccurate paragraph in Constitutional monarchy on the same theme, how Aussie is a republic. I removed that paragraph to the talk page, with a list of all the factual inaccuracies in it (everything!), He has also created a link to an already existing page which he then rewrote. . . to claim Australia is a republic, or rather that a commonweath is by definition a republic (which it isn't), therefore it follows that the Commonweath of Australia must be one! It is as if, having been shown to be wrong on the Australia page by everyone who came near it, every textbook, every encyclopædia, every document, the words of leading republican politicians and the text of the constitution, he is still determined to make the claim somewhere on wikipedia, even if buried in pages linked to the main Australian page.

I'm not an expert on the other areas he writes about but they seem fine enough. But what do we do about this preoccupation with 'republicanising' Australia irrespective of the facts? I can't be keeping an eye on him all the time; it was only by accident that I stumbled across his latest 'doctorings'. Any suggestions? JTD 06:06 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Aren't constitutional monarchies a form of a republic? Susan Mason


 * ''monarchy and republic used to be defined as fundamental different concepts over how a country was ruled. As in reality today constitutional monarchies and republics are distinguished principally by the manner in which a head of state assumes office, the general rule in encyclopædiæ is


 * monarch = monarchy
 * elected head of state = republic.

By that universally applied rule, Australia, like Canada, the UK, Denmark, etc etc are constitutional monarchies. The United States, the Italy, the Republic of Ireland, France, etc are republics. It is that simple for the entire world, except Daeron. JtdIrL 01:47 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

What aren't you calling Australia a monarchy? How come you are saying "constitutional monarchy". Who has the real power in Australia, is that person elected or not? Australia can call itself a constitutional monarchy until its blue in the face but it sure looks like a republic. Why, Rome had an Emperor but it was a republic... In any case, a ceremonial head of state is ceremonial, Australia might be a monarchy at ceremonies and parties, but apparently it isn't a monarchy when it comes to governance and government. Susan Mason

Oh for crying out loud, Susan. See Constitutional monarchy, see Republic, get out a dictionary and learn your definitions. And no, a head of state is not just for ceremonial reasons, read Head of State. (And correct [anonymous person below] on Rome, on Australia, and yes this is not the page to discuss it.) JtdIrL 02:10 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Rome is generally considered to have ceased being a republic once the emperors appeared. The above is presumably mixing up republics with representational democracies - Australia is one of the latter, which is why it is functionally similar to various democratic republics, but not actually the former. In any case, this is not the page to discuss the matter on.

Well I guess the conversation is over as you were unable to refrain from being rude. Apparently you dont know enough about the topic to discuss it. Susan Mason The facts are on the pages if you want to read them. This is not the place, and I am too busy to spend my time going through the ABC of constitutional structures with you here. JtdIrL 02:21 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Do you see how insulting you are? Who do you think you are to talk that way? This is the place to discuss this, because you are saying another user is annoying because he disagrees with you. I am of the understanding that constitutional monarchy is just a fancy term for republics which retain the royal family as a "national mascot". Your depraved behavior indicates to me that you know I'm right and are too proud to discuss it, so instead you would rather hide behind some pretense of it being a waste of your time to discuss such "simple" material. Susan Mason

A constitutional monarchy is a democratic system of parliament government in which the post of head of state and usually though not always its functions and duties are fulfilled by a monarch, operating within the bounds of a constitutional parliamentary system. Hence 'constitutional' 'monarchy'. And no I am not complaining that he is disagreeing with me, he is disagreeing with the Encyclopædia Brittanica, World Book, the United Nations, The Commonwealth of Australia Act, the Australian government, the Republic Advisory Committee, the Australian Republican Movement, Buckingham Palace, all law textbooks, all law sourcebooks, the view of all academics, the Chief Justice of Australia, The Privy Council, former prime ministers (and republicans) Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, former governor-general Bill Hayden, etc etc etc all of whom say Australia is a constitutional monarchy not a republic. They may want it to be, but it isn't. The entire world says one thing. Daeron disagrees and vandalised sites on Wiki stating his ludicrous claim as fact until a number of us went to every site he made this claim and reverted. . . and reverted. . . and reverted 10 times til he stopped. So history lesson over. Bye Lir/Vera/Susan or whoever it is this time. Next time read the pages. JtdIrL 07:11 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Hey - stop it both of you. There is no reason to exchange insults. --mav

Aren't constitutional monarchies technically "representative democracies"? As I noted, if the head of state is a monarch but that position is only ceremonial, then how is it different from a republic? Susan Mason

End of pasted-in discussion Tannin 02:52 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchy is capitalised because it is a proper noun, referring to a formal definition. It is also written in lower case when using an indefinite article. But it is wrong to use it as halfcapitalised, ie Constitutional monarchy. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:51 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

In the main article I'm pretty sure the following is not accurate.

"the Queen cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence"

My understanding is that a British Monarch can only be prosecuted by Parliament and not by the judiciary. Since as head of state a British Monarch has supremacy over the judiciary.


 * There are many limitations regarding the Monarch, both as a person and as "The Crown" which should be in an article about the very important concept and area of law known as Crown immunity.Alex756 18:10, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

In Britain, it is my understanding that whilst Her Majesty reigns as Queen, she enjoys immunity from all prosecution. This is due to the Immunity acts, however at the same time, the Queen could not possibly be charged in her own name. British (and indeed Australian, Canadian etc.) Courts are called in the Queen's name, and the proceedings brought before the court by the state, or the Government, are brought in the Queen's name. It is a legal and constitutional problem, that in the event that the Queen had committed a crime, it would not be at all possible to have the case "The Queen V. The Queen". How could this legally work.

An example (or not so much an example of Her immunity, but rather of the courts inability to involve the Queen further than the calling of the court and the bringing of charges) would be a recent case in Britain involving a Butler (Burrell I think???) and the Prince of Wales. The moment it was suggested that Her Majesty may be called as a witness, the case was dismissed. You can suggest any consiracy theory you want, but the answer is simple. How can the Queen testify in her own court room? It would be quite simply not right!!!

If the Queen was guilty of a crime, then she would have to loose the throne (i.e. abdicate or be dethroned) to be prosecuted Once an ordinary member of the royal family - prosecution can occur (kind of like the fact that the Queen does not have a passport because it would be stupid for Her Majesty to seek permission for Queen Elizabeth the Second, or Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor to enter another nation).

As for legislation allowing parliament to prosecute the sovereing. I cannot confirm. I simply don't know. I would say it would be unlikely, given the maginitude of the Queen's position. Effectively in England, Her Majesty is the supreme leader and head of state, and nobody can stand in her way. She has the power to declare war or peace, free criminals, start or end treaties, annex or cede land and much more. It is only by unspoken convention - backed up by written articles such as the 1215 Magna Carta that provide for the Parliament. Considering the Queen has so much power, and the Magna Carta does not explicitly speak of prosecuting the Queen (Or King John, His heirs and successors - for which Her Majesty is one) through Parliament, I would be sceptical as to the powers enabling Westminster to prosecute the monarch, whilst she is the reigning Queen.

WRT Japan, I'm not sure that what is stated here is entirely correct. IIRC Sure, officially the emperor of Japan was the supreme ruler of the country. However, in practice the emperors didn't have much power of their own, and some other position ruled in their stead. So I get the impression that really nothing much has changed in japan in th last couple of centuries, unlike what is suggested here. (Which is certainly a USA point of view). Kim Bruning 14:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I cut this section out for a bit:

Constitutional monarchy: benefits & pitfalls
While monarchy is undemocratic, unlike an elected presidency, monarchists argue that it possesses two central features that rarely are to be found in presidents; they say that while presidents may see themselves in terms of a limited term of office, with them often being "retired" from other posts into the presidency, monarchy tends to involve a professional life-long commitment. The other often cited advantage is that monarchs do not represent specific political views, and that thay provide stability or act as a symbol of the state or nation. Republicans would argue however that presidents are not necessarily "retired" into the position, particularly if they are directly elected. Furthermore republicans often question the relevance and the "dedication" of the monarch. The very fact that it is lifelong does mean that an experienced monarch has a wealth of knowledge that governments find invaluable, although of course most monarchs do not last that long, (see the reigns of the Kings of England 1901-1953). Figures like Elizabeth II or the late King Olav V are seen as possessing an almost encyclopedic knowledge of their state's recent history, knowing lessons learned through error by past governments that can be passed on to future governments. But while there are skilled monarchs, there have also been disastrously inept ones, or ones who showed poor judgment; Edward VIII in the United Kingdom, Victor Emmanuel III in Italy, Constantine II in Greece. It is a matter of opinion whether the benefits outweigh the risks, or vice versa. Although, of course, for republicans the key question is likely to be one of democratic principle.

This section appears to belong under *monarchy* instead. It definately has little to do with Constitutional Monarchy as far as I can tell. (In a constitutional monarchy, often power is in hands of the prime minister. The monarch is simply irrelevant to most political discussions) Kim Bruning 20:18, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Um, I think I got fooled by someone elses run-up, this paragraph was ok before. Well I'll leave this as it is for now, and someone else can re-factualise and reinsert it into the article. This is the sentence that caused me to remove the paragraph: "While monarchy is undemocratic, unlike an elected presidency,".

That's not quite correct. Kim Bruning 20:22, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nguyen Dynasty ?!?!
Since most people are not even aware of the Nguyen Dynasty (even most Vietnamese find them to be irrelevant) I have a feeling I know who added the preposterous notion that Nguyen Vietnam was a "constitutional monarchy", a notion which is completely absurd.

The first constitution of any kind which Vietnam had came after the last Nguyen emperor (a French and later Japanese puppet) abdicated in favor of President Ho Chi Minh. That was in 1945 when the new Democratic Republic of Vietnam adopted the first modern form of government in national history. The Nguyen Dynasty never had a constitution. For the brief period they reigned independently (about 1802 to 1883) they ruled as a traditional East Asian Confucian monarchy; that is, the Emperor ruled absolutely by virtue of holding the "Mandate of Heaven". This system could not tolerate a "constitution" and anything like one would have been totally and inherently opposed to the principles of the 'Kingly Way'.

A Vietnamese Emperor ruled absolutely or he did not rule at all. Furthermore, after 1883 the Nguyen kings were totally irrelevant figures anyway. Vietnam, and finally Laos and Cambodia, were all ruled from Paris as the French Union of Indochina. There was never a "constitutional monarchy" in Vietnam. The closest was the movement of Phan Boi Chau who talked about the idea for a while, but even he later became a republican. User:NguyenHue

Ó

Monarchies in Islamic States
Jordan, Morocco and Gulf States are presently in a kind of limbo. They cannot be classified for now as the absolute monarchies; however, they are conspiciously absent from the list of the constitutional monarchies (although pre-1979 Iran, which was quite similar politically to the aforementioned states, is cited presently in the article as an example of this kind).

I propose either to carry out such an inclusion or to consider creating a new sub-group for these states. Mapple 20:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but their position may be impossible to properly define. Constitutional states whose monarchs wield a power greater than their constitution gives them seem to fill the real-world gap between constitutional and absolute monarchies.  Perhaps the best option would be to add them to the constitutional list, but include comments on why their status is questionable.


 * After all, while pre-Revolution Iran, with its suspended legislature and secret police, is far closer to being a dictatorship than a truly limited, constitutional monarchy, most other Islamic kingdoms have been less directly repressive. Tiresias 09:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I plan to add a category named 'Present consitutional monarchies with authoritarian tendencies' (if someone can suggest something less verbose, you're welcome) and include in it Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lesotho, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Tonga and probably United Arab Emirates. Mapple 05:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Japan
I would have thought the case with Japan is quite straightforward. There is a monarch; the monarch is head of state; there is a constitution. I'm quite confused: how can there be a "debate"?


 * At least it is not straightforward; otherwise why do you think people in Japan are debating on this issue? For example, it is not completely accepted that the Emperor of Japan is the head of state. This is why there have been a movement within Liberal Democratic Party of Japan to change the wording of the Constitution to make the Emperor the head of the state. It seems that the vagueness of the status of the emperor is a kind of deliberate measure because after World War II, both Japan and the US didn't want to go to discuss the position of the Emperor in political context. In any rate, I can speculate but really can't answer why there is a controversy. -- Taku 08:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Removed bit about Hobbesian philosophy.
I removed the following from the end of the section entitled Monarchy.


 * He wrote a book called Leviathan arguing that an absolute state is the best form of government. Hobbes, contrary to popular wisdom, supported either absolute monarchy or an absolute democracy.  He did not only support an absolute monarch.  Hobbes said that all humans were naturally selfish and that to leave the state of chaos this selfishness created, they would agree to a social contract which prohibited acts against the person or property of another, and which would be enforced by an absolute sovereign.  (Most undergraduates confuse 'sovereign' with monarch.  This is not what Hobbes meant.)

It seemed like too much of a digression to me, and frankly, a little bit POV.

This is Stupid
Wow is this ever stupid Yes it is This is very studip you are dumb if you are reading this. O.K.

What does this mean
"During the sixteenth form of government."

-- Beardo 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

French absolute monarchy
I have to disagree with this article's assertion that the French monarchy's budget deficit was caused by the building of the Versailles Palace. My understanding is that it was caused largely by the tax-exempt status of nobles and clergy and by the expense of numerous wars with Britain. The system, not Louis himself, was to blame for the financial problems. Walton monarchist89 14:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Monarch as head of executive?
"the monarch either is the head of the executive branch or simply has a ceremonial role"

I'm frustrated by the absence of any example of a monarch as head of the executive. Can somebody add one?

The King of Jordan could be described as a head of the executive. His power is limited, but he plays an active constitutional role. Also, although it would be stretching definitions, you could possibly argue that the King of Bhutan belongs in this category; until recent years, he ruled as an absolute monarch, but he has now given stronger powers to Bhutan's national assembly, making him a semi-constitutional monarch, but retaining executive powers. Anyway, whether or not there are contemporary examples, there are certainly historical examples: Queen Anne in Great Britain was probably the best example. Her power was limited by the 1689 Bill of Rights, but, unlike her Hanoverian successors, she was an active head of government and presided over Cabinet meetings. The post of PM had not yet arisen. I will add some of this to the article. Walton monarchist89 13:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The King of Saudi Arabia (IIRC) fulfils a similar, if not more powerful role in the government of that country. I believe that the monarchy of Monaco also wields quite considerable power.Happy-melon 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Monaco would be a good example, as would Morocco and Liechtenstein, come to think of it. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy, and so doesn't belong under this heading (as the King of Saudi Arabia wields both executive and legislative power, not just executive). Walton monarchist89 12:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Very true, Walton monarchist89, I had forgotten that Saudi Arabia is of course not a constitutional monarchy at all. However, Monaco, Morocco and Liechtenstein are all good examples. Happy-melon 19:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Norway - a Constitutional monarchy?
According to Norwegian law, the king of norway can veto any law unutil the third government purposes the law. Theoretically, this seems to me as an absolute monarchy...

roy


 * No, Norway is not an absolute monarchy, for two reasons:
 * 1) Just because the King has the power to veto laws does not mean that he has absolute power. An absolute monarch governs alone and has the final say over all decisions of government. Norway, on the other hand, has an elected "Storting" (parliament), which shares power with the king. As such, it is a constitutional monarchy.
 * 2) The King does not, under normal circumstances, use his power to veto laws. This power exists in many other constitutional monarchies - such as Great Britain and Australia - but no British monarch has used it since 1707. I couldn't comment in detail on the history of Norway, but like most other modern constitutional monarchies, the power that is held de jure by the monarch is exercised de facto by the prime minister or cabinet, who are elected.

I hope this makes things clearer. See absolute monarchy and Norway for more detailed information. Walton monarchist89 09:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm not going to get involved in the debate which appears to be ongoing regarding the precise definition of "Constitutional Monarchy" and associated terms. I'll just say that, once said problems have been ironed out, the article itself needs a bit of work to make it more readable. For instance, the "popularity" subheading is vastly too long and contains material only loosely related to the heading. a reorganisation is needed, methinks. Happy-melon 21:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just passing by and this is not my "specialist" area, but I've added a NPOV-section tag to the paragraph in the "Popularity" section re: the Whitlam dismissal in 1975. This reads as highly POV. I'm not sure Wikipedia should be making bold statements of fact as to whom "the public" should "blame" for a political crisis. This is surely a matter of opinion! Valiantis 22:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, reading further there seem to be quite a few opinions being passed off as fact in this whole section. Valiantis 22:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Finding Citations to discuss different types of constitutional monarchy
There are no academic sources in this article on what the threshold between a constitutional monarchy where the monarch possesses actual executive power and actively participates in governance from an absolute monarchy, or what separates such a constitutional monarchy from a purely ceremonial one.

Neither the older term in this article, Executive Constitutional Monarchy, nor Semi-Constitutional Monarchy, have been backed up by citations yet. Rather than deleting the section on executive constitutional monarchy again, I think it would be prudent to search for those sources, make edits backed up by new citations, and rewrite that section. If this rewrite is too lengthy, it could be summarized and linked to a new page on the topic. There must be some political science literature on this subject. If an existing term has precedent in a political science journal article, it should be used over other terms. If no such term exists, literature on the subject would still exist, and if Wikipedia ultimately must give this concept a name because it is yet unnamed in academic sources, executive constitutional monarchy seems more sensible than "semi-constitutional" - ByronicPhoenix (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion.I feel a need for more reading on the distinction herein.

UAE
What about the UAE? It's (executive) constitutional per the main governance and monarchy maps. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)