Talk:Parliament Act 1911

Merger?
Much work has clearly gone into this article, but I wonder whether it's redundant to Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Does anyone else have an opinion on merging the two? Alkari (?), 3 December 2011, 02:35 UTC

Some reorganisation is probably desirable, but I think that there is probably enough material to justify an article for both of these Acts. James500 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believed that Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 was insufficent so I created this article (and a rather poorer Parliament Act 1949. From my perspective, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 did fine as a summary but details of the discussion process and context aren't particularly relevant whereas they are very important here. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Premature formality
This Act must be construed as one with the Parliament Act 1949. The two Acts may be cited together as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.

I'm familiar with the formal "must". Every RFC begins by defining "must" and "shall". Since I don't think the lead serves best to help civics students cram for their midterms, I suggest instead something along the following lines:

As legally ordained by (British?) statutory interpretation, British judiciary must construe this Act as one with the Parliament Act 1949.

As badly worded as that probably is, at least it addresses who (precisely) is governed by what (precisely), without invoking rolling thunder from on high in summoning up a baritone passive voice. &mdash; MaxEnt 21:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Parliament Act 1911"
OK, this is trivial, but why does the bolded title in the lede, and the one above the infobox, feature the definite article? Compare, for example, "Married Women's Property Act 1882". The legislation .gov.uk link doesn't support this wording of the title. Parliament Act 1949 is similar in all respects, but I know of no other. Harfarhs (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

H. H. Asquith's threat: clarification needed.
The article says the Act was passed with the assent of the monarch, George V, who agreed to carry out H. H. Asquith's threat to create enough new Liberal peers to overcome the then Conservative majority in the Lords. This is confusing. Did George V really enoble 400 (or so) Liberal peers? (which is what "carrying out Asquith's threat" seems to mean?) Or did the King give assent to avoid that happening? And did the King have authority to over-rule the Lords, who had clearly just voted down the Bill? --Red King (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks to me that the summary text is just poorly written. Could someone closer to the subject rewrite it so that it actually summarises this: "His successor, George V, was asked if he would be prepared to create sufficient peers, which he would only do if the matter arose.[6] This would have meant creating over 400 new Liberal peers.[15] The King, however, demanded that the bill would have to be rejected at least once by the Lords before his intervention.[13] Two amendments made by the Lords were rejected by the Commons, and opposition to the bill showed little sign of reducing. This led H.H. Asquith to declare the King's intention to overcome the majority in the House of Lords by creating sufficient new peers.[16] The bill was finally passed in the Lords by 131 votes to 114 votes, a majority of 17.[17] This reflected a large number of abstentions.[18]"


 * Thanks. --Red King (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"The Crown is as much Sovereign in the Courts as it is Sovereign in Parliament"
Both Queen Victoria and Edward VII, by construction, refused to sign the proposed Acts that were to become the 1911 Parliament Act, essentially on the grounds that the Act would be unconstitutional, which many believe was and still is, including the 1948 amendment. The liberal government had to wait until Edward had died in 1910. These facts contribute to the emerging notions that the perceived constitutional arrangements currently held to be true by Diciests and Parliamentary absolutists are mere opinion, no matter how much conventions and judicial precedents are held to be constitutionally forceful. A growing number of academics and constitutionalists are becoming Cokeists. The two Supreme Court judgements resulting from Miller v Government in 2017 and 2019, which few Parliamentary absolutists, junior lawyers and judiciary have yet to learnedly extrapolate meaning from, are about to become a Battle Royal in the defining issue of Boris Johnson's government if he follows through with his declared intention to clip the wings of the Courts. It would amount to the tyranny of arbitrary government if he did so, which is the central core purpose of the Glorious Revolution and Declaration of Rights 1688.

"The Crown is as much Sovereign in the Courts as it is Sovereign in Parliament" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.30.119 (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)