Talk:British monarchy

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

British monarchy is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Contents

1 Older Discussion 2 "Queen Elizabeth II withheld such consent" ... 3 Royal Prerogative 4 Monarcy in 21st Century 5 Request for outside input: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 6 is there any good reson for the queen of the United Kingdom to exist (except the name) 7 Bank of England GBP 5 image copyvio. 8 Revise this article 9 Charles II

Older Discussion

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

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

---

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

---

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

Good point --

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

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

---

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

---

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

Is this true? According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/60808.stm) the Bill was withdrawn on that date, though the government said that the Queen did not object to the change. As recently as last year the Govt. said it hadn't the time to change the succession law, according the the Grauniad (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,9061,727500,00.html) --rbrwr

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

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

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

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

JTD 20:14 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Who moved this to [[British monarch]]?

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

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

"Queen Elizabeth II withheld such consent" ...

In the Political Powers section.

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Royal Prerogative

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

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

I like this bit in particular...

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

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

David.

Monarcy in 21st Century

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

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

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

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

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

is there any good reson for the queen of the United Kingdom to exist (except the name)

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

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

- £72m in Jewels

- £7.1m worth of cars

- £3.6m in race horses

- a £102m stamp and medal collection

- £1m in furs

Is this the cost of a royal figurehead?

This informatin is from the very helpful website of the Socialist Party Leicesterand (http://members.tripod.com/~sp_leicester/archive_queen.htm) my figures are backed up by several back editons of the indipendent (http://www.independent.co.uk) p.s. before anyone asks I am British

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

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

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

Bank of England GBP 5 image copyvio.

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

Revise this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. They choose to be unprotected. If they wanted a constitution they could have one through parliament tomorrow. You are seriously overestimating the power of the monarch. A monarch cannot govern on their own. If they acted unilaterally, the government would resign, everyone else would refuse to form a government, and parliament at a stroke could abolish the monarchy. Any monarch who abused their power would be signing their own political death warrant. Don't misrespresent reality by blowing up unreasonable theories until they should something that in practice could never happen. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 21:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

I thought for a moment that you were trying to contribute to an objective article.Your comments reveal you want to turn it into a polemic for your political views. For a start the aristocracy doesn't run the civil service; the middle class do. Making such a demonstrably ludricrous claim suggests a somewhat shaky understanding of British politics on your part. Secondly, there is no evidence of the monarchy in any way undermining socialist governments; on the contrary ministers in the 1960s worked very closely with the Queen. You have a lose way with words and seem not to understand how British society actually works, who are its key influencers and who aren't. And a highly simplistic and frankly niave understanding of republicanism. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 22:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Actually it is 100% speculation. The days when the monarchy run, or can run, the UK are long over. If they were to step in any way out of line they'd lose their jobs almost straight away, something that would not have happened as easily earlier. Focusing on the monarchy as some sort of bogeyman is a complete red herring. If you want to change Britain, change the electoral system, change the class structure, change a whole host of things. But frankly the monarchy is a complete red herring to the debate and your argument. You are making a big deal out of nothing, whereas you should be tackling the system of government, overwhich the monarchy has damn all influence any more, and hasn't had in any real sense for well over a century. FearÉIREANN\^(talk) 22:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles II

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

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

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

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