Talk: British monarchy
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
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 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 --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]]?
- 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]].
- 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)
