Misplaced Pages

Talk:Constitutional monarchy

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Saddhiyama (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 7 May 2013 (→Qatar: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:08, 7 May 2013 by Saddhiyama (talk | contribs) (→Qatar: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconPolitics Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Hawaiian Debate

A signficant and long standing debate exists regarding the nature of the abolition of the Hawaiian monarchy. One point of view asserts that the the Hawaiian monarchy was corrupt and consequently collapsed while the other point of view asserts that the United States overthrew the monarchy. Regardless, I believe that this article should refrain from characterizing the abolition and rather state the time periods for the monarchy. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.61.154 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Oops, here's my signature tonite for this comment.99.117.61.154 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a complex issue, and like nearly all historical questions does not have one brief simple answer, rather it came about due to a number of distinct factors. There is abundant evidence that the Hawaiian monarchy was corrupt, but it is very rare that corruption alone is sufficient to bring down a government. It is certain that there were Americans involved in deposing the monarchy (that is to say Hawaiian residents of American origin) but as far as I know there is no reason to believe anyone in the the US government was involved in any official capacity, at least not until after the overthrow was an accomplished fact. But then again, backdoor deals are not uncommon in Washington diplomacy, and there is no way the USS Boston and the marines that landed could have acted under official orders unless Benjamin Harrison's government knew about it well in advance. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Types of "constitutional monarchies"

The article should emphasize the differences between the various examples "constitutional monarchies." On the one extreme, you have cases like Norway, where the monarchy has no official powers whatsoever. At the other extreme are cases like Bahrain, which is only nominally a "constitutional monarchy." The king appoints all the ministers, so it's really a de facto absolute monarchy. Then in the middle are cases like the UK, Canada, Australia, and other "Commonwealth Realms," where day to day governance is carried out by an elected parliament, but the monarch (or his/her governor) legally can, and on occasion actually does, over-ride the elected officials. -Helvetica (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That may truly be the case for many of these differences, but if it does get done, then it should also be backed up with sources clearly showing those 'extremes' and anything in-between since it might get challenged by some. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary monarchy redirects here?

But the term is not even mentioned in the article...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary Monarchy still redirects here. Parliamentary monarchy has been a stand alone article since it was altered from a redirect to this article in December 20012. However I think that this is a mistake. I have been looking at sources and have come to the conclusion that it is no better defined than is constitutional monarchy, and worse some reliable sources use it to define in in such a way as to completely contradict each other's definitions. See for example:
  • Orr, Campbell, ed. (2002), Queenship in Britain, 1660-1837: Royal Patronage, Court Culture, and Dynastic Politics (illustrated ed.), Manchester University Press, p. 3, ISBN 9780719057694 — Argues that Britain moved from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional democracy around 1832 when the monarchs powers were further limited.
  • Schmitt, Carl (2008) , Seitzer, Jeffrey (translator) (ed.), Constitutional Theory (illustrated ed.), Duke University Press, pp. 313–314, ISBN 9780822340119 {{citation}}: |editor-first= has generic name (help) — Argues that the German Empire was constitutional monarchy while a monarch with more limited powers such as France's constitution under Louis-Philippe 1830–1848 was a parliamentary monarchy.
I therefore propose that the page is again made into a redirect and that a footnote is added to this article explaining that non of these terms (constitutional monarchy, parliamentary monarchy, or crowned republic) have precise and universal definitions and that considerable overlap between the terms exists. -- PBS (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Qatar

Qatar is an emirate and as such belongs in the category of absolute monarchies (in which article it is currently listed). As there was no sources provided in the recent edits that supported a claim of it being a constitutional monarchy, I have reverted them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Categories: