Talk:Constitutional monarchy
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitutional monarchy Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Old AfD multi Template:WikiProject banner shell Template:Oxford spelling User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
UK Monarchy "Effectively Ceremonial" needs citation support
We have the satement: "Today, the role of the British monarch is by convention effectively ceremonial." But the reference cited is not a third party, it is the website of the royal family and appears out of date (2015). This statement should either be removed or supported by an evidence based reference. An argument against the monarchy being purely ceremonial would be the weekly, private audiences between the king and prime minister. If these are ceremonial why are they private? The palace website says the king advises and warns his ministers (https://www.royal.uk/audiences#:~:text=Political%20Audiences,his%20Prime%20Minister%20%2D%20when%20necessary.) This describes the role of the monarch as more like a consultant or lobbyist than "effectively ceremonial". But independent sources are needed.
RogerHyam (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Ceremonial versus Executive
This is such a strange paragraph:
- "Ceremonial and executive monarchy should not be confused with democratic and non-democratic monarchical systems. For example, in Liechtenstein and Monaco, the ruling monarchs wield significant executive power. However, while they are theoretically very powerful within their small states, they are not absolute monarchs and have very limited de facto power compared to the Islamic monarchs, which is why their countries are generally considered to be liberal democracies. For instance, when Hereditary Prince Alois of Liechtenstein threatened to veto a referendum to legalize abortion in 2011, it came as a surprise because the prince had not vetoed any law for over 30 years (in the end, this referendum failed to make it to a vote)."
Is the article really saying here that the difference between democratic and non-democratic monarchical systems is how often (or how rarely) the monarchy uses its power? lol Am I reading that correctly? Criticalthinker (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Template:Ping Why not? --95.24.62.201 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Contradiction in introductory paragraph
The first definition seems to describe a system where the monarch wields significant real power, but a few sentences later, 'a constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy' is described as having a largely 'ceremonial' role. This entails the paradoxical conclusion that a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch is not a constitutional monarchy. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)