Talk:Elizabeth II

The statement "In none of these offices does she hold any formal political power." is not quite correct. At least in the UK, but also in Australia, there are some vestigial formal powers. As far as I recollect, the monarch in the UK invites a leader of a political party to form a governent, but she is not required to choose the party with the most seats. This discretion has yet to be misused, but remains as a formal power. In the case of Australia, unless it has changed without my noticing, the monarch appoints a Governor-General as her representative: presumably, s/he has a few roles to play and therefore has some limited powers.

Can we find someone who knows about constitutional issues to rephrase these things? Some Editors, maybe?--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:10, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I will check this, but my understanding is she has no power - she appoints people on the advice of the prime minister or other figure, i.e. effectively these posts are filled by the governments. It is true that no law says she has to pick the biggest party to form a government - because the UK constitution works by precedent and convention - but she arguably has no authority to do so since the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty in the 17th century. John Stephenson 23:00, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Further to this, I think the idea is that because parliament is supreme, the Sovereign is obligated to appoint whoever is most likely to command the support of the House of Commons - even if their party be in a minority. This happened with Harold Wilson in 1974. If she didn't appoint the PM with most support, parliament would be able to topple her choice through a no-confidence vote. Also, in the past it was technically possible for the Sovereign to sack a prime minister - apparently this last happened in the 1830s - but in practice it would be very unlikely to happen today, since there is so little precedent for it. The UK doesn't really work through laws written in stone; rather, there's a sort of collective expectation about what's 'the done thing'... John Stephenson 23:07, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

The problem is with the expression "formal political power". What you have described above is actual practice, but if the monarch chooses to part with recent precedent this departure would be lawful. In particular, the appointment of a prime minister is solely within the monarch's purview and in certain cases the evaluation of which party would command most support could be a subjective view. Even in other cases, the fact is that the monarch possesses "formal political power", however s/he should choose to exercise it. I suggest that you remove the phrase completely, and talk about the lack of a written constitution and reliance upon precedent, whilst formally and ceremonially the monarch has supreme political authority as Head of State.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:32, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

There is one relatively recent semi-precedent for the Queen sacking a PM: the little unpleasantness in Australia in 1975, when the Governor-General, wielding the Head of State's power but apparently without having consulted the Queen at all on the matter, sacked Gough Whitlam. As I recall from news reports at the time, when the Queen did find out about it, she deliberately kept well away from the whole issue, and the action was so unpopular that the Governor-General had to retire from public service. Bruce M.Tindall 16:46, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I think that does not apply in the UK [although I am not 100% sure]. The Oz incident is because the Governor General [representing the Queen] actually has more power there than the Queen does in the UK...--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:20, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Purpose of this article

Hi, regarding Martin's edit: ""...Nevertheless, there remain doubts in some quarters about specific discretions, such as choosing a prime minister, which are not necessarily constrained by precedent or constitutional limitations..." I don't object to the content, but I think we may be digressing here. Maybe such detail belongs on an article such as Monarchy of the United Kingdom or constitutional monarchy, as this article should really focus on Liz's life. John Stephenson 21:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

If you want to remove that part completely, that is fine by me. Perhaps when there is an actual article to refer to, such as Monarchy of the UK or const. monarchy you could link to them. My only complaint was that the summary was potentially misleading, and you can solve that by giving the detail as I did, or omitting it completely. If you feel it is irrelevant to the article, just remove it! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:56, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Christian

I deleted: "The Queen is known to be a practising Christian, regularly attending Anglican church services." This is obvious, because she's the head of the Anglican church. Indeed, if she were not, she couldn't be monarch. Perhaps an allusion to her Christianity can be added somewhere? John Stephenson 22:58, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Quick question: that's obvious to you and me--is it equally obvious to everyone? Lots of people in the secular world end up heading institutions they might not be otherwise be members of or part of. Still, if you think it is obvious, that's fine. Aleta Curry 19:43, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Hmm, it's like asking if the Pope has to be Catholic! If people can't work it out, then they won't find much use for an encyclopedia anyway.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:49, 13 November 2007 (CST)

No it isn't--stop picking on me!! The Pope has to be a priest, a priest has to be RC. The Queen's not a priest, and the head of the NY Yankees doesn't have to be a ball player. That's all I'm saying. "If people can't work it out.." oh, jeepers, Martin--like, if you're a royal watcher, you know how much people work out about them that's just wrong! Aleta Curry 20:03, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Not picking on you:-( How can anyone be the Head of a Church without belonging to that Church? It doesnt make sense! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:00, 14 November 2007 (CST)