Talk:Constitutional monarchy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitutional monarchy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 90 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 February 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

Qatar & Eswatini[edit]

Is Qatar really more constitutional than Eswatini? --37.144.246.117 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK Monarchy "Effectively Ceremonial" needs citation support[edit]

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 But the reference cited is not a third party, it is the website of the royal family and appears out of date (2015).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)[reply]

Ceremonial versus Executive[edit]

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)[reply]

@Criticalthinker: Why not? --95.24.62.201 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]