Editing Constitutional monarchy (section)

==History==

The oldest constitutional monarchy dating back to ancient times was that of the [[Hittites]]. They were an [[ancient Anatolian people]] that lived during the [[Bronze Age]] whose king had to share his authority with an assembly, called the ''[[Pankus|Panku]]'', which was the equivalent to a modern-day deliberative assembly or a legislature. Members of the ''Panku'' came from scattered noble families who worked as representatives of their subjects in an adjutant or subaltern federal-type landscape.<ref>{{citation |date=12 September 2008 |title=The Hittites |work=smie.co |url=http://www.smie.co/html/cultural_history/hittites/hittites_3.shtml |access-date=21 November 2015 |archive-date=20 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020063846/http://www.smie.co/html/cultural_history/hittites/hittites_3.shtml |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{better source needed|date=December 2015}}{{sfn|Akurgal|2001|p=118}}

According to [[Herodotus]], [[Demonax (lawmaker)|Demonax]] created a constitutional monarchy for King [[Battus III of Cyrene|Battus III]] the Lame, of [[Cyrene, Libya|Cyrene]], when [[Cyrenaica]] had become an unstable state, in about 548 BC.<ref name=Histories>{{cite book |title=The histories|author=Herodotus|translator=George Rawlinson|publisher=Penguin Random House|year=1997|url=https://files.romanroadsstatic.com/materials/herodotus.pdf|pages=304}}</ref>

=== Constitutional and absolute monarchy ===

====England, Scotland and the United Kingdom====

In the [[Kingdom of England]], the [[Glorious Revolution]] of 1688 furthered the constitutional monarchy, restricted by laws such as the [[Bill of Rights 1689]] and the [[Act of Settlement 1701]], although the first form of constitution was enacted with [[Magna Carta]] of 1215. At the same time, in [[Kingdom of Scotland|Scotland]], the [[Convention of Estates (1689)|Convention of Estates]] enacted the [[Claim of Right Act 1689]], which placed similar limits on the Scottish monarchy.

[[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]] was the last monarch to veto an Act of Parliament when, on 11 March 1708, she blocked the [[Scottish Militia Bill]]. However Hanoverian monarchs continued to selectively dictate government policies. For instance [[King George III]] constantly blocked [[Catholic Emancipation in Britain|Catholic Emancipation]], eventually precipitating the resignation of [[William Pitt the Younger]] as prime minister in 1801.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hague|first1=William|title=William Pitt the Younger|date=2004|publisher=HarperCollins|location=London|isbn=0007147198|pages=469–472|edition=1st}}</ref> The sovereign's influence on the choice of prime minister gradually declined over this period. [[William IV of the United Kingdom|King William IV]] was the last monarch to dismiss a prime minister, when in 1834 he removed [[Lord Melbourne]] as a result of Melbourne's choice of [[Lord John Russell, 1st Earl Russell|Lord John Russell]] as Leader of the House of Commons.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hurd|first1=Douglas|title=Robert Peel – a biography|date=2007|publisher=Weidenfeld & Nicolson|location=London|isbn=978-0297848448|pages=169–170|edition=1st}}</ref><ref name="Mitchell">{{cite book|last1=Mitchell|first1=L.G.|title=Lord Melbourne 1779–1848|date=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=0198205929|page=147|edition=}}</ref> [[Queen Victoria]] was the last monarch to exercise real personal power, but this diminished over the course of her reign. In 1839, she became the last sovereign to keep a prime minister in power against the will of Parliament when the [[Bedchamber crisis]] resulted in the retention of Lord Melbourne's administration.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Mitchell|first1=L.G.|title=Lord Melbourne 1779–1848|date=1997|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=0198205929|pages=241–242|edition=}}</ref> By the end of her reign, however, she could do nothing to block the unacceptable (to her) premierships of [[William Ewart Gladstone|William Gladstone]], although she still exercised power in appointments to the Cabinet. For example, in 1886 she vetoed Gladstone's choice of [[Hugh Childers]] as War Secretary in favour of [[Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Wilson|first1=John|title=CB - A life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman|url=https://archive.org/details/cblifeofsirhenry0000wils|url-access=registration|date=1973|publisher=Constable and Company Limited|location=London|isbn=009458950X|pages=[https://archive.org/details/cblifeofsirhenry0000wils/page/161 161–162]|edition=}}</ref>

Today, the role of the British monarch is by convention effectively ceremonial.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Parliament and Crown |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/parliament-crown/ |access-date=22 February 2024 |website=UK Parliament}}</ref> The [[British Parliament]] and the [[Government of the United Kingdom|Government]] – chiefly in the office of [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] – exercise their powers under [[Royal prerogative|"royal (or Crown) prerogative"]]: on behalf of the monarch and through powers still formally possessed by the monarch.{{sfn |Dunt|2015}}{{sfn|Parliamentary staff|2010}}

No person may accept significant public office without swearing an [[Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)|oath of allegiance to the King]].{{sfn|Sear|2001|page=3}} With few exceptions, the monarch is bound by [[Constitutional conventions of the United Kingdom|constitutional convention]] to act on the [[advice (constitutional)|advice]] of the government.

====Continental Europe====
Poland developed the first constitution for a monarchy in continental Europe, with the [[Constitution of 3 May 1791]]; it was the second single-document constitution in the world just after the first republican [[Constitution of the United States]]. Constitutional monarchy also occurred briefly in the early years of the [[French Revolution]], but much more widely afterwards. [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] is considered the first monarch proclaiming himself as an embodiment of the nation, rather than as a divinely appointed ruler; this interpretation of monarchy is germane to continental constitutional monarchies. German philosopher [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], in his work ''[[Elements of the Philosophy of Right]]'' (1820), gave the concept a philosophical justification that concurred with evolving contemporary political theory and the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] Christian view of natural law.{{sfn|Hegel|1991|p={{page needed|date=December 2015}} }} Hegel's forecast of a constitutional monarch with very limited powers whose function is to embody the national character and provide constitutional continuity in times of emergency was reflected in the development of constitutional monarchies in Europe and Japan.{{sfn|Hegel|1991|p={{page needed|date=December 2015}} }}

==== Executive monarchy versus ceremonial monarchy ==== <!-- Linked to by [[Fumimaro Konoe]] -->
{{More citations needed|section|date=September 2024}}
There exist at least two different types of constitutional monarchies in the modern world – executive and ceremonial.<ref name=":0">Ginsburg, Tom and Rodriguez, Daniel B. and Weingast, Barry R., The Functions of Constitutional Monarchy: Why Kings and Queens Survive in a World of Republics (21 May 2023). Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 23-29, U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 831, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4454620 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4454620</ref> In executive monarchies (also called ''semi-constitutional monarchies''), the monarch wields significant (though not [[Absolute monarchy|absolute]]) power. The monarchy under this system of government is a powerful political (and social) institution. By contrast, in ceremonial monarchies, the monarch holds little or no actual power or direct political influence, though they frequently still have a great deal of social and cultural influence.

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 [[Monarchy#Monarchies in the Muslim world|Islamic monarchs]], which is why their countries are generally considered to be [[liberal democracies]] and not undemocratic.<ref name=":0" /> For instance, when [[Hereditary Prince Alois]] of Liechtenstein threatened to veto a possible approval of a [[2011 Liechtenstein referendums|referendum to legalize abortion in 2011]], it came as a surprise because the prince had not vetoed any law for over 30 years<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 September 2011 |title=Liechtenstein prince threatens to veto referendum |url=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2011/09/08/liechtenstein-prince-threatens-to-veto-referendum/ |access-date=12 September 2024 |website=San Diego Union-Tribune |language=en-US}}</ref> (in the end, this was moot, as the proposal was not approved).

=== Modern constitutional monarchy ===
As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was head of the [[executive branch]] and quite a powerful figure even though their power was limited by the constitution and the elected parliament. Some of the framers of the U.S. Constitution may have envisioned the president as an elected constitutional monarch, as the term was then understood, following [[Baron de Montesquieu|Montesquieu's]] account of the separation of powers.{{sfn|Montesquieu|1924|p={{page needed|date=December 2015}} }}

The present-day concept of a constitutional monarchy developed in the United Kingdom, where they democratically elected parliaments, and their leader, the [[prime minister]], exercise power, with the monarchs having ceded power and remaining as a titular position. In many cases, the monarchs, while still at the very top of the political and social hierarchy, were given the status of "servants of the people" to reflect the new, egalitarian position. In the course of [[France]]'s [[July Monarchy]], [[Louis-Philippe I]] was styled "King of the French" rather than "King of France".

Following the [[unification of Germany]], [[Otto von Bismarck]] rejected the British model. In the constitutional monarchy established under the [[Constitution of the German Empire]] which Bismarck inspired, the [[Kaiser]] retained considerable actual executive power, while the [[Chancellor of Germany#Empire (1871–1918)|Imperial Chancellor]] needed no parliamentary vote of confidence and ruled solely by the imperial mandate. However, this model of constitutional monarchy was discredited and abolished following Germany's defeat in the [[First World War]]. Later, [[Kingdom of Italy under Fascism (1922–1943)|Fascist Italy]] could also be considered a constitutional monarchy, in that there was a [[King of Italy|king]] as the titular head of state while actual power was held by [[Benito Mussolini]] under a constitution. This eventually discredited the Italian monarchy and led to its abolition in 1946. After the [[Second World War]], surviving European monarchies almost invariably adopted some variant of the constitutional monarchy model originally developed in Britain.

Nowadays a [[parliamentary democracy]] that is a constitutional monarchy is considered to differ from one that is a [[republic]] only in detail rather than in substance. In both cases, the titular head of state{{snd}}monarch or president{{snd}}serves the traditional role of embodying and representing the nation, while the government is carried on by a cabinet composed predominantly of elected [[Member of Parliament|Members of Parliament]].

However, three important factors distinguish monarchies such as the [[United Kingdom]] from systems where greater power might otherwise rest with [[Parliament]]. These are:
* The [[royal prerogative]], under which the monarch may exercise power under certain very limited circumstances
* [[Sovereign immunity]], under which the monarch may ''do no wrong'' under the law because the [[responsible government]] is instead deemed accountable
* The immunity of the monarch from some taxation or restrictions on property use

Other privileges may be nominal or ceremonial (e.g., where the executive, judiciary, police or armed forces act on the authority of or owe [[allegiance]] to the Crown).

Today slightly more than a quarter of constitutional monarchies are [[Western Europe]]an countries, including the [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]], [[Monarchy of Spain|Spain]], the [[Monarchy of the Netherlands|Netherlands]], [[Monarchy of Belgium|Belgium]], [[Monarchy of Norway|Norway]], [[Monarchy of Denmark|Denmark]], [[Monarchy of Luxembourg|Luxembourg]], [[Monarchy of Monaco|Monaco]], [[Monarchy of Liechtenstein|Liechtenstein]] and [[Monarchy of Sweden|Sweden]]. However, the two most populous constitutional monarchies in the world are in Asia: [[Monarchy of Japan|Japan]] and [[Monarchy of Thailand|Thailand]]. In these countries, the [[prime minister]] holds the day-to-day powers of governance, while the monarch retains residual (but not always insignificant) powers. The powers of the monarch differ between countries. In Denmark and in Belgium, for example, the monarch formally appoints a representative to preside over the creation of a [[coalition government]] following a parliamentary election, while in Norway the King chairs special meetings of the [[Cabinet (government)|cabinet]].

In nearly all cases, the monarch is still the nominal chief executive, but is bound by convention to act on the advice of the Cabinet. However, a few monarchies (most notably [[Japan]] and [[Sweden]]) have amended their constitutions so that the monarch is no longer the nominal chief executive.

There are fifteen constitutional monarchies under King [[Charles III]], which are known as [[Commonwealth realm]]s.{{sfn|Royal Household staff|2015b}} Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the Monarch and his Governors-General in the Commonwealth realms hold significant "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded in times of extreme emergency or constitutional crises, usually to uphold parliamentary government. For example, during the [[1975 Australian constitutional crisis]], the Governor-General dismissed the Australian Prime Minister [[Gough Whitlam]]. The [[Australian Senate]] had threatened to block the Government's [[budget]] by refusing to pass the necessary appropriation bills. On 11 November 1975, Whitlam intended to call a half-Senate election to try to break the deadlock. When he sought the Governor-General's approval of the election, the Governor-General instead dismissed him as Prime Minister. Shortly after that, he installed leader of the opposition [[Malcolm Fraser]] in his place. Acting quickly before all parliamentarians became aware of the government change, Fraser and his allies secured passage of the appropriation bills, and the Governor-General dissolved Parliament for a [[double dissolution]] election. Fraser and his government were returned with a massive majority. This led to much speculation among Whitlam's supporters as to whether this use of the Governor-General's reserve powers was appropriate, and whether [[Republicanism in Australia|Australia should become a republic]]. Among supporters of constitutional monarchy, however, the event confirmed the monarchy's value as a source of checks and balances against elected politicians who might seek powers in excess of those conferred by the constitution, and ultimately as a safeguard against dictatorship.

In Thailand's constitutional monarchy, the monarch is recognized as the Head of State, Head of the Armed Forces, Upholder of the Buddhist Religion, and Defender of the Faith. The immediate former King, [[Bhumibol Adulyadej]], was the longest-reigning monarch in the world and in all of Thailand's history, before passing away on 13 October 2016.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Dewan|first1=Angela|title=Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej dies at 88|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/13/asia/thai-king-bhumibol-adulyadej-dies/index.html|website=CNN Regions+|date=13 October 2016 |publisher=|access-date=13 October 2016}}</ref> Bhumibol reigned through several political changes in the Thai government. He played an influential role in each incident, often acting as mediator between disputing political opponents. (See Bhumibol's role in [[Bhumibol Adulyadej#Role in Thai politics|Thai Politics]].) Among the powers retained by the Thai monarch under the constitution, [[Lèse majesté in Thailand|lèse majesté]] protects the image of the monarch and enables him to play a role in politics. It carries strict criminal penalties for violators. Generally, the Thai people were reverent of Bhumibol. Much of his social influence arose from this reverence and from the socioeconomic improvement efforts undertaken by the royal family.

In the United Kingdom, a frequent debate centres on when it is appropriate for a British monarch to act. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favour of a [[partisan (political)|partisan]] goal, while some [[political scientist]]s champion the idea of an "interventionist monarch" as a check against possible illegal action by politicians. For instance, the monarch of the United Kingdom can theoretically exercise an absolute veto over legislation by withholding royal assent. However, no monarch has done so since 1708, and it is widely believed that this and many of the monarch's other political powers are [[lapsed power]]s.