Editing Constitutional monarchy (section)

=== 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.