Talk:King–Byng affair

Simplify English

I thought I'd hear your opinions first, but the word "acquiesced" is rarely understood. I recommend using "accepted reluctantly". All4peace (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think 'acquiesce' best conveys the appropriate nuance and would argue that it is a fairly common word. Compared to other words used in the article, Wiktionary's Frequency List for Project Gutenberg has it in the neighborhood of 'mandate', and with much higher usage than 'debacle' or 'tenuous'. I support using the simpler of two equal choices, but don't think that is the case here.--Trystan (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

See Talk: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act regarding the concepts of "a unitary crown" and "a multiple crowns". G Colyer 13:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Kerr

"Most authorities believe Kerr's action was illegal..." Does anyone have a source for this "fact"? Sounds like POV to me. I'm removing it until one can be provided. --gbambino 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

King barking up the wrong tree?

Reading this, it seems that the affair had very little to do with Canada's position in the Empire and the situation could have just as easily occurred had Canada had a monarch or President of their own. In seeking a redefinition, was King just taking advantage of the affair to push through other changes that wouldn't have made a difference? Timrollpickering 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article needs elaboration

There's no mentioning of Prime Minister King resigning in portest of Byng's refusal to call an election (in 1926). Byng appointing Opposition Leader Arthur Meighen Prime Minister. The Meighen government being defeated by a non-cofidence vote and thus forcing the 1926 election (which King had called for earlier, but Byng refused). This article is lacking in details, If anyone could provide sources, please try an expand this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC) :Also, it should be added the reason the GG refused PM King's request fo an election. Due to a scandal, King's (in 1926) coalition goverment (Liberals-Progrressives) lost its Proggressives supporters & the Conservatives had the most seats in the House. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha, I see now. An anon had vandalised this article weeks ago, by deleting alot of material. Thanks for restoring the article folks. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New Ministers needed re-election??

At the moment, the article says,

"Byng then invited Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, who had been Prime Minister from 1920 to 1921, to form a government. Meighen did so, but made his ministers only "acting" ones; they were not sworn into office because the government still had to win a confidence vote in the House of Commons and under the laws of the time new ministers would have to seek re-election."

Is this true? What "laws of the time" are we talking about? AFAIK you never needed to be reelected (or newly elected) in order to be sworn as a Minister of the Crown. 99.254.23.75 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This law was abolished in 1938. It originated in Great Britain in the early 1700s and was duplicated in Canada. (In the UK it was modified in 1919 so it didn't apply for the first 9 months after a general election, then abolished in 1926.)

The law was that an MP who accepted an "office of profit" (usually a ministerial office although there were other posts within its scope) from the Crown had to get a fresh mandate to sit in the Commons. Originally this was an attempt to limit the influence of the Crown in the Commons but it lasted long after the Crown ceased to be a concern. The result in countries operating this system was that every MP entering at least the higher levels of government had to refight their constituency, although a lot were returned unopposed (but this still took a bit of time to process). The British Commons still has a vestige of this in that an MP can't resign but has to be appointed to a national office of profit to invalidate their current right to sit - see Resignation from the British House of Commons for details.

IIRC Meighen himself was formally appointed as Prime Minister and so automatically vacated his own seat for the by-election, thus depriving the Conservatives of one vote in the Commons until he was returned. Because the numbers in the Commons were so tight he deliberately tried to defer the temporary loss of other Conservative votes until the confidence motion was out of the way by the mechanism of making his Cabinet "acting ministers". Timrollpickering (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The snoozing Progressive

There's also anecdotal reports that one member of the Progressive Party was paired with an absent member of the government, and so was not supposed to vote. He dozed off, and when his name was called, he awoke abruptly and voted, bringing down the government.

By the way, another name for Progressive Parties of the time was United Farmers. The UF premier of Manitoba, John Bracken, was elected federal Conservative leader in December 1942, and at his request, the word Progressive was added to the party's name, which it carried for the next 63 years. GBC (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Vague

This article is very vague. There's no reference to specific dates in it. King-Byng wasn't some event several hundred years ago when documentation was spotty, it was only 80 years ago. This article should have specific dates referenced for each part of this historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.85.89 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008

{{sofixit}}. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Furious

Byng then invited Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, who had been Prime Minister from 1920 to 1921, to form a government. Meighen did so, but made his ministers only "acting" ones; they were not sworn into office because the government still had to win a confidence vote in the House of Commons and under the laws of the time new ministers would have to seek re-election. The Liberals were furious and were able to get the Progressives to join them in a drive to bring down the government.

It's not entirely clear to me what the Liberals and Progressives were furious about. Was it because Meighen did not apparently try to win a confidence vote? Or that the ministers didn't seek re-election? Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess it was because he was trying to bypass one of the laws of the time for political convenience. (Also it's possible some of the seats may have been Liberal targets in the by-elections but I couldn't say for sure.) In politics, people often get furious whenever one's political opponents start treating laws and constitutional conventions as optional extras (regardless of their own track record on this). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

King really went off on the deep end of this and tried to suggest Byng had staged some sort of coup d'etat. Yes, this was a ludicrous claim to make, but King was even by the (low) standards of politics an unusually petty, pompous man who was deeply into the occult and viewed his life as part of some cosmic battle between the forces of Good vs. Evil. For someone like that, King really took Byng's refusal of his request to dissolve Parliament personally. This article should really mention the great feud between King and Meighen, who really, really hated each other. For someone like King who consulted his crystal ball and Ouija board (seriously, I am not making this up) for advice about how best to defeat the cosmic forces of darkness he saw himself battling, to have General Byng refuse his advice and see his archenemy Meighen sworn in as Prime Minister, this could only be the result of something underhanded. As already been explained mentioned here, at the time, ministers had to run for election whenever they were sworn in, and since Meighen had a minority government, his Cabinet were all "acting" ministers, which King used to suggest that there was something improper going on here and this was a coup committed by the Governor-General. Byng did nothing illegal or unconstitutional and contrary to what King was trying to claim, the Governor-General is not obliged to follow the Prime Minister's advice to dissolve Parliament. The only reason why this becomes an "affair" was that King was a sore loser and turned it into a crisis. --A.S. Brown (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

King's Resignation

Did King resign because he believed he lost confidence of the house, or did he resign because the GG refused his request? I believe the latter, hence the tag. Knoper (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

George V of the United Kingdom

Because the King-Byng Affair took place before the 1931 Statues of Westminister? I've presented George V as King George V of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And it read as though he was a foreigner, when, as Canada was a British Dominion, he obviously was not. The territorial label is irrelevant to the sentence. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It didn't read as though he was a foreigner. Being as we're never going to agree. It's best we get input from others. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It did. Though Canada was a British Dominion then, Canada still wasn't the United Kingdom; so, "George V of the United Kingdom" reads as though he were of the UK, but not of Canada. Unless, that is, you go into further detail to explain how Canada was a Dominion of the British Empire under the sovereignty of the UK but still self-governing, blah, blah. Which would be ridiculous, given "of the United Kingdom" alone is already excessive in a simple set-up for the main subject of the sentence: Byng's words.

Even the "Dominion's monarch" part is superfluous. One wouldn't write "Prime Minister Erna Solberg met with Harald V of Norway". For someone who didn't know what country Solberg is prime minister of, such would read as though it were describing a meeting of two foreign leaders, Solberg being prime minister of some country other than Norway and it being bad writing to not say which. For those who know what country Solberg is prime minister of, the "of Norway" part would just seem pointless; bad writing again. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to let others weigh in. You & I, aren't going to agree on this. GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. You're only providing more proof of there being just two reasons behind your push of the words "United Kingdom" into more than a dozen articles over the last three weeks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear why we would emphasize his role as King of the United Kingdom when it is his role as King of the Dominion of Canada that is relevant. GoodDay, can you explain your reasoning further?

I agree that saying "the Dominion's monarch" is probably unnecessary, though sometimes redundancy is good. It can be better to err on the side of clarity.--Trystan (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to be unclear. But, there's also such a thing as going too far; lose sight of a tree by growing a forest around it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

My reason for describing George V as King of the United Kingdom, is because Lord Byng refused to contact the British Gov't & thus its monarch. He felt the situation was a Canadian matter, not a British matter. This appeared to be the spark, that led to the 1931 Westminister Statues. A result that no longer considered it to be the British monarch reigning over Canada, but rather the Canadian monarch' reinging over Canada. By describing George V as British monarch, we add gravatas to the pre-1931 situation. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

According to Levine, "Lord Byng reported the situation to King George v and Leo Amery." see Allan Levine (2011). King: William Lyon Mackenzie King. p. 158. Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, he did contact George V - my mistake. IMHO, because this constitutional event occured before the Statues of Westminister. The monarch should be described as the British monarch, instead of creating an impression of Canadian monarch by excluding any country. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think "the Dominion's monarch, King George V, whom he represented in Canada as governor general" does a very thorough job of conveying the relevant facts to the reader. George V was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas; referring to him only as King of the United Kingdom would be unhelpful in this context.--Trystan (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well then, let's go with "King George V of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions". GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am really late to this, but honestly, that is really pedantic for no good reason. Like it or not George V was also Canada's monarch, so trying to pass him off as a foreign head of state is POV pushing. Resolute 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it's because he was a British monarch, there was reluctance to have him involved with the situation. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that is properly explained in context. Pretending that George V was not also Canada's monarch does not improve the article. Resolute 20:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As it's pre-1931, he was the British monarch reigning over Canada. But, I'll let things go as they are, as I'm the only one arguing for the usage. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The King-Byng Thing

I can't find any reliable references to this alternate name that loads. Microsoft Bing (ha!) comes up with https://nationalpost.com/opinion/allan-levine-that-king-byng-thing but it won't load, and everything else is Reddit, other wikis or personal webpages. Additionally, it sounds like a jokey reference to a catchphrase from Bing (TV series) so I suspected vandalism and have boldly removed it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)