Talk:King-in-Parliament

Move to King-in-Parliament

Per the accession of Charles III. Augend (drop a line) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite

Given that the article was completely lacking in any sources, I undertook a thorough canvassing of the body of available reliable sources. I have rewritten the article with an attempt to summarize and reflect that body of sources. As will be obvious from the edits, not much of the previous content survives, as it either directly contradicted the sources or was not relevant to what they had to say.

Most of the edits should speak for themselves, but a few notes:

• I have made a particular effort to observe WP:ASPECT, reflecting the sources proportionately. In particular, I tried to highlight scholars such as Dicey and Jennings that are frequently cited as authoritative by other sources.
• I've included direct quotes more extensively than I normally would, but it is a technical subject and a lot turns on specific use of language.
• There is a need to keep the scope of this article distinct from Parliament, Parliament of the United Kingdom, and Westminster system. I have therefore limited the sourcing to ones that talk specifically and directly about the King/Queen/Crown-in-Parliament. This also helps avoid WP:OR.
• There is a significantly greater focus on the UK Parliament than other parliaments. That is reflective of how the term is used in the sources. There is a slight bias to Canadian sources based on what I have access to, but even those primarily use the phrase when talking about the UK Parliament.
• I tended to follow the sourcing in switching between King-in-Parliament and Queen-in-Parliament (partially to avoid anachronism), but wouldn't be opposed to sticking with the former throughout for consistency.--Trystan (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the effort you put in and for being Bold. Which also spurred a bought of editing on my part, which I did in small increments with explanations to allow you to more readily scroll through each one. Beyond general copy editing and adding sources the central thrust of my edits was to ensure it remained on topic, by which I mean to say on the topic of King in Parliament generally, and not specifically what constitutes this particularly aspect of the British System. Second, I restored certain sections that you had removed that I thought relevant, particularly as such wholesale removals and subsequent change of scope has had no consensus. In this regard, it largely revolves around a question of weight as well. trackratte (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The restoration of erroneous and unsourced material, the deletion of sourced material, and the additions of WP:OR sources that do not discuss the subject of the article are not, in my view, improvements to the article. Clearly the most fundamental issue is the definition of the term, which I have raised in a section below.--Trystan (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The point is incremental improvement through consensus, and as you say at the outset, you've effectively re-written the entire article. So, other contributors building off what you write, and putting certain pieces that have long-standing as the status-quo back in in some form, is entirely to be expected and is fact fundamental to the entire project. Particularly when the entire long-standing lede was removed wholesale, which is what defines the scope of the entire topic in the first place, and despite being bold, things of that nature generally should have had consensus to entirely delete or replace in the first place.

So, feel free to continue to engage in substantive arguments as to specific points as you bring up below, but I would suggest we be mindful of tone and that you do not own this article space, to have fun, and to remember everyone is on the same team. trackratte (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree we should focus on the substantive issues in a collegial manner. I think perhaps we have a significant difference in view on how much weight to accord unsourced content; in my view the onus in WP:V is the dominant policy, and such content should not be restored without reliable sources that support it. I will respond on the substantive issues in the section below.--Trystan (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition of King-in-Parliament

As noted above, the article had for a long time been totally lacking in sources and unsurprisingly contained several errors and original research. @Trackratte: has reverted to the lead to from the previous, unsourced version, restored other unsourced material, added sources that don't discuss King-in-Parliament at all, and deleted sourced material. I object to these changes.

Obviously the most fundamental question is defining what the King-in-Parliament is. The body of reliable sources is very consistent in defining the term as meaning the King, House of Lords, and House of Commons acting together as a composite body (that is, Parliament):

• Per Merriam-Webster's (reference deleted by Trackratte): "the collective legal entity composed of the British monarch and the two houses of parliament acting together that constitutes the supreme legislative authority of the United Kingdom"
• Per A.V. Dicey, "Parliament means, in the mouth of a lawyer (though the word has often a different sense in ordinary conversation), the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons; these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the 'King in Parliament,' and constitute Parliament."
• Per Ivor Jennings "a purely formal body consisting of the Queen sitting on her Throne with the Lords of Parliament sitting before her and the Commons standing at the Bar."
• Per [royal.gov.uk] (reference deleted by Trackratte): "The phrase 'Crown in Parliament' is used to describe the British legislature, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons."

The definition that has been reverted to, the Crown in its legislative role, does not align with the above definitions. (Rather, it aligns with what the sources describe as the pre-1689 Royalist view.) The House of Commons Library source added by Trackratte explcitly sets out the above defintion: "The 'King-in-Parliament' comprises the Monarch and the two Houses of Parliament". The Crown of Maples source does not provide a clear definition, other than to say that "The legislative function (Parliament/Legislature) is "The Queen in Parliament")..." The Twomey source also does not provide a definition. (It does refer Royal Assent being granted on behalf of the Queen in Parliament, but what the cited Federal Court decision actually says is "Symbolically, the grant of assent is the moment when the three constituent elements of Parliament—the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Crown—come together to create law; hence, it is the moment when the Queen is in Parliament.")

The sources establish the term as British in origin and primarily British in ongoing use, which should be reflected in the article per WP:ASPECT. Its use in other countries (primarily when referencing the original British conception) is not dispute, and was discussed in a proportional way in other recently deleted sources.

The version of the article reflective of the sources should be restored.--Trystan (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

First, as per BRD, I made changes which included restoring some portions of the article and did not simply revert your edits which are two different things, and second, the BRD process is one of finding consensus so an edit (or a revert) simply means that there isn't consensus and that discussion at the talk page is required. So, no need to panic. And as per WP:NOCON, "without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", so again, the Talk is to achieve consensus, and without consensus (in this case specific to the lead) then the status quo should remain in place until consensus is achieved. Again, this is a perfectly normal process and there's no need to panic.

Second, there is the idea of weight and WP:POV as well. This article isn't on the topic of British constitutional politics or the British parliament, and as such, while those may be perfectly valid sources for those specific UK articles, they are not the only sources for this far more general topic here. So, yes, the definition of the British parliament is as you describe, but that is not the definition of "King in Parliament".

For example, Crown of Maples states that "The Parliament of Canada consists of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons" and that "The branch of government that makes the laws — Parliament [is] referred to as 'The Queen in Parliament'”. The New Zealand parliament page states that parliament is made up of "The Sovereign (represented in New Zealand by the Governor-General)" and "The House of Representatives". For [1] they state "The Parliament consists of two Houses (the Senate and the House of Representatives), and the King, represented in Australia by the Governor General". Also, here's a Canadian Supreme Court Decision speaking to the nuances of the "King in Parliament" (legislative) imposing its will upon the "Governor General in Council" (executive).

In any event, clearly the Westminster constitutional concept of King in Parliament applies equally to the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, and so it would be factually incorrect to state that the King in Parliament is defined as the King, House of Commons, and House of Lords, as it doesn't, for of course in Canada its the King, Senate, and House of Commons, and in Australia it is the King, Senate, and House of Representatives, and in New Zealand, the King and the House of Representatives.

So, clearly then the long-standing article status quo of defining the concept as effectively 'the monarch + one or more legislative houses = parliament', not specifically as only the British King, Lords, and Commons. trackratte (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The restored lead has a much more fundamental issue than whether the term is primarily British or not. Defining King-in-Parliament as being "the monarch in their legislative role, acting with the advice and consent of the parliament" is fundamentally at odds with the definitions in the body of reliable sources. The King, properly speaking, is part of Parliament. And King-in-Parliament refers to the entire composite body, not to the "monarch in their legislative role".

The article previously set out the historical Royalist-Parliamentarian debate in clearer terms, and that the latter has been the prevailing constitutional concept since 1689. The current version of the article leads with a definition that describes the old Royalist view. It downplays the Parliamentarian view as being merely that a composite body "was created"; as per the source cited, the Parliamentarian view is that the composite body is sovereign.

A sentence in the restored, unsourced fusion of powers section says that sovereignty is ultimately held by the monarch and merely delegated to elected officials; that view is antithetical to the concept of jointly held sovereignty, which is what the phrase King-in-Parliament fundamentally expresses.

As for the British focus, that is reflective of the body of sources. The concept has application in other Commonwealth realms, but not equal application, and that comes through in the canvassing of available definitions set out above (including an American dictionary). The NZ source you give doesn't use it at all, as far as I can see. Per WP:V, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:ASPECT, I don't think this article should be based on sources that don't actually discuss the term in question, and should give significantly more weight to secondary sources that substantively define and discuss the term and its history, as opposed to primary sources using the term in passing.--Trystan (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've revised the lead sentence to match the language of the sources as much as possible while keeping it jurisdiction-neutral. Because almost all of the sources available on this subject are jurisdiction-specific, I have added country specific subheadings for most of the content; that should allow more effectively summarizing the available sources while avoiding WP:SYNTH.--Trystan (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)