Humanities desk
< July 24	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 25[edit]

Becoming the UK PM[edit]

This is a serious question: no partisanship please.

I see that Boris Johnson's previous positions were Foreign Secretary since 2016 and Lord Mayor of London, as well as being an MP for a place in Greater London since 2015 and a place farther west from 2001 to 2008. Presumably your average MP doesn't become prominent enough to join the government after just one year in Parliament, regardless of seven years' prior service. And I see that the Lord Mayor is a ceremonial position in the City, doing things like presiding at banquets for various honourable companies of guildsmen. How does presiding over City ceremonies after a few years in Parliament make one prominent enough to assume a Great Office of State one year after returning to Parliament? Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer but a correction, which might be helpful. He was the Mayor of London and not the Lord Mayor of London. The latter position is ceremonial, the former is a political executive position in which he was elected twice, 2008 and 2012. --Sodacan (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He also has had a long career as a journalist in prominent Conservative-leaning newspapers and magazines (a correspondent and opinion-writer for The Times and The Daily Telegraph, and editor of The Spectator, and as well as appearing on and presenting Have I Got News for You. Plus he is very good at doing and saying things that get him noticed. All of which will have given him a lot of public exposure, and made him popular with conservatives and Conservatives (the latter being the only people who could vote for him to be PM). Iapetus (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some (no, I can't source this, I might be wrong) MPs have joined the government (by which we usually mean, "joined the Cabinet") very rapidly. It's rare: such positions are sought after and there's a queue for them, but we do sometimes have elections (normally when the government changes in something of a landslide) where a great many established MPs are replaced by those of the other party, and thus implicitly new to the job. Ministers have to come from somewhere though, and factional alignment within a Party is a big part of this. The UK also has a fairly large Cabinet, where some of the positions are relatively junior, yet still within "the Cabinet". So a new MP, a favourite of the leader, and especially if they have an established or specialist career beforehand, could become a Minister more quickly than a backbench slogger.

In Boris' case, he's now Prime Minister for one reason only: he was elected to be the leader of the tory party, who were the incumbent party. No more than that. We don't have a president, we don't elect a prime minister. We elect MPs, and the majority of MPs then conveys the party in control and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister (subject to the formality of an invitation from Her Majesty). This is how Theresa May got the job too, although she was confirmed in the role by a general election a year later.

The fact of Boris' selection to a shortlist of two being done by the MPs was one aspect of this (only Rory Stewart was really much different from the rest of them), and the final selection between those two being only a vote of 90,000 party members has rankled with the public. However that's more to do with the weakness of any opposition at present. Boris (a lot like Trump) wasn't the person most likely to be elected, merely the only one who hadn't become impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, the correction is very helpful. So he was more analogous to the mayor of New York City, a position prominent enough that one ran for US president in the 2000s, and definitely not like the caricature at right. Question: when junior MPs join the government under the situation described, are they frequently put into Great Offices of State, or is it more common that they'll be made the minister for things like "Digital, Culture, Media and Sport" or "Housing, Communities and Local Government"? Going straight to Foreign Secretary, without anything else first, seems exceptional unless you're really well known already. Also, clearly not the case here, but does it ever occur that the PM will try to get a "specialist" in a field to become a minister (somewhat like the US president picking a prominent economist for Secretary of the Treasury), and arrange for that person to win a by-election into Parliament? I vaguely remember reading about something of the sort happening in Canada (which didn't work out as the individual was defeated in the by-election) but have no idea if it happens in the UK. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confused by the initial question, one is "made prominent enough to assume" the office of Prime Minister by being elected leader of the controlling party in Commons, by convention the controlling party is free to choose their own leader through their own free election. There was a vote, Boris Johnson won it. That's how he is prominent enough. There is not any further qualification beyond that, you don't need to have previously held any particular job; the controlling party is entirely free to select anyone they want for the job; who the Monarch will grant royal assent to in a purely pro forma way. Technically, one doesn't even need to have a seat in Commons at the time (see Alec Douglas-Home for one time when this happened). --Jayron 32 14:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Major became prime minister after only two years in the Cabinet and just a few months holding senior ministerial positions. Alansplodge (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the initial question, I was asking about becoming Foreign Secretary, not becoming PM: going from Foreign Secretary to PM seems reasonable, but going from presiding at banquets (per my misunderstanding of the mayoralty) to heading the Foreign Office is a huge jump with nothing intervening but two years of backbenching. (If I'd been asking about PM, I would have said "assume a Great Office of State three years after returning to Parliament", not "...one year...") Presumably some random backbencher doesn't have a lot of chance at winning an election for party leader (you'd have to be well known to get votes in that election, I suppose, if nothing else because those participating wouldn't vote for someone they know nothing about), but of course they'd be quite familiar with the Foreign Secretary and would have opinions on whether he'd be a good party leader. How does one become a member of the government midway through its tenure, or how does one join a shadow government? Does the PM basically decide, and everyone else goes along with that choice? Nyttend backup (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when you titled your post "Becoming UK PM" I foolishly assumed you were asking how Boris Johnson became the UK PM. --Jayron 32 23:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, government posts are appointed by the Prime Minister, presumably on the advice of a few trusted advisers. That's what's been happening over the past couple of days since Johnson took office. The same goes for shadow Cabinet posts, which are appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. Edit: ah, I see you were asking about midway through a government. Cabinet reshuffles happen from time to time, sometimes because a minister has resigned for some reason or other, sometimes on the whim of the PM. In such a situation a backbench MP could become a minister. --Viennese Waltz 07:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, "Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature". It has no place in the appointment of a prime minister. The monarch formally invites the person elected as leader of the governing party to form a government, that's it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The outgoing PM usually suggests to the monarch as to who she should send for to form a government, the individual who in the outgoing PM's opinion would have the confidence of the House of Commons. She generally does so. Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, kindly note that you've repeatedly misunderstood situations and belittled users over the years; this isn't the first time you've given me a grossly inappropriate reaction. If you don't start performing proper reference interviews instead of going after users, it's tempting to request sanctions. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Jayron will be along to answer that, but in the meantime, it would be good if you could explain why you titled your question "Becoming the UK PM" if you were really asking about becoming Foreign Secretary. --Viennese Waltz 12:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As VW explained, in the title of your question, you indicated your interest in the process of "Becoming the UK PM". That is what I found confusing. I openly admit my mistake and apologize to you for misinterpreting your question. I was wrong, and for that I apologize. Also, I apologize that my tone in my first apology was condescending. I assure you I did not intend that, but reading it back a second time, it clearly is, and there's no one to blame for that but me. I apologize as well for that. If you really think I need sanctions, feel free to ask for them. I will not stop you.--Jayron 32 13:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Cameron and Tony Blair were both rather inexperienced when they were elected Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. William Pitt the Younger was *24* when King George the Mad started begging him to become Prime Minister. Sometimes experience doesn't really matter. --M @r ē ino 20:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Boris was already a household name before his elevation to high office, particularly through his appearances on a panel show called Have I Got News for You. This YouTube clip gives a flavour of his performances, in which he projects an image of an amiable buffoon, but one able to summon-up crowd-pleasing one-liners at pertinent moments. He is actually a lot cleverer than he makes out, having published a book called The Dream of Rome in 2006. I have a sneaking suspicion that part of his electoral success is due to people thinking it would be amusing to have a comedian in charge of the country. Alansplodge (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

quite a classical case of "he buffoon, he stupid, he not dangerous competitor" who actually proves all the opposite. I personally attended a conf featuring a prominent union leader with a reputation of utmost stupidity; his speech and, more importantly, the way he answered difficult question, proved he was a most clever man, and his reputation (consciously set up, by my guess) made his enemies underestimate him. It is just NOT possible to rise to such prominent position while being stupid, but tricking people into believing you are may help. Power games belong in The Weakest Link genre. Gem fr (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama went from state senator to running for president in less than two and a half years... Blythwood (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Princes and Princesses[edit]

Two weeks ago Philippe, King of the Belgians issued a royal decree outlining coats of arms for the Belgian royal family (12 JULI 2019. — Koninklijk besluit houdende vaststelling van het wapen van het Koninklijk Huis en van zijn leden). Article 1 is for his own arms, Article 2 for abdicated kings and queens regnant, Article 3 for the Dukes and Duchesses of Brabant, Article 4 for "Other Princes or Princesses of Belgium" and Article 5 for "the Princes or Princesses of Our Royal House". Who are these "Princes or Princesses of Our Royal House"? --Sodacan (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy_of_Belgium#Title has a little bit of this; they would be other descendants of the monarch of Belgium. Duke/Duchess of Brabant is a special title reserved for the heir apparent, currently Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant. Other children of Belgian monarchs are styled "Prince" or "Princess" and would include people like Philipe's other children (being Prince Gabriel of Belgium, Prince Emmanuel of Belgium, and Princess Eléonore of Belgium), as well as his siblings, their children, his father's siblings, their descendants, and so on. As noted at Monarchy_of_Belgium#Members_of_the_Belgian_royal_family by current law the title of "Prince" or "Princess" is limited to those "children and grandchildren of the monarch or of the monarch's heir", for example Philipe's nephew, Prince Amedeo of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este, grandson of Albert II of Belgium, bears the title. --Jayron 32 14:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Philippe King of the Belgians has four children. His elder daughter, Princess Elisabeth, is first in the line of succession. The decree can indicate the coats of arms also for future descendents. DroneB (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 and DroneB, is there anyone right now who is a Prince or Princess who is not also a child or grandchild of a monarch? The only person I can see who is not a child or grandchild of a monarch is Prince Amadeo's daughter and she's a archduchess, not a princess. Does that mean Article 5 currently doesn't have anyone who qualifies in it? Or if it does, who are they? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeo's daughter would be 3 generations removed from the monarch (her great-grandfather) and this is ineligible for the princely title under current law. In the past, the law had different qualifications, and I don't know if the current law un-titled anyone or whether it had a clause to allow those who would have been ineligible to maintain their titles. --Jayron 32 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so the king was thinking ahead? Sodacan (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? --Jayron 32 16:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As in currently no one currently qualifies as a Prince or Princess of the Royal House, but there will be individuals in this category one day? Sodacan (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I made it clear. There are MANY Prince and Princesses of the Royal House. Anyone who is the child or grandchild of one of the Monarchs of Belgium is a Prince or Princess of the Royal House. Including the Duchess of Brabant, there are 4 children of Philipe (I named them above). He also has numerous aunts/uncles, cousins, siblings, and niblings who ALSO Princes and Princess. See the article I linked to several times above, Monarchy_of_Belgium#Members_of_the_Belgian_royal_family has all of them listed, including a "Prince" or "Princess" by their name. If you prefer it in chart form, Family tree of Belgian monarchs is there too. --Jayron 32 16:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm... The royal decree makes a distinction between "Prince or Princess of Belgium" (Article 4) and "Prince or Princess of Our Royal House" (Article 5). Insofar as including a different coat of arms with appropriate cadency marks for either category (for male and females), creating 4 different coats of arms. I am still confused as to who falls into the latter category, or what exactly is the difference between them that requires them to have differing arms. --Sodacan (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm sorry, I was mistaken. I didn't catch the distinction. Perhaps the coat is for people who were disinherited of the title by the more restrictive recent law? I'm afraid I misunderstood the question, and have gone off on a wrong tangent. Sorry, I don't know the specific answer. The "Royal House" in this case is House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; maybe the arms were created for members of that house which were otherwise ineligible for the title Prince/Princess of Belgium. That'd be my best guess. --Jayron 32 16:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am stumped too. What I thought was that maybe this category of princes/princess is new and as such no one is therefore entitled to the coats of arms yet (I have uploaded my version of them nonetheless). The decree itself gives no clue on this distinction. The king was definitely thinking ahead, for example in Article 2 he created arms for a retired/abdicated kings/queens regnant. His father Albert II is currently entitled to this arms, and maybe one day himself and his daughter too. Sodacan (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British parliament procedure[edit]

Does the Parliament of the United Kingdom ever invite foreign ministers to address the parliament. For example, would the parliament ever invite the American ambassador to speak during a session? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does. This even is quite rare, however [1] Gem fr (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that a minister and an ambassador are two quite different things. Addresses by foreign ministers (politicians) may be rare, but I would have thought an address by an ambassador (a civil servant) would be unheard of. --Viennese Waltz 07:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer used, since states pretend that they're all equal, but the middle of the three diplomatic ranks is "minister". In that system, ministers are sent by countries that aren't important enough or friendly enough to send ambassadors, and they perform basically the same functions, although their workplaces are called "legations" rather than "embassies". Nyttend backup (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but note how it's like dealing with globlization induced false friends meanwhile. Politician, that's why the means of one like this (Foreign minister). It happens it seems when they want the media to comment on an overt and open communication. --Askedonty (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, parliament doesn't invite visiting politicians to address them, or at least the idea gets dropped to avoid a fuss. See Donald Trump will not address Parliament during state visit to the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WHAAOE. List of people who have addressed both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]