Talk:Speech from the throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

The Speech from the throne is written by the majority in the lower house of parliament in all cases? That seems unlikely.

That isn't entirely true; here in Canada, the Speech from the Throne is being written by the Conservative Party, which is 30 seats short of a majority. Perhaps it should be noted, instead, that the Speech from the Throne is generally written by the Cabinet.

Right...

Isn't it true that conservatives has become a majority gov't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.46.193.38 (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Effect of the Speech[edit]

Perhaps it should be noted that here in Canada (as is quite probably the case in the United Kingdom), the House of Commons must pass a motion to give an address to the Queen (or the Governor General) in response to the speech and that, theoretically, a government can be defeated (thereby dissolving the House or forcing resignation) if the House negatives the motion.

Who opened the UK parliament when the Queen could not?[edit]

There's a reference on the official royal website (as of April 2006 at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4830.asp ) to the fact that she didnt open the UK Parliament in 1959 or 1963 due to being pregnant. Who took her place?

In those years Parliament was opened by Commission: the Lord Chancellor read the Queen's speech. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This was necessary as well, because the heir-apparent (Prince Charles) was a minor (ages 11 & 15). Today, Charles would open Parliament in the Queen's absence. If anyone can find a reliable source, it should be added to the article. GoodDay 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2006[edit]

We need a more up to date photo; how about the 2006 opening of Parliament. GoodDay 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple of photos of the most recent Speech from the Throne, from the Governor General's site: [1] and [2]. --thirty-seven 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's cool, do you have any of the British speech from the throne (2006)? GoodDay 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Queen's Speech[edit]

I have never, ever heard the Queen's Speech referred to as the "Speech from the Throne", yet "Queen's Speech" redirects here. Unless we get an official citation that "Speech from the Throne" is the proper name of the Queen's Speech, then I suggest we re-name this article, or split it in two. TharkunColl 09:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Her speech is called the "Speech from the Throne" in Canada, at least. I don't know by what other names it's known in other countries. --G2bambino 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Canadian provinces[edit]

In Canada, the Constitution Act, 1867 was written in such a way that the Queen does not form a part of the provincial parliaments, only the pertinent Lieutenant Governor does

Is this true? Almost everything I read on WP about the division of the monarchy in Canada said that basically Canada is split into 11 Crown divisions, 1 federal and 10 provincial, so each province's Lieutenant-Governor is the direct representative of the Queen. That would seem to indicate that the Queen would have every right to read the Speech from the Throne in the provinces; I would suspect it just wouldn't be a fair use of her time... Anyone know anything about this, or know of any source which would justify this statement? It seems to me that the Queen has just as much of a place in provincial parliament as she would in federal parliament. Endasil 22:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I alwasy thought that was the case. The Queen could read a provincial throne speech. GoodDay 22:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There's some issue around whether or not the Queen can grant Royal Assent to provincial bills, but I've no idea about whether or not she can read a throne speech in a provincial legislature. She's addressed the Alberta legislature, but it technically wasn't a throne speech. --G2bambino 22:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content, we should not be using a copyrighted photo (like Image:EIIR-Canadian Parliament.jpg) when we have a free one, like the current Tweedsmuir photo. I don't see any special reason for why we need the Queen photo and I doubt it was pass a fair use rationale. If anything, it gives non-Canadians the impression the Queen gives Canadian throne speeches. Nonetheless, this is a legal issue. --Padraic 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off the photo clearly shows that the Queen does indeed give Canadian throne speeches. Just not that often. I think the photo is important to show that, on the odd occasion, the Queen herself can deliver the throne speech outside of the UK; she's done so in Jamaica, New Zealand, and Australia as well. I'm not sure, though, if the text of the article mentions anything about this though; if not, then it probably should. --G2bambino 17:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at WP:NFC: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." I think the encyclopedic purpose here is to illustrate a speech from the throne, not any specific one - right now we have two. If British monarchs have given speeches in all these countries, then find some free photos of it and I would love it. As it stands though, I think we should leave it out. --Padraic 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt you'd find any photos of a British monarch giving a throne speech outside of Britain. However, that image of a Canadian monarch giving the throne speech might serve to illustrate who can give a throne speech. For instance, it would be equally as interesting to see a photo here of whomever gave the British throne speech on the two occasions the present queen did not. --G2bambino 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Name change: Queen's Speech[edit]

I have never, ever heard the term "Speech from the Throne" used to refer to the Queen's Speech - and it is no doubt used in the Commonwealth simply because the Queen is not actually there. I suggest we therefore change the name of this article accordingly. On a basis of simple statistics, this is completely justified. The Queen has given 53 Queen's Speeches since the beginning of her reign in the UK, missing only two. Conversely, she has only ever, I believe, given two "Speeches from the Throne" in Canada, and a no doubt equally or even more paltry number elsewhere. TharkunColl 18:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

State Opening of Parliament says the British speech can be called the "speech from the Throne." Perhaps "Queen's speech" is merely an informal colloquialism. --G2bambino 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
We can't rely on another Wikipedia article to back up this one. It might be just as wrong, and is against Wikipedia policy. TharkunColl 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I was merely pointing out what it says on this subject. "Speech from the Throne" is more widespread, but I don't know whether or not "Queen's speech" is actually the proper title. --G2bambino 19:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If 'queen's speech' is an 'informal colloquialism', it is the most commonly used one, and wikipedia articles are always named after the term most often used, not the 'formal' one. I've never heard of TSFTT, mind you this is not the same as the queen's speech at Xmas, which I imagine is more well known, so we would need to differentiate them in any article called 'queen's speech'- unless we make it about all her speeches.Merkinsmum 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Most commonly used? Where? Certainly not here in Canada, nor in Australia, where it's called, in both the federal and provincial areas, the Speech From the Throne, or, more often, Throne Speech. --G2bambino 05:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in those countries, but in the UK it's most commonly known as the queen's speech. Most in the UK will not have heard of TSFTT, but will know it as the QS. I described what this is, speech in parliament etc, and my partner said 'That's the Queen's Speech, maybe it's called TSFTT in his mind, but QS is what it really is.' Maybe we could just insert a sentence to the effect that 'in the UK it is often known as the Queen's Speech' in this article? But I know Tharkie would probably not be happy with that.:) Really we are only deciding which of the 2 names we make into a redirect, but please no-one do it without consensus.Merkinsmum 18:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The parliament.uk website uses the term Queen's Speech consistently. On this page it quotes "The Most Gracious Speech from the Throne" which is the standard formula used in The Lords to open the debate on the Queen's Speech. But since this article is not simply about speeches made by the current British monarch, I am perfectly happy with "speech from the throne" as a title. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[::User talk:RHaworth|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 14:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Change wording[edit]

It's a constitutional convention that the monarch has to support and endorse the policies proposed by his or her ministers. So in reading the speech, the monarch does imply support of the policies. The monarch has no choice in the matter.

Roadrunner (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:House of Lords.jpg[edit]

The image Image:House of Lords.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth Republics[edit]

The Throne Speech as it's known in the UK is probably more of a Westminster thing rather than a monarchy thing. Commonwealth republics are probably very likely to have them as well, maybe with a different name. 118.90.121.65 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Likely a Presidential Address to the Congress. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Origins ?[edit]

Does anyone know when the first King's or Queen's Speech in its current sense was delivered to the Westminster parliament ? RGCorris (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Title should have capital-T Throne[edit]

I've never seen it in print without the T being capitalized, not in the phrasing given anyway; "Throne speech", lower-case "s", OK, but as a formal title of the speech it's a "proper name"/ title......Wiki lower-case-ism is a big problem to me, creating capitalization paradigms that aren't in the real world....this is just another instance of Wikipedia guidelines running roughshod over normal English-language conventions.Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

England was never an absolute monarchy.[edit]

I quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay's History of England, published by J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1878, Vol. I, beginning on page 22: "The old English government was one of a class of limited monarchies which sprang up in Western Europe during the middle ages, and which, notwithstanding many diversities, bore to one another a strong family likeness...

      Of these kindred constitutions the English was, from an early period, justly reputed the best.  The prerogatives of the sovereign were undoubtedly extensive...
      (We pass to page 23.)
      But his power, though ample, was limited by three great constitutional principles, so ancient that none can say when they began to exist, so potent that their natural development, continued through many generations, has produced the order of things under which we now live.
      First, the king could not legislate without the consent of his parliament.  Secondly, he could impose no taxes without the consent of his parliament.  Thirdly, he was bound to conduct the executive administration according to the laws of the land, and, if he broke those laws, his advisers and his agents were responsible.
      (We pass to page 24.)
      No English king has ever laid claim to the general legislative power.  The most violent and imperious Plantagenet never fancied himself competent to enact, without the consent of his great council, that a jury should consist of ten persons instead of twelve; that a widow's dower should be a fourth part instead of a third...
      That the king could not impose taxes without the consent of parliament is admitted to have been, from time immemorial, a fundamental law of England.  It was among the arti-
      (We pass to page 25.)

cles which John was compelled by the Barons to sign. Edward the First ventured to break through the rule; but, able, powerful, and popular as he was, he encountered an opposition to which he found it expedient to yield. He covenanted, accordingly, in express terms, for himself and his heirs, that they would never again levy any aid without the assent and good will of the estates of the realm. His powerful and victorious grandson attempted to violate this solemn compact; but the attempt was strenuously withstood...

      The principle that the King of England was bound to conduct the administration according to law, and that, if he did any thing against law, his advisers and agents were answerable, was established at a very early period, as the severe judgments pronounced and executed on many royal favorites sufficiently prove...
      (We pass to page 31.)
      The government of Henry the Seventh, of his son, and of his grandchildren, was, on the whole, more arbitrary than that of the Plantagenets...It was, however, impossible for the Tudors to carry oppression beyond a certain point; for they had no armed force, and they were surrounded by an armed people...They might safely be tyrants within the precincts of the court, but it was necessary for them to watch with constant anxiety the temper of the country.  Henry the Eighth, for example, encountered no opposition when he wished to send Buckingham and Surrey, Anne Boleyn and Lady Salisbury, to the scaffold.  But when, without the consent of parliament, he demanded of his subjects a contribution amounting to one sixth of their goods, he soon found it necessary to retract.  The cry of hundreds of thousands was, that they were English and not French, freemen and not slaves.  In Kent the royal commissioners fled for their lives.  In Suffolk four thousand men appeared in arms.  The king's lieutenants in 
      (We pass to page 32.)

that county vainly exerted themselves to raise an army. Those who did not join in the insurrection declared that they would not fight against their brethren in such a quarrel. Henry, proud and self-willed as he was, shrank, not without reason, from a conflict with the roused spirit of the nation. He had before his eyes the fate of his predecessors who had perished at Berkeley and Pomfret. He not only cancelled his illegal commissions; he not only granted a general pardon to all the malcontents; but he publicly and solemnly apologized for his infraction of the laws."

End quote. I think that establishes that the King of England was never an absolute monarch. James the Sixth and First held otherwise, but never put his theory to the test. Charles the First did, and his head was cut off in broad daylight. His successors profited by his example. I will now change the text. J S Ayer (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I corrected the false statement that England was an absolute monarchy in the sixteenth century, and it was reinstated with a claim that a change should be explained on the talk page, not in the comment line. I have therefore supplied more than adequate evidence that England was not an absolute monarchy in the sixteenth century, or for several centuries before. The false statement that England was an absolute monarchy in the sixteenth century was then reinserted without any attempt at justification. After that I can no longer assume good faith. The Reign of Elizabeth 1558–1603, by J. B. Black, part of The Oxford History of England, spends twenty pages (215–234) tracing the boundary between the authority of the monarch and that of parliament, which would be impossible if England were an absolute monarchy, and showing that England had a mixed government in the second half of the sixteenth century as in the first. I will therefore again correct the text. Any further falsification will be met by a request for arbitration. J S Ayer (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The statement is only false if you define absolute monarchy as being where the monarch has zero impediment to the exercise of his power. The meaning of "absolute monarchy" is not that strict, however.
Generally, constitutional monarchy is thought to have first emerged only with the Glorious Revolution. Prior to that, if there was no constitutional monarchy, what was there but absolute? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
What was the status of the English monarchy before the Glorius Revolution? What about before the Magna Carta? GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Miesianical has posed a false dichotomy. Our article Constitutional monarchy states a general agreement that England became a constitutional monarchy at the time of the Glorious Revolution, but remarks that it had nevertheless been a limited monarchy at least from the time of King John: Magna Carta, in a clause still in force, says, "NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right." It also provided that the king could not demand money of his subjects except for certain feudal dues (which were abolished, or bought out, when Charles II was restored to the English throne). The French kings' lettres de cachet imprisoned men without trial; Voltaire was twice subjected to this. The Russian tsars and emperors, too, taxed, imprisoned, and executed by decree. In England, the subjects both individually and collectively in Parliament had substantial rights that the king could not touch; England was a limited monarchy. J S Ayer (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question.
Also, please see WP:BRD and WP:OR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Speech from the throne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

People on the throne?[edit]

At the queen's speech 2016 Prince Charles and Camilia sit next to the Queen. The boys carry the tail and two persons hold a sword and a ???. But who are the both Ladys at the right side? Lastwebpage (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)