1-20 of 110 results for subject:Monarchy
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.254 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Monarchy
- We searched for
- subject_t:Monarchy OR subject_t:Crown OR subject_ses:92062
Year
X
2008
Type
-
Early day motions (3)
+
Members' contributions (100)
-
Business questions (1)
-
Oral answers to questions (10)
-
Oral questions (12)
-
Proceeding contributions (78)
+
Parliamentary committees (2)
-
Select Committee reports (1)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (1)
+
Parliamentary papers (2)
-
Command papers (1)
-
House of Commons papers (1)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (1)
+
Debates (1)
+
Legislative debates (1)
-
Debates on bills (1)
+
Parliamentary questions (17)
-
Business questions (1)
-
Oral questions (12)
-
Written questions (4)
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
Type
Select Committee reports (Government responses);
Command papers
Author
Ministry of Justice
Laid on
18 December 2008
Subjects
Costs; Common law; Equality; Public appointments; Public service; Lord-Lieutenants; Monarchy; High sheriffs; Justice Committee
Date
18 December 2008
Reference
Cm 7503
House
House of Lords; House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 27 October 2008, Official Report, column 750W, on religion: discrimination, whether the Government plan to produce a consultation document on the law of succession.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 27 October 2008, Official Report, column 750W, on religion: discrimination, whether the Government plan to produce a consultation document on the law of succession.
Asked by
Adam Price
(Plaid Cymru)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
4 November 2008
For answer on
10 November 2008
Answered on
10 November 2008
The Government have no current plans to produce a consultation on the law of succession in respect of the monarchy.To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. We are prepared to consider the arguments in this complex area but have no immediate plans to legislate.
Subjects
Monarchy; Succession
Date
10 November 2008
Reference
482 c874W; 234377
House
House of Commons
My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.
My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Taverne
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Whether they plan to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1687
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, has my noble friend noted the penetrating observation of his distinguished colleague in the Government, Mr Phil Woolas, that, once you introduce elections to the second Chamber, you are inevitably on the way to disestablishment of the Church of England? Is what his ministerial colleague rightly said about the Church of England not equally true of the monarchy? Is it not therefore time for the Front Benches of the three main political parties frankly to acknowledge the secularist and republican implications of their present schemes for reform of the second Chamber?
My Lords, has my noble friend noted the penetrating observation of his distinguished colleague in the Government, Mr Phil Woolas, that, once you introduce elections to the second Chamber, you are inevitably on the way to disestablishment of the Church of England? Is what his ministerial colleague rightly said about the Church of England not equally true of the monarchy? Is it not therefore time for the Front Benches of the three main political parties frankly to acknowledge the secularist and republican implications of their present schemes for reform of the second Chamber?
Asked by
Lord Howarth of Newport
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
30 October 2008
My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as the House does that the White Paper included options for both a 100 per cent- and an 80 per cent-elected second Chamber. If there is an appointed element, places for bishops will of course be retained, but if the size of the House is reduced it would be logical for reserved places for bishops to be reduced proportionately. I should add that, as now, the number of bishops would not count towards those appointed by the Appointments Commission.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1688
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, would my noble friend accept the simple proposition that the monarchy should embrace the values of our society? Those values include not discriminating against women and not discriminating against one particular religion. Are those two arguments not sufficient to justify having another look at the issue?
My Lords, would my noble friend accept the simple proposition that the monarchy should embrace the values of our society? Those values include not discriminating against women and not discriminating against one particular religion. Are those two arguments not sufficient to justify having another look at the issue?
Asked by
Lord Dubs
(Labour)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
30 October 2008
My Lords, I recall the noble Lord moving the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill just before the 2005 general election. Indeed, in preparation for this Question, I read his speech. Of course, these are issues of great importance, but the solving of them is much more complex than it looks at first instance, and, frankly, they are not a priority for us at present.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1689
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, do the Government agree that, before we joined the European Union, the monarch acted on the advice of Ministers, which was purely the product of our former system of representative parliamentary democracy, in which Parliament was supreme under the Crown? Do the Government accept, now that a majority of our national law is made in Brussels—to the exclusion of this Parliament—that this is no longer so? Do the Government not agree that this is a huge change on which the British people should be consulted?
My Lords, do the Government agree that, before we joined the European Union, the monarch acted on the advice of Ministers, which was purely the product of our former system of representative parliamentary democracy, in which Parliament was supreme under the Crown? Do the Government accept, now that a majority of our national law is made in Brussels—to the exclusion of this Parliament—that this is no longer so? Do the Government not agree that this is a huge change on which the British people should be consulted?
Asked by
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
(UK Independence Party)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
30 October 2008
My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that I do not agree at all—not in any way. I remember that he was concerned, when we passed the Lisbon treaty Bill, that somehow the constitutional monarch’s role would be altered. He was told then, and I tell him now, that it would not be altered in any way.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1689
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, is it not a blatant discourtesy to Her Majesty and a disservice to our constitutional monarchy to describe the ministerial power, not least to make war without debate or vote, as the ““royal prerogative””? Should not this piece of tattered absolutism now be universally identified as the ““Prime Ministerial presumption””?
My Lords, is it not a blatant discourtesy to Her Majesty and a disservice to our constitutional monarchy to describe the ministerial power, not least to make war without debate or vote, as the ““royal prerogative””? Should not this piece of tattered absolutism now be universally identified as the ““Prime Ministerial presumption””?
Asked by
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
30 October 2008
My Lords, we debate important matters of national interest in this House, day in and day out. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who I know is an expert in this field. However, I do not think that this is an immediate issue for the nation.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1689
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, does the Minister agree that these issues about the monarchy are best left for another reign? Would it not be curmudgeonly for this House and, most of all, for the responsible Government to raise questions about the monarchy when we have the most constitutional and Christian monarch in our history?
My Lords, does the Minister agree that these issues about the monarchy are best left for another reign? Would it not be curmudgeonly for this House and, most of all, for the responsible Government to raise questions about the monarchy when we have the most constitutional and Christian monarch in our history?
Asked by
Lord St John of Fawsley
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
30 October 2008
My Lords, the Government are not raising any issue about the constitutional monarchy. My first answer could hardly have been shorter or clearer. I appreciate the great work that the noble Lord has done in this area and his expertise in it.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1688-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, since there is discussion about restrictions on the religion and gender of potential successors to the throne, would this not be an appropriate moment to look at the role of the constitutional monarchy? For instance, does the Minister not agree that it would be quite incompatible with the principle of constitutional monarchy were a potential successor to the throne to make highly controversial statements about science policy on medicine or agriculture—not that any member of the Royal Family would dream of doing any such thing?
My Lords, since there is discussion about restrictions on the religion and gender of potential successors to the throne, would this not be an appropriate moment to look at the role of the constitutional monarchy? For instance, does the Minister not agree that it would be quite incompatible with the principle of constitutional monarchy were a potential successor to the throne to make highly controversial statements about science policy on medicine or agriculture—not that any member of the Royal Family would dream of doing any such thing?
Asked by
Lord Taverne
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
30 October 2008
My Lords, I repeat myself: the Government believe that the national interest and desire are for the country to remain a constitutional monarchy in its present form. Her Majesty the Queen acts as a focus for national identity and unity. Frankly, although political parties change constantly, Her Majesty provides a sense of continuity and stability in times of political and social change.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1688
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I repeat myself: the Government believe that the national interest and desire are for the country to remain a constitutional monarchy in its present form. Her Majesty the Queen acts as a focus for national identity and unity. Frankly, although political parties change constantly, Her Majesty provides a sense of continuity and stability in times of political and social change.
My Lords, I repeat myself: the Government believe that the national interest and desire are for the country to remain a constitutional monarchy in its present form. Her Majesty the Queen acts as a focus for national identity and unity. Frankly, although political parties change constantly, Her Majesty provides a sense of continuity and stability in times of political and social change.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Taverne
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, since there is discussion about restrictions on the religion and gender of potential successors to the throne, would this not be an appropriate moment to look at the role of the constitutional monarchy? For instance, does the Minister not agree that it would be quite incompatible with the principle of constitutional monarchy were a potential successor to the throne to make highly controversial statements about science policy on medicine or agriculture—not that any member of the Royal Family would dream of doing any such thing?
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1688
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, we debate important matters of national interest in this House, day in and day out. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who I know is an expert in this field. However, I do not think that this is an immediate issue for the nation.
My Lords, we debate important matters of national interest in this House, day in and day out. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, who I know is an expert in this field. However, I do not think that this is an immediate issue for the nation.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is it not a blatant discourtesy to Her Majesty and a disservice to our constitutional monarchy to describe the ministerial power, not least to make war without debate or vote, as the ““royal prerogative””? Should not this piece of tattered absolutism now be universally identified as the ““Prime Ministerial presumption””?
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1689
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as the House does that the White Paper included options for both a 100 per cent- and an 80 per cent-elected second Chamber. If there is an appointed element, places for bishops will of course be retained, but if the size of the House is reduced it would be logical for reserved places for bishops to be reduced proportionately. I should add that, as now, the number of bishops would not count towards those appointed by the Appointments Commission.
My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as the House does that the White Paper included options for both a 100 per cent- and an 80 per cent-elected second Chamber. If there is an appointed element, places for bishops will of course be retained, but if the size of the House is reduced it would be logical for reserved places for bishops to be reduced proportionately. I should add that, as now, the number of bishops would not count towards those appointed by the Appointments Commission.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Howarth of Newport
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, has my noble friend noted the penetrating observation of his distinguished colleague in the Government, Mr Phil Woolas, that, once you introduce elections to the second Chamber, you are inevitably on the way to disestablishment of the Church of England? Is what his ministerial colleague rightly said about the Church of England not equally true of the monarchy? Is it not therefore time for the Front Benches of the three main political parties frankly to acknowledge the secularist and republican implications of their present schemes for reform of the second Chamber?
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1688
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the Government are not raising any issue about the constitutional monarchy. My first answer could hardly have been shorter or clearer. I appreciate the great work that the noble Lord has done in this area and his expertise in it.
My Lords, the Government are not raising any issue about the constitutional monarchy. My first answer could hardly have been shorter or clearer. I appreciate the great work that the noble Lord has done in this area and his expertise in it.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord St John of Fawsley
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, does the Minister agree that these issues about the monarchy are best left for another reign? Would it not be curmudgeonly for this House and, most of all, for the responsible Government to raise questions about the monarchy when we have the most constitutional and Christian monarch in our history?
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1688-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that I do not agree at all—not in any way. I remember that he was concerned, when we passed the Lisbon treaty Bill, that somehow the constitutional monarch’s role would be altered. He was told then, and I tell him now, that it would not be altered in any way.
My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that I do not agree at all—not in any way. I remember that he was concerned, when we passed the Lisbon treaty Bill, that somehow the constitutional monarch’s role would be altered. He was told then, and I tell him now, that it would not be altered in any way.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
(UK Independence Party)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, do the Government agree that, before we joined the European Union, the monarch acted on the advice of Ministers, which was purely the product of our former system of representative parliamentary democracy, in which Parliament was supreme under the Crown? Do the Government accept, now that a majority of our national law is made in Brussels—to the exclusion of this Parliament—that this is no longer so? Do the Government not agree that this is a huge change on which the British people should be consulted?
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1689
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I recall the noble Lord moving the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill just before the 2005 general election. Indeed, in preparation for this Question, I read his speech. Of course, these are issues of great importance, but the solving of them is much more complex than it looks at first instance, and, frankly, they are not a priority for us at present.
My Lords, I recall the noble Lord moving the Second Reading of his Private Member’s Bill just before the 2005 general election. Indeed, in preparation for this Question, I read his speech. Of course, these are issues of great importance, but the solving of them is much more complex than it looks at first instance, and, frankly, they are not a priority for us at present.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Dubs
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, would my noble friend accept the simple proposition that the monarchy should embrace the values of our society? Those values include not discriminating against women and not discriminating against one particular religion. Are those two arguments not sufficient to justify having another look at the issue?
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1689
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they plan to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.
Whether they plan to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.
Asked by
Lord Taverne
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
30 October 2008
Answered on
30 October 2008
My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the constitutional role of the monarchy.
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
30 October 2008
Reference
704 c1687
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the Government plans to bring forward legislative proposals to remove the prohibition on Catholics or their spouses from succeeding to the throne.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether the Government plans to bring forward legislative proposals to remove the prohibition on Catholics or their spouses from succeeding to the throne.
Asked by
Adam Price
(Plaid Cymru)
Answered by
Jack Straw
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Justice
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
21 October 2008
For answer on
27 October 2008
Answered on
27 October 2008
To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. We are prepared to consider the arguments in this complex area but have no immediate plans to legislate.
Subjects
Catholicism; Monarchy; Succession
Date
27 October 2008
Reference
481 c750W; 230104
House
House of Commons
Type
Select Committee reports; House of Commons papers;
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Justice Committee
Subjects
Costs; Common law; Equality; Public appointments; Public service; Lord-Lieutenants; Monarchy; High sheriffs; Association of Lord Lieutenants; High Sheriffs' Association of England and Wales
Commons Library location
CS 710
Date
15 July 2008
Reference
HC 1001 2007-08
House
House of Commons
That this House extends its warmest congratulations on the occasion of the baptism of Albert Louis Phillip Edward Windsor as a Catholic; and notes that he is the first member of the Royal Family to be baptised a Catholic since 1688 and the so-called Glorious Revolution when James II was chased away from his Crown and country on account of the birth and baptism of his son the Old Pretender.
That this House extends its warmest congratulations on the occasion of the baptism of Albert Louis Phillip Edward Windsor as a Catholic; and notes that he is the first member of the Royal Family to be baptised a Catholic since 1688 and the so-called Glorious Revolution when James II was...
Primary sponsor
David Amess
(Conservative)
Type
Early day motions
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
24 June 2008
Reference
1866
House
House of Commons
That this House looks forward to the 2008 Trooping the Colour ceremony on 14th June to mark the Official Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; notes with pride that the flags of all the nations of the Commonwealth are already displayed in and around Horse Guards Parade in preparation for this great occasion; and calls on the Government to ensure that the flags of all Her Majesty's Realms and Territories are also flown in time for the ceremony, including Her Majesty's Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey and Her Majesty's Overseas Territories of Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Ocno Islands, St. Helena, Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
That this House looks forward to the 2008 Trooping the Colour ceremony on 14th June to mark the Official Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; notes with pride that the flags of all the nations of the Commonwealth are already displayed in and around Horse Guards Parade in preparation...
Primary sponsor
Andrew Rosindell
(Conservative)
Type
Early day motions
Subjects
Monarchy
Date
11 June 2008
Reference
1775
House
House of Commons