Talk:Head of state/Archive 1

I read somewhere that Australia was considering asking other countries to give their governor-general the diplomatic precedence of a head of state. I wish I knew where, and how far this has progressed, because it would make a very good addition to this article. By the way I appreciate that a governor-general is not a head of state, but the idea that they might have the same diplomatic status seems intriguing. These nicities of diplomatic protocol seem hard to track down.

As a matter of fact the Governors-General of Commonwealth Realms (which include Australia) make and receive overseas visits as head of state and have done since the 1930s. The Queen represents the UK when making visits abroad, the Governor-General of Australia represents Australia. Both receive the same salutes, honours etc. Pete 01:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Queen sometimes represents Her other realms when abroad. For instance, I recall that during a Royal visit to the USA the banquest for the Americans was held at the Canadian Embassy not the UK embassy.

On a COMPLETELY different note... "As the above quote by Charles DeGaulle indicates, " Maybe I'm being stupid, but does anyone know what quote that refers to? Has it maybe gotten lost over the revisions?

It is in the start of the article. When academic and encyclopædic texts, above does not mean directly above; it means an earlier part of the text, whether 1 line or 100 lines earlier makes no difference. FearÉIREANN 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When writing generically about governor-generals, the office is not capitalised, when writing about a specific office of governor-general, or whether national or in a supra-national context, in British English is it capitalised. Only in American english and in Manuals of Style that follow AE is it lowercased. The article is written in British english and under wiki rules something written in BE is left in BE and follows BE style. FearÉIREANN 22:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following which is factually incorrect:

It should be noted that - as with translations from one language to another - one cannot make a direct equivalent from one system to another (e.g. people from countries with a republican orientation are wont to suppose that monarchs hold an "office", by analogy with the position of heads of state in republics). Nevertheless, a certain de facto equivalence is imposed by the necessity of interaction of differing states, tending to cause different systems to converge to some extent.

A head of state's position is an office, often called an office of state. In a republic, an elected/selected officer exercises the office. In a monarchy, the functions of the office are fulfilled by the monarch, along with other functions in other areas unique to monarchies. Queen Elizabeth, for example, fulfils HoS office functions when using constitutional powers, functions and duties, roles which the British Parliament by Act of Parliament could give to another official, (Speaker, Prime Minister, Prince Regent, etc). 'Monarchy' and 'head of state' are not the same. A monarchy is provides a means by which the head of state office functions are exercised in a particular constitution. One should not call monarchy an office because it isn't. But the monarch as head of state fills an office of state, a subtle but important difference. FearÉIREANN 20:35, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is a picture which is captioned "The Federal Council of Switzerland The seven-member collective Head of State of Switzerland." The picture shows nine people, not seven. Either a correction or an explanation is needed. Dominus 08:33, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

check Image:Federalcouncil.jpg -- User:Docu

Can we come to something resembling a consensus on which HoS's get their pictures in this article? Please? Pakaran. 01:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added a bunch of new pictures of contemporary HoS's doing HoS things. As opposed to just boring portraits. user:J.J.

Sounds good to me. I just don't want this to turn into a Wik-style rv-fest :( Pakaran. 01:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Avala added a link to:

Beli Dvor - King of Serbia

Isnt Serbia a republic? Either this is a historical king or one not currently recognised. In either case some note of explanation should be included. I've removed the link until someone (more knowledgeable than me) takes care of this. -Iota | talk 22:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Crown Prince lives there. King also lived but then Serbia became republic in Yugoslavia. In those times president Tito lived there. It is considered as head of state house. There is also "Mir Vila" house which is supposed to be home for president. It was made for Tito`s birthday but he died earlier. Since then only Milosevic has lived there. All other presidents refused to move in.Avala 14:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the pictures look much better with black borders.When they are alone, they look all boring, and merge with the text.- user:J.J.

Borders are not generally used in modern layout. The general view is that they look clumsy and as if they are are cut out that was pasted in (which is what they used to be, namely a blank square to which an image could be added). The standard method is generally to leave them out if at all possible, because they are not needed and look like a pre-modern computerisation stick'n'paste job. They also shift on some browsers, causing major problems that can be avoided on their removal. Their absence leaves a much cleaner, less amateurish and less pre-computerisation looking page, as well as avoiding browsers problems, which is why they are being removed. STÓD/ÉÍRE 11:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC) BTW many browsers (eg Safari) are designed not even to show them, because they are generally viewed as something that really shouldn't be shown if at all possible.

Quite apart from the grammatical/vocabulary problem ("when vocabulary duty's to be done, to be done"), I think "Though the governor-general may fulfill many of the roles of a head of state, s/he is not a head of state themselves, but the representative of the head of state" needs tidying up - for instance, this is not true of Australia. But I don't want to improve the Australian side of things at the expense of accidentally misrepresenting how it is elsewhere. So, before I jump in with both feet, I want to offer other experts the opportunity to get it better expressed than I can myself ("be 'umble, Uriah, be 'umble"). PML.

Actually it is. The Governor-General of Australia is not a head of state, a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans. The Queen of Australia is the Australian head of state, the Governor-General her representative. FearÉIREANN 17:46, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You have been misinformed. It is universally agreed by republicans here in Australia that monarchists and others have agreed with them on this sort of thing. Only, they deceive themselves (or are trying to manufacture a spurious consensus on something that would affect the substantive discussion). You will get a better view of what monarchists really think from the published statements of David Flint, and of independent views from the statements of Harry Evans (Clerk of the Senate). Monarchists are always having to stop this line being put out in media releases from our public service. Please note, I don't want to assert the truth of either position but to find a form of words that notes the unresolved ambiguity instead of buying into the spurious consensus. PML.

No. Actually I am 100% certain. This is my main area of expertise and I have extensively researched it. In doing the research I consulted among others

• 2 Professors of Political Science in Australia
• 2 former Governors-General of Australia
• read documents by both monarchists and republicans
• read the reports of the Republic Advisory Committee
• spoke to the Attorney-General's office
• spoke to the Prime Minister's office
• read the Australian constitution

• oh and, also spoke to constitutional advisors on Commonweath and Australian affairs to her Majesty the Queen and was supplied with factual information by Her Majesty's Press Office.

It is the likes of that that the monarchists have to pull up, before their views become accepted as established; you cannot take that as an authority (any more than either the monarchists or the republicans). PML.

All are 100% agreed (from Malcolm Turnbell to George Winterton to Sir Ninian to the Queen) that NUMBER 1: The Governor-General is not the Australian head of state, never has been.

NUMBER 2: The Queen of Australia and no one else on the planet is the Australian head of state. There not one iota of doubt. It is a 100% rock solid certainty.

But then Chapter 1, Part 1 Section 2 of the constitution does state that
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonweath, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

The Governor-General fufils many of the functions and duties of a head of state but is not one. He is, to use the word of the above section, the "representative" of one. And if today an ambassador arrives in Canberra today to present his credentials, they will not be addressed to the Governor-General. The GG will be given an envellope addressed to "Her Majesty the Queen of Australia". And the GG, in the name of the Queen, will welcome the ambassador and accept the credentials. And if the following day his head of state turns up on a state visit, at the state banquet no-one will toast the Governor-General. They will toast the Queen because she, not the GG is the head of state. If the GG was, the letters would be addressed to him, the toast would be to him. FearÉIREANN 06:00, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We appear to be talking at cross purposes (and, by the bye, I have also reviewed the area thoroughly). You appear to be addressing the question "is the G-G a Head of State?". I was addressing the meta-question, "is that generally accepted and not disputed?". As it happens, regardless of the merits of the first question, it has not actually been settled - it is still a matter of controversy and any republican who says different is speaking incorrectly on behalf of monarchists. So, I want to find a form of words that, while not causing problems with Head of State issues, also does not make the POV assertions implied by assuming it's "nem con". After all, the whole point of "myth" is not whether it is true or false but rather whether it is a fact that it is a belief having an effect on the world at large. I think I ought to find the monarchist sites that manifest this belief, and place it before you - I think they cite the Harry Evans' comment I referred to earlier. PML.

Here we go, slap bang at the beginning of the current version of [[1]] we find [[2]] - PML.

The Governor-General is not a head of state. evidence

1. The Australian constitution
2. All letters of Credence from all diplomatics to Australia and all diplomats from Australia
3. Buckingham Palace
4. The Governor-General's office
5. Two past governors general
6. The Prime Minister's Office
7. Report of the Republic Advisory Committee
8. The Professor of Law in the University of New South Wales
9. The Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow in the School of Politics and Public Policy, Griffith University

It is not a "some people think . . . " issue. It is a demonstrable fact.

Hang on a bit, do you see where you're sliding around, grasping related but distinct aspects the topic? Earlier you put "...a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans...", which is at least as demonstrably untrue. You see, you just there just now started talking about demonstrable fact, but you earlier used words to the effect of "undisputed fact". I am not trying to buy into whether you are right on the Head of State issue, at least not just yet, I am seeking a wording that shows it is still a matter of controversy. Monarchists plainly do not all accept that the Queen is Head of State - we have their own published statements to that effect. I'm going to put forward a draft rewording, but I don't want to attempt that until it is clear just what it is I am trying to achieve by it - namely, showing that opinion is divided on the subject. As to whether opinion is sound, well, ordinarily that would matter rather more, but in this whole area what counts is more what impels people than whether they are formulating a consistent position by the standards of Wikipedia's contributors. It's certainly POV to make out that this is a matter of general agreement, and false to boot. PML.

After all, some people think George Bush is not the legal President of the United States. Much as I disapprove of most of his policies, it is a statement of fact that he is. Some people claim Mary McAleese is not the legal president of Ireland. They can claim it all they like, it is a fact she is.

It is a fact that those groups don't matter; but there are groups that matter on this point. PML.

Some people claim Italy and Albania aren't republics; they are. Some websites claim Queen Elizabeth II is actually the world's mastermind in the drugs trade! They can claim it all they want, but it is a demonstrable fact that she isn't, just as it is a demonstrable fact that the Governor-General is not a head of state and other than through a change in the law and Letters Patent cannot become so. If the constitution says one thing, and a few websites say something else, there is no debate. The constitution is the source.

Er... no, most emphatically. Constitutions merely express, they do not create.

I guess you aren't a constitutional lawyer if you think that. Of course constitutions create. The constitutional of the Fifth French Republic created a presidency of the Fifth Republic. The constitution of Ireland created a President of Ireland, a national parliament, a courts system, fundamental rights, etc. In some cases they basically created a new version of institutions that had existed already, having been created in the 1922 constitutions. No wonder you are confused about the head of state issue, PML, if you have such a confused understanding of constitutions. :-) FearÉIREANN

I was afraid I was being too brief to be clear. JTDIRL, you have fallen into a common intellectual trap, that you are less prone to than some but still fall for sometimes. The constitution isn't the document. What goes in the document does indeed feed into what happens, but it's not the constitution itself. I was referring to the way that, whenever actual frameworks get out of step with the documents, it is the documents that are wrong - tautologically. To take one example, the constitution of Ireland did not so much create all those things as directed that they be created; to read that as "creating" is correct at one level, wrong at another - it is an immediate/ultimate cause thing, and it depends on just which question you are asking. The only reason I brought that whole thing up just there was as a reminder that constitutions are not documents. And by the bye, it is more helpful to ask what people think they mean than to tell them they don't know what they are talking about; I am sure you know that old rhetorical technique, the "Cork question". PML.

In the event that it was out of step with real events, it would be wrong, ipso facto. But we haven't got as far as exploring that yet; and in any case, it is still a matter of interpretation, since the constitution is silent on a great many things (including the Head of State question).

No it isn't silent on the head of state issue. *sigh* FearÉIREANN 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Add in every legal diplomatic document ever written, the Queen, a monarchist prime minister, a republican academic, the Governor-General and two of his precedessors and the case is closed. After all, if those sources don't know the facts, who else will? FearÉIREANN 13:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That appears to be a peculiar inversion of an argument from authority. I hope and trust that in due course, after researching the matter, we will. Just for now, I want to dispel the insidious part, the misinformation that republicans seem to have slipped in pretending that the matter has been agreed, in terms they themselves have put forward. It is not only disputed, it is also disputed by a material group, which makes it significant even though the POV aspect has to be allowed for - a significance previous analogies with cranks failed to parallel. PML.

That is complete balderdash. It not a republican invention. Her Majesty the Queen is not a republican. The Prime Minister is an open monarchist. The constitution predates the current republican debate by a century. All three and every other authoritative source agree on three things:

• Australia is a constitutional monarchy;
• The head of state of Australia is Queen Elizabeth.
• She is represented by a Governor-General who is not, could not and cannot be a head of state. FearÉIREANN 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sigh. One, no, not every other authoritative source agrees. That is precisely the fact I brought out in my reference over there. Two, I am not saying it is a republican invention, I am saying that it is a republican misrepresentation when they falsely tell others that the matter is agreed that way. PML.

The sites that reference Australians for Constitutional Monarchy seem to be glossing over the fact that it is the Queen who is the Head of State. As a Canadian and loyal subject of the Crown who has received two law degrees from McGill University I can state catagorically that the Governor-General of Canada is NOT the head of state, but merely her representative.

Ah - that's where I came in. I wanted to find a form of words that didn't impose Australian context elsewhere. Possibly they are glossing over it; and then again, possibly they are merely using normal Australian usage which it would be wrong to use more generally or more technically (terms of art, and that). After all, it is the usage in the 1975 constitutional crisis article right here in wikipedia. The monarchists do make the point that it is not a technical term within the constitution anyway. PML.

All this means in english??? FearÉIREANN 18:04, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, the monarchist material itself is clearer than I can make things in the time and space available. That's why I provided the link. PML.

My review of Australian constitutional history and law has not convinced me that there is any argument (even a minority argument) that the Governor General is the Head of State. Even Australian Republicans agree with this position: http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm Australian Republian Movement FAQ, Head of State.

Also the point - it is typically the republicans who have misrepresented this as the consensus Australian view. It's not "even" they admit it, it's something they want to make into a fact of discussion as a support of other things. First and foremost, before even addressing its accuracy, I wanted to shoot down this attempt to set the ground of debate (they also often pretend that citing republican ex-G-Gs is an independent source). For what it's worth, the term "head of state" has settled along the monarchist lines in the discussion of the 1975 constitutional crisis - the usage isn't merely that of cranks. As far as crankiness goes, I wanted to establish that monarchist views are substantively represented; even if, especially if, we are cranks, our views have material consequences and should be acknowledged as facts of the developing situation.

I suspect JTDIRL was misreading what I meant, and I can see where I was unclear: rather than addressing the point about H of S just there and then, I meant to convey that JTDIRL had been misinformed about whether this view of the nature of a Head of State was "a fact agreed by all sides in the republican debate; from the pro-monarchist side and former governors-general to Malcolm Turnbell for the republicans"; the former G-Gs involved are republicans, so this is double counting rather than an independent view, and it's plain wrong about the monarchists - as borne out by the reference I gave.

I'm going to draft a version I'm happier with and post it here for comment in a day or so. PML.

OK - here's an attempt:-

In some cases, one person holds multiple crowns. Technically, these may be considered headships of state, and the crown may be represented in each state by a governor-general. Though the governor-general may fulfil many of the functions and responsibilities of a head of state, he or she is not a head of state in his or her own right but rather the representative of the Crown. See, for example, the Queen of Canada. However, for certain purposes - including ordinary speech - the governors-general themselves may be considered heads of state. This is complicated by the fact that the situation is evolving in all these countries, reflecting changes in their connection to the "mother country"; a considerable school of thought ([3]) in Australia does consider the governor-general to be head of state. One way to distinguish the situation is that the governors-general hold offices but the monarch does not - offices are "under" the Crown. Examples are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, ordinarily resides in another of her kingdoms, the United Kingdom, and so is represented by a governor-general.

I hope this moves us on. PML.

The fact that a monarchist group thinks that the Governor General is head of state is unconvincing to me. If there are republican groups that believe it is so, I would like to find such people and examine their arguments. If it is just crackpots who think so, I do not think that the NPOV approach requires that we discuss every crackpot theory that is posted on the internet, this is an encyclopedia of knowledge not of crackpot theories. If there is a recognized group that has a reasonable theory about the republican nature of the Governor general, then yes, I think that would merit mention and even a seperate page, perhaps. Alex756 04:27, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Frankly PML's rewrite blurs fact and fiction,

Hold on there, it is precisely that join I am seeking to find, so we don't end up doing that. Case in point: you yourself made the demonstratedly false claim that all parties agree with the idea that the Queen is Head of State; regardless of whether she really is or not, clearly it is not a consensus view. We can probably find a way of working around that, and exploring the consensus separately from the reality; and that is what I am trying to do. PML.

treats demonstrable constitutional fact as opinion, and suggests that demonstrable facts be given equality with crackpot theories widely dismissed as garbage.

With such respect as is due, that is not what I am trying to do. If it were, I would have gone straight to editing rather than put forward a draft for comment. One, regardless of whether the theories are crackpot or not, they are a real and present fact and - what is more - a material one. (Read Edward Augustus Freeman on the subject.) Two, I am trying to deal separately with opinions and systems, presenting the factuality of each differently. The parts where I disagree with your understanding of the systems relate - as far as I can see - to your confusion of constitutional law with the whole of what constitutions are; again, we can leave that out, here, in this article, if we are careful enough to work around it. PML.

Wiki is an encyclopædia, not a home for crackpot theories held on the extreme fringe. We had another example of this some months ago when one person continually kept trying to change all Australian articles to state that "Australia is a republic". Now we have a monarchist trying to insist that the Governor-General is a head of state. Neither is correct and each is demonstrably not correct. Why is it that the Australian articles keep attracting such absurd theories? FearÉIREANN 21:42, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

May I suggest you take up that particular argument over this point here with the ACM spokesmen, and do not take it upon yourself to dismiss their views merely for not matching what you have been told they are? Specifically, you have stated that the Australian constitution does touch on the "Head of State"; I incline to believe the monarchists when they say that it touches on the Crown and the G-G, but that the "Head of State" only comes in once you add in some more framework. In other words, you get out whatever you bring in, after a process of interpretation. Now, I put these comments in here in search of a way round sticking in interpretation. If you see a way to do that that achieves it more cleanly than my draft above, feel free to suggest it; but do not leave in something that rests on the assumption that "Head of State" means all those things, when that very point is still unresolved. I'm not asking for it to be resolved my way round either, just that open questions shouldn't be made to go by default. PML.

There are no open questions. The Queen is the head of state. Period. A governor-general is not. Period. A governor-general fulfils head of state functions on behalf of the Queen or based on her or her own constitutional powers and functions, which come to the office in its royal representational, not state representational, role. As such he or she is the de facto head of state, which means they in effect act as a head of state. But they are not the de jure head of state, ie, they are not legally a head of state. As to the false claim that all parties agree with the idea that the Queen is Head of State THEY DO. The constitution does. Letters Patent do. The Queen does. The republicans do. The monarchists do. The governors-general, past and present, do. The Republic Advisory Committee does. The Australian embassy in Dublin does. Each and every one of the 128 states with diplomatic representation in Canberra do. The provincial states do. Judges do. Law texts do. Top academics do. No-one says she isn't.

People sometimes call a governor-general a de facto head of state. What that means is that in practical reality he or she fulfils many of the functions, both practical and in some cases symbolic, of the head of state. But no-one but a few isolated fringe people claim a governor-general is a de jure head of state. This article is about a de jure head of state, not a de facto head of state, ie, who is a head of state, not who acts like a head of state but isn't legally one. I can fulfil the functions of my professor of Politics if I stand in and take his lectures, if I deal with his correspondence when he is away. But that doesn't make me a professor of politics, merely a stand-in. In legal terms, all a governor-general is is a stand-in for the head of state, a de facto head of state while carrying out those functions. But he or she is not legally the head of state in his or her capacity. If they were, diplomats would not address letters of credence to the Queen, the Queen's authority would not be used in the exercise of constitutional functions, the Queen would not appoint the governor-general and have the power to remove him or her. Heads of state cannot appoint and dismiss each other. How bluntly does it have to be pointed out to you that you are wrong, that you are confused about what a head of state is. Alex is correct (below) in making that distinction, between a de facto head of state and a de jure one. A de jure head of state is a head of state, a de-facto a form of stand-in who fulfils many of the functions of a head of state, from the representational (on behalf of the Queen) to the symbolic (on behalf of Australia). But being de facto isn't enough. Donald Regan was often called the "de facto American prime minister". But that did not mean America had a prime minister. John Prescott has been the de facto British Prime Minister for the last couple of weeks while Blair has been on holidays. But that did not mean he was the prime minister, merely that he acted in effect as prime minister, as a stand-in for the absent prime minister. FearÉIREANN 15:09, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have found links to Governor-General being called the de facto Head of State in Australia; this by a well known and well respected Australian constitutional law professor: "Prof Williams, of the University of NSW, agreed with Opposition Leader Simon Crean that Prime Minister John Howard should consult more widely before making the next appointment. "The Governor-General today is seen as our defacto head of state," he said. "He or she is not merely a representative of the Queen and if a person is that important, we need the people to be involved, I think, perhaps even through a nominations process that will put people forward to the Prime Minister." (1). I am not Australian and this is enough authority for me, as someone knowledgeable about commonwealth legal history, and a loyal subject of Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada; I do not think this in anyway mis-states the office of the Governor-General. I think citizens of most Commonwealth countries would agree that even though the Elizabeth II is our Queen, that the Governor-General plays that role in a de facto manner — this is not to suggest that the Rt. Hon. Adrianne Clarkson is the de jure head of state, but she does fulfil those duties and in Canada is seen as representing all Canadians — is that not what a head of state is in popular terms? Also, the Queen does not interfere with what a Governor-General does; she does not set their agenda, they have, in fact, wide authority within their jurisdiction to do as they wish. They do not consult the Queen before making such decisions. An example is the role that the Governor-General plays as the Royal Visitor of McGill University, she actually makes judicial decisions that bind the University, she makes them, not the Queen — just like any other judge who is also just a representative of the Crown. Alex756 04:12, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I still beleive that the Queen is the de jure Head of State of commonwealth countries, and the Governor-General, as her representative, is the de facto head of state —. even after reading Sir David Smith's paper on the subject. Is that confusing enough for you folks? Maybe there should be some material on Constitution of Australia about this debate. That would seem to be the most appropriate place for such a country specific issue, not here, where we are talking about head of state in a more general way.Alex756

Many countries in the Commonwealth have other heads of state. The independent Commonwealth countries with the Queen as the head of state (apart from the United Kingdom) all have a governor-general as her representative, and they are sometimes referred to as her "realms". I suppose that if the Queen went to live in the Bahamas, the UK would have to appoint a governor-general.

Probably not, the UK would probably appoint Councillors of State under the Regency Act to perform the Royal functions. This is the practice when the Queen is absent from the realm. An alternative would be to appoint a Regent under the Act but the conditions for that would probably not be satisfied.

(Contested -- Jun 30) Head of state

I haven't edited this one but just stumbled upon it a few days ago. What a fantastic article! As someone from a country that doesn't separate out the head of state function, it made for fascinating reading. The superb images, erudite quotes and well-analyzed breakdown of functions add a very professional flavor to the article, in my opinion. --TreyHarris 06:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Minor quibble - Under CEO, it mentions Sweden is somehow different is terms of executive power, but doesn't mention how. Burgundavia 07:58, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Image problems:
  • King Albert image has no source information
  • Putin image has source information, but it is not clear if there is permission to use the image.
  • Swiss council image has no source information
  • Bush signing image has vague source information, but it is not clear if there is any permission to use the image.
  • Jeronimo 08:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A pity. I don't know how to rectify the objection (it's actionable, just not by me), and if I swapped out the photos with others, I'd no longer support the article as a FA--the great photos were one of the things that drew me to nominate it. So I suppose I had better withdraw the nomination. Too bad there's not a "not a FA, but you should read this anyway" page. ;-) --TreyHarris 15:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we can overcome this. All five photos were uploaded by User:J.J.. I've asked him if he can help with adding more detail about image origin. I think this has got to be a case of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. Images of heads of state are not likely to cause copyright problems; we can claim fair use as required. Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Support Avala 19:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support, assuming the image problems are solved. James F. (talk) 20:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Good article 1) The article has a "bulleted" style, presenting the information primarily as lists. Lists are great for presenting certain types of information,(for example the "Official residences" section) but I think they make a poor style for structuring an encyclopedia article. 2) Slightly over italicisation of things for emphasis when it's not necessary (I can probably fix these myself). 3) Need some history of the "head of state"; (of course, people have had rulers for as long as we can remember, but this article is about a more specific concept). — Matt 15:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surely there's a better term than this? By far the majority of presidential systems around the world have a separate office of Prime Minister. I think it's useful to make the distinction, but the way the article currently reads makes it sound like most republics follow the american presidential model, which is demonstrably false.

I don't know much about all this, but how abaou semi-presidential systems? Dustin Asby 10:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid the correct term is presidential system. It is irrelevant whether there is a prime minister or not. The definition of whether a system is a presidential system is not is - is the executive answerable to the

1. head of state alone - if so it is a presidential system
2. head of state and parliament - then its a semi-presidential system
3. parliament - then it is a parliamentary system.

Some presidential systems have prime ministers, some don't. In most presidential systems the PM is a minor figure, a constitutional functionary and administrator who does the day to day dog work for the president. In parliamentary systems in contrast the PM is the key player, the head of government who leads government, chooses ministers, etc. PMs in presidential systems are servants, not masters. PMs in parliamentary systems are masters, not servants.

I have corrected the article to remove some inaccuracies that seemed to have cropped into the text and expanded the information. FearÉIREANN 15:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a whole lot clearer than the presidential system article. Ben Arnold 05:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are all legislatures automatically parliaments? Which is the more general term?

Legislature. Parliament implies a Westminster system. - Sekicho 03:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

In common parlance parliament is often used as a generic term for any legislature so we needn't be too strict about this. But, yes, in general the term legislature should be prefered for this kind of encyclopedia article. Iota 23:00, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, totally and utterly wrong. To claim that this idiosyncratic and culturocentric usage is "common parlance" simply to claim an absolute and outright lie. All parliaments are legislatures. Not all legislatures are parliaments. The US Congress is NOT a parliament. To speak of a "parliament" is to SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE bodies like the US Congress. Dogface 15:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whose common parlance? Compare

[4] and [5] and tell me which one is more general... - Sekicho 23:47, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

It's not an important point so i won't argue it further here, but please don't shout (i.e. use capitals) or use inflaminatory language. Reasonable people can disagree you know.

On a separate point don't change the spellings in the article to US English. The rest of the article is in non-US English and it is the Wikipedia convention to leave it that way Iota 02:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the text it is mentioned that presidents that acquire presidency by military means or by coup d'état are also considered as having a government running a presidential system. However, in the page "Lists of government" it says that presidential systems are a form of democracy (which dictatorships are clearly not), so where do you get the source that states that presidential systems also encompass governments where presidents have gained power via a coup d'état for example (i.e. by undemocratic means)?

Can anyone tell whether the personal representatives of both Andorran Co-princes possess the same (or similar) status and authorities as the Governor-Generals of Commonwealth Realms, as the Andorran Constitution just states that the Co-princes can appoint personal representatives but does not mention their status and authorities. -- DD Ting 15:57, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the following.

ratification, the usually necessary next step, generally rests with the legislature.

That is not correct. That is a phenomenon only in a small minority of states, like the US. In many states there is no need for parliamentary ratification. Either there is no ratification at all, or the Government does it. Parliament has no role in much cases. FearÉIREANN 23:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Emperor of Japan is not universally regarded as a head of state. Many legal experts argue that under the current constitution Japan has no head of state. They suggest that the emperor is simply a national symbol. A head of state is a national symbol, but being a national symbol does not make one a head of state. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 22:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The argument against labelling the Emperor of Japan as Head of State is because he does not have any Royal Prerogative and because the Constitution does not explicitly define him as "Head of State" (while it explicitly defines him as "Symbol of State"). But the former argument is the very reason why we have put him in the "non-executive head of state" category and not in the "parliamentary system" category. I don't think there's much dispute that the Emperor is at least the de facto head of state: he accredits ambassadors and does a bunch of stuff a head of state is supposed to do. The Constitution, while not naming him head of state, assigns him head of state duties such as promulgating new laws and appointing the prime minister. I propose modifying the caption to "The Emperor of Japan, unlike other constitutional monarchs, holds no reserve powers. His role is strictly ceremonial and constitutionally defined as being the "Symbol of State." This has led some legal experts to regard him as simply a political servant of a constitutional parliamentary republic."--Jiang 10:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You are mixing up your terms, Jiang. A non-executive head of state is a head of state who is given a constitutional and political role but does not have executive power vested in their office. Examples include the King of Sweden, the President of Ireland and the President of Germany. The Emperor of Japan has a totally different role. As to your statement that "I don't think there's much dispute that the Emperor is at least the de facto head of state", you could not be more wrong. A de-facto head of state acts as head of state, having been appointed by the head of state. The Japanese emperor is not in any sense regarded as a head of state. In fact the emperor was only allowed to survive on the condition that he was most definitely not a head of state. Japan, uniquely in the world, has no head of state. A head of state may be a "symbol of the state" but the corollary not true. A "symbol of the state" is not by virtue of that role a head of state. After all the First Lady is a symbol in many states. The late Diana Princess of Wales was a symbol of the British state. The pretender of the defunct Portuguese throne is widely regarded as a national symbol, but none of them by any wild stretch of the imagination are regarded as heads of state. You seem completely confused as to the what a head of state is and the basic requirements for the post. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not an expert on the subject myself, I do find it very hard to believe that the Japanese Emperor is, according to you, not a Head of State. Would you please provide references to sources that supports your claim - unless you've acquired this knowledge by conducting Original Research.--RicJac 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; you have made no argument as to why the Emperor should not be considered a head of state. He is definitely used as an instrument of state authority; e.g., in appointing the prime minister and chief justice, convening the Diet, etc. That may not be real executive power, but it is indeed a constitutional and political role, much more than that of a lesser royal or a pretender to a throne. (And I'm sure that many in the Japanese right wing would love to stone your windows for making those comparisons...) - Sekicho 00:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Governor-General may fulfill many of the roles of a Head of State, but is not legally the Head of State.

As per that sentence, what legally defines a Head of State? Of course, it is internationally assumed that the Queen is the de jure, and the Governor General the de facto, Head of State, but law only creates the Queen as queen, and the Governor General as governor general. The latter is clearly the representative of the former, but nothing in law makes a distinction between who is Head of State and who is not. I only ask this because no Canadian law, constitutional or otherwise, defines who the Canadian Head of State is.

However, even my statement "it is internationally assumed that the Queen is the de jure head of state" may be off. Internally the Queen may be seen as the Canadian Head of State, but Canada is now presenting the Governor General externally as Head of State, as all the Letters of Credence and Recall presented by Canadian Ambassadors and High Commissioners run in the name of the Governor General only, completely absent any reference to the Queen. This is, of course, a serious diplomatic faux pas on the part of the Canadian government, but is the reality for the time being anyway.

This may tie back to the earlier debate on the dispute amongst Australians as to whether the Governor General or Queen of Australia is the Australian Head of State.

I believe these problems arise from a republican term like Head of State being applied to systems of constitutional monarchy, especially ones with non-resident monarchs. --gbambino 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A head of state is someone who fulfils most or all of a set number of criteria:

• executive authority is vested in them and exercised in their name.
• on the diplomatic level they are the legal embodiment of the state.
• they are the state's senior constitutional office-holder.
• They are the person who owes their status not to appointment but to a limited form of selection; namely election, inheritance or in cases of emergency extra-constitutional means that have wide consensus acceptance (whatever about approval).

Head of state is not and never has been a republican term. It applies to all chiefs of state, whether elected, monarchical or otherwise. It always has. The Governor General of Canada is not and cannot be a head of state without constitutional change. She is not the state's senior constitutional office-holder. That unambiguously is the Queen of Canada. She is not the legal embodiment of Canada on the diplomatic level. While she is now presented with credentials in her own name, that is as governor general, the constitutional agent of the Queen of Canada. Nor can a head of state appoint a fellow head of state (anymore than a prime minister can appoint a prime minister, or a pope can appoint a pope). The Governor General is appointed by the Queen of Canada, clearly indicating that the Queen is constitutionally superior. In constitutional systems by definition no-one is or can be constitutionally superior to a head of state, because by definition a head of state is head of the state. There can be no-one higher. As there is in Canada someone higher than the Governor General, by definition, they are the head of the state.

It is factually wrong to suggest that Canada implies that the Governor General externally is head of state. It does not. It sought, and received, the permission of the Queen of Canada to enable her representative to have a broadened representational role. The Governor General acts like a head of state (ie, is a de facto head of state). She is not however the head of state, and cannot be without a constitutional amendment to replace the Queen of Canada with her. The option of amending the Canadian constitution to make the Governor General head of state in the absence of the Queen was considered, but it was considered impossible to do. In head of state systems one can't have a dyarchy. There can be only one, not two, or two half-ones, or two sharing the role as co-heads of state. The only cases where co-heads of state exist are the like of Andorra. (Switzerland, for example, has a collective head of state. They as a body hold the role, not individually. Similarly in the Presidential Commission Ireland has a three-person collective vice-presidency; the speakers of both houses of parliament and the chief justice. None of the three is individually a vice-president.

The Canadian model is quite simple. As in other Commonwealth realms, one person is the head of state: the Queen of that nation. One acts in the role with the agreement of the one who is. That is the Governor General/Governor-General. Whatever about frequently ignorant media reportage, and lawyers spinning out their own political agenda, the constitutional system in Canada is perfectly simple: one head of state: the Queen of Canada. One person who acts like a head of state in fulfilling her duties: the Governor-General. Until the Canadian constitution is changed to make the Governor General the top constitutional office-holder, to vest all head of state functions directly in her, rather than indirectly in her as a conduit to the Queen whose representative she is, and to enable her to enter into office by a means other than appointment by the Queen of Canada that will remain the case. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 23:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I asked what it is that says the Governor General is not legally the Head of State? Nothing in the Canadian constitution states who the Head of State is - the words "Head of State" never appear anywhere in any constitutional or other legal documents. New Zealand's constitution, on the other hand, I believe actually explicitly defines the Queen of New Zealand as the New Zealand Head of State.

I'm not arguing that the Queen of Canada isn't the Canadian Head of State - I accept that, and understand the principal. However, perhaps it's just the wording of the sentence, most particularly the use of the word "legally." Legally the Queen is vested with all executive authority, legally she is the Sovereign of Canada, which means the by international convention (not law) the Governor General is not regarded as Head of State.

As per the Canadian Letters of Credence and Recall, the change in practice to issuing them in the name of the Governor General only does indeed put forward externally that the Governor General is Canada's Head of State. Since the practice began centuries ago Letters for ambassadors were sent from sovereign to sovereign, and later also from sovereign to president. Basically, from the head of one nation to the head of another. Never have they been from representative to national head, until now in Canada.

As the press release regarding the changes to the Letters, from the PMO in December, stated: "In international diplomatic practice, Letters of Credence are formal diplomatic instruments that are presented by High Commissioners and Ambassadors to the Head of State of the host country... Letters of Credence and Recall presented by foreign High Commissioners and Ambassadors to Canada will now be addressed to the Governor General directly." That means Canada puts forward to the international diplomatic community that the Governor General is Head of State.

I can even go further and say there are minutes of government committee meetings where Parliamentarians, and even the Governor General's private secretary, all refer to the Governor General as Canada's Head of State. In its final report, the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates put forward that the 1947 Letters Patent have devolved all Head of State duties and responsibilities to the Governor General - including, apparently, the title of Head of State! (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/Documents/37/3/parlbus/commbus/house/reports/OGGO_Rpt02-e.htm).

On top of that, I have received correspondence from both Members of Parliament and staff at Rideau Hall which all refer to the Governor General as Head of State.

A misinterpretation of law and custom, I know, but all the above has happened, none-the-less. This similar to the dispute in Australia as to who is the Australian Head of State, but where it differs is this theory of the Governor General being the Canadian Head of State is now emanating from the government of Canada itself.

As for the origins of the term "Head of State," I didn't mean republicans thought up the word, I meant it was a term coined for presidents. Monarchs, up until sometime in the 20th century, were always known as sovereigns (the embodiment of their nation's sovereignty). The term Head of State emerged when certain Presidents needed to distinguish between their roles as Head of Government and Head of State. --gbambino 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically the US President is not legally defined as a Head of State either. The US Constitution only says that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America". Nowhere in the constitution is the term "Head of State" mentioned. That's because usage of the term was redundant and thus unnecessary (after all it says the executive power is to be exercised by the President and executive power is exercised through offices which are commonly referred to as Heads of State and/or Heads of Goverment with one office potentially combining both roles as the U.S. Presidency does). I think the confusion of gbambino and (much earlier on) PML is because the term Head of State is not actually used in the Australian Constitution and in the "Constitution" of Canada (which is really not one single document). I also guess the confusion of many Australians who believe that the Governor-General is head of state is because they are being a bit simplistic (no offence meant) and looking for every little concept to be spelt out using such terms as Head of State, Head of Government, Representative of Head of State. I mean if the Governor-General says he/she is not head of state, but that the Queen is and if the Australian Constitution says The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative... and the US Constitution says the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. what better comparison are you going to get? The first part of the sentence from the Australian Constitution is almost word for word if you replace "Queen" with "President" and "Commonwealth" with "the USA". And the Constitution pretty clearly says the GG is a representative of the Queen. And it is legally impossible for a de jure, legally defined Head of State to be the representative of someone else (especially another Head of State, which is essentially the logical outcome of the "Governor-General as Head of State" argument). The Head of State only represents the State. Also of interest is that apparently the Australian Constitution does not actually mention Prime Minister of Australia and if the Queen is not head of state but the GG is, then by the same logic being used the post of Prime Minister does not exist and all PMs are illegal and Australia has never had a legal PM.72.27.92.7 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Head of State is not assiciated with the bad opinions and the bad decisions. By:§ţəρћαηιє♥

In this article it states a Presidential system is one in which a head of state, whether he or she be monarchical or presidential, presides. However, the article Presidential system says "A presidential system, or a congressional system, is a system of government of a republic where the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative. It is widely accepted as having originated from the Constitution of the United States." The latter makes no mention of a monarchical system also being a presidential one.Which is wrong, and which is right?

Also, would not countries like Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, and others, be considered to have presidential systems? --gbambino 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A republic is a type of state in which the head of state is a president, and not a monarch or a hippo; a presidential republic is one in which the president is also the head of government. You can't have presidential monarchies, for quite obvious reasons. —Nightstallion (?) 11:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Then it seems this article is wrong. --gbambino 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• The frustrating truth is that it is BOTH right and wrong, since there are two incompatible, yet well-established uses of the term: the strict, literal meaning limited to presidential republics and the (originally analogous) use for a regime's de facto 'style' regardless of the title; their use rather depends on the context, e.g. only the first in protocol, the second rather in political science. Ignoring either as 'wrong' would be disregarding half of the reality. When you come to think of it, there are more illogical uses of titles, e.g. 'elective monarch' (in the UAE even styled President), 'double monarchy', 'imperial president' ... Fastifex 08:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. I wonder, then, if there's any way to disambiguate this somewhat confusing subtlety. I'll give it some thought. --gbambino 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is correct, the Presidential system one wrong. A PS is a system in which a head of state, whether hereditary, elected or dictatorial, presides (hence the term) as the dominant activist executive player. The presidential system has clearly been written by one or more American contributors who misunderstand the "American presidential system" and "presidential system". They are not the same. However in the United States, the latter term is often used when it is referring to the former, just as monarchy is constantly presumed to be hereditary, republic is contantly mistaken with Republic and monarchy is used to mean the crown and the kingdom when in fact it means neither. The problem with free-to-edit encyclopaedias is that such mistakes, unless spotted, can be presumed to be correct. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a slight problem with the article, as it equates single-party repubilics and collective head of state. A few Communist countries were indeed single-party and had a collective head of state, but that wasn't any kind of a rule. Some modern examples:

• Andorra is a multiparty co-principality
• Switzerland is multiparty with collective head of state
• People's Republic of China is single-party with a president
• Vietnam is single-party with a president

and many more.Taw 22:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

American constitutional theory has the executive branch co-equal to legislative and judicial branches and in no way subordinate. The Constitution was not only influenced by British colonial practice but also by the fail experiment with the Articles of Confederation

Roadrunner 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern presidential systems, most notably the United States, owe their origins to reactionism against the contemporary eighteenth century British constitutional model in existence at the time of the enactment of the Constitution of the United States, in which the British monarch, while no longer an absolute ruler since the Magna Carta, was still the dominant political force, and their government was not in a modern sense answerable to the legislature. This reaction consisted of shifting the centre of power away from the head of state/government and dispersing it amongst three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) based on the model for separation of powers described by French Enlightenment writers (and to a lesser practical degree, and more symbolically in terms of nomenclature, inspired by the ancient Roman Republic), with the legislature (Congress) being the most powerful branch of the three.

This separation entails decreased answerability of the executive to the legislature in terms of holding office, and greater dependence on popular opinion through non-parliamentary vote, with only a few extraordinary provisions for legislative impeachment. But it entails increased answerability in terms of legislation and governance, which is largely conducted or regulated without the executive's active participation, with provisions for executive veto that can also be overridden entirely, and is particularly enforced through legislative control of government budgets. Thus, modern presidential systems are a radical or "revolutionary" evolution from a head of state-centred executive system (a parliamentary-imperial system) to a legislature-oriented one (a parliamentary-presidential system), whereas many European states are the direct lineal successors of the Ancien régime governmental systems of eighteenth century Europe, and have experienced a more gradual shift in power from the executive to the legislature. It is worth noting, however, that many Parliamentary systems, such as Canada, retain an extremely powerful head of government.

Hmm, I disagree with the previous two paragraphs, I'm with RoadRunner: all three branches of government in the USA are supposed to be equal. They just have different areas of responsibility. For example, Congress has more power than the President with the writing and enacment of laws, but the President has more power than Congress with the execution of said laws. While the President of the United States is the most powerful SINGLE PERSON in the world, the Congress, as a body, is equally powerful, only their power is in different areas, same with the Supreme Court, its power is equal to the president, only it concerns the interpretation of law. For example when the Supreme Court declared that the President must give prisoners held under the American flag the benefit of due process of law, even if they are terrorists, he HAD to comply. Because the Supreme Court has the same power as the President, except it concerns interpretation of law. It's not like in Britain where the Queen can simply dissolve Parliament, and can't be convicted by British courts. ;-) LMAO @ the Brits... ;-) btw you don't have to live in America to understand our laws, just read our written Constitution. Despite my aggressive style of political argument, I'm not offended when people critcize our Constitution, as long as I get to criticize the British monarchy. ;-) (it does offend me when foreigners claim that severe violations of the Constitution were considered without citing evidence, such as in the TV license article.) Our Constitution is here http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html --Brian (same brian from the discussions on the tv license article)71.116.71.27 01:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that one Head of State should not be featured on two separate images, i.e. the case with Queen Elizabeth II and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. There should also be a general rule to only depict current serving Heads of State, unless the presence of the person in question is well motivated (George Washington & Charles de Gaulle) or if the image depicts an act that is only carried out by a Head of State (George W. Bush & Vladimir Putin). My suggestions is as follows:

• Remove Image:ac.thequeen.jpg and incorporate the text with .
• Keep intact.
• Keep File:Charles de Gaulle.jpg intact.
• Instate Image:KingJuanCarlosI.jpg at "Parliamentary system", a good example of a Head of State establishing a Parliamentary system in a country with another constitutional heritage.
• An image of Mao or any other communist leader should be apprpriate at "Single party republics".
• Keep Image:marymca.jpg intact.
• Remove File:Saddam Hussein 4.jpg and replace it with a portrait of another Head of State wearing a military uniform and/or items of regalia.
• Keep Image:lettercreed.jpg intact.
• Keep intact.
• Keep Image:Saddam7.jpg intact.
• Keep but its exact within this article should be considered further.
• An image of a current Governor-General in a Commonwealth realm Image:Anand Satyanand.jpg should really fit well at "delegation".
• Keep Image:federalcouncil.jpg.
• An image of Kim Il Sung Image:Kim il sung.jpg should featured in the "Unique cases and titles" section.
• Keep intact.RicJac 14:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the title of the page, and also the title within the article, as Head of State, (Heads of State) to reflect the importance of the position. Also, Head of State is the correct title for the position. Figaro 15:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It is a title, as so is capitalised. Lowercasing it is the equivalent of writing United states, Queen elizabeth, Prime minister, Minister for finance etc. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 18:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But "prime minister" is, in fact, correct when speaking about prime ministers in general... Also, why should it be Head of State but head of government? —Nightstallion (?) 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing title with proper noun. Funnyhat 00:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• A Head of State is of higher protocollary rank, and especially in a Monarchy the executive ministers are theoretically his/the state's 'servants' (Latin: minister), but as a rule it is advisable to capitalize both high offices, certainly not neither! Fastifex 08:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say capitalise *NEITHER*, unless you're speaking about a specific prime minister... A prime minister, but the Prime Minister of Sweden. —Nightstallion (?) 16:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Head of state," "president," "prime minister," "monarch" and "monarchy" are ALL generic nouns. None should be capitalized unless referring to a specific person's title. Funnyhat 00:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Now says in some of present Mali's traditional Jihad states, notably Dina (the Sise Jihad state) and the Tijaniyya Jihad state and its successor states Segu and Massina after a split; the last fama of the Samori Empire (formerly Wassulu) till its extinction by French colonization.

Dina/Sise Jhad and Massina Empire are interchangable. This state was conquered by Umar Tall of the Toucouleur Empire/Tijaniyya Jihad state, which was (under his son) conquered by the French. Segu and Massina weren't true successor states. They're towns/regions/remanants which were gobbled up by the French. Samori was defeated by the French in the 1890s.

As for "in some of present Mali's traditional Jihad states" might be better put "in some of the 19th century Jihad states of the upper Niger (Mali)".

I'll change it unless someone whats to give it a shot or has any objections. :T L Miles 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What would happen if Queen Elizabeth II were to show up in the chief executive government offices in Ottawa or Canberra or Castries, or even London, one day and announce that she intended to begin taking a hands-on role managing the day-to-day affairs of "her" government? —Largo Plazo 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That would depend on what a more hands-on role meant. Her powers are severely limited by the constitution so in reality she couldn't do much with running afoul of the constitution. Nil Einne 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In theory she could do that; in practice it would create a constitutional crisis. The courts would deem it "unconstitutional in the conventional sense", Parliament would meet in emergency session and remove her from office, the little white men with butterfly nets would come and take her away. Everybody would say, "Poor woman, lost her mind just like that, nobody saw it coming. Bit of a sticky wicket, wot?" RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetically, the British decides to get rid of their monarch to become a republic. They replaced their head of state with a president. What would happens to other commonwealth countries? Can Canada or Australia keep the British monarh as the head of state ?

Also, if when British decides to get rid of their monarch to become a republic. Does it imply the Queen or all the Royal members will lose their status and privilege to become common people? Or, they can keep most their status and privilege, only the Queen be removed as head of state ? --WikiCantona 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The other Commonwealth realms would remain monarchies under Elizabeth II. Thus, she would remain Queen elsewhere, and the Royal Family would retain their status in those countries. In the UK, I imagine, they'd simply lose their place in the order of precedence and those who now do would no longer receive funding from the British government to undertake state duties. How much of their estates they'd keep is another matter. --G2bambino 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if Britain a republic and Elizabeth II passes away, what will happen to the Commonwealth realms? Is this depending the Royal family in Britain? Are the Commonwealth realms facing constitutional crisis? What could they do? --WikiCantona 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the situation is different in different countries. In Canada, for instance, when the present queen dies the Crown passes to her successor according to the 1701 Act of Settlement, which is a part of the Canadian constitution. Australia, however, I believe, is a little different; they defer to the UK's Act of Settlement to decide the next monarch. However, at the same time, even if a republican UK repealed the Act of Settlement there, the Statute of Westminster, adopted by Australia, states that no act of the UK parliament passed after 1931 has any effect anywhere outside the UK. The Act of Settlement may then de facto become a part of the Australian constitution, or the Australian parliament may have to formally adopt the Act of Settlement; I don't really know. --G2bambino 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Each of the Commonwealth realms has a different Crown, so if Britain became a republic, the rest of the realms could retain the British monarch as head of state. That seems unlikely but it is a theoretical possibility. In World War II, it was somewhat less hypothetical. If Britain had been conquered by Germany, the backup plan was for the King and royal family to retreat to Canada, and the rest of the Commonwealth would have fought on without assistance from Britain... RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Canada it's not all that unlikely that Elizabeth II - or whichever of her successors is on the throne at the time - would remain the Canadian monarch (not British!) for an indefinite amount of time after the UK hypothetically became a republic; the requirements needed as per the amending formula of the constitution are so difficult to satisfy that it would be better just to install EIIR at Rideau Hall permanently. And, why not? --G2bambino (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The UK can abolish its monarchy easier the Canada can abolish its monarchy. As for Elizabeth II moving to Rideau Hall permanently (I'm sure the othe 14 realms would dispute that -err make that 12, Australia & New Zealand wouldn't mind)? Please, not while I'm eating. More importantly though, it hasn't happened. GoodDay 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, now; better EIIR in Rideau Hall than President Stéphane Dion, or worse - *shudder* - President Don Cherry. --G2bambino 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada becoming a republic? someday yes, but not for a long while. GoodDay 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh G2, how could ya replace the Gipper (niff niff). Afterall, he got to actually command his armed forces. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, with or without funding from Congress. Okay, okay. I put him back. EIIR makes a hotter C-in-C, though. At least, back in those days... I kind of like them aloof an haughty. ;) --G2bambino (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

G2 - You day man, you day man. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Older head of State---

You should add Kamuzu Banda of Malawi, former president who was president well over his late 90s.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.143.181 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think your reconstruction about the way the King Victor Emanuel would've broken the "Statuto Albertino" is a little simplified.
Really no provision in the "Statuto" required that the Government appointed by the King should've been approved by the Parliament. In the majority of XIX century Constitutions the Government was appointed by the King and the Parliament couldn't interfere in his choice.
In Italy the parliamentary vote of agreement was customary and really the first Mussolini Cabinet, in 1922, was approved by the Parliament, since it was a coalition government with catholics and liberals.
The effective break of the constitutional and parlamentarian system took place in the 1924 elections, which were held in a completely unfair way. Therefore, the Fascist Party obtained the absolute majority in the "Camera dei Deputati" and at the beginning of 1925 outlawed the opposition parties and gave the Head of Government (which was Mussolini, off course) an almost absolute power.
Lele giannoni (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is an image of the President of the United States featured 3 times in the article? The George Washington one makes sense, but for the general "show a Head of State doing something official" ones, shouldn't there be a slightly wider representation? No other country is represented more than once (Elizabeth II shows up twice, but she's the Head of State of 16 countries, so it is justifiable). SteveMcQwark (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You see US government pictures all over the encyclopedia, not because of some US-centrism, but because they are generally public domain and therefore free to use. If you can find some suitable replacement pictures, you can replace the US President pictures. Quigley (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The photos of Presidents Obama and Reagan illustrate the sections they are placed in, so to replace those you would have to find photos showing a head of state signing a bill or reviewing troops, respectively. The latter might not be so difficult, and there may already be suitable photos on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. As for bill signings, I'm not sure how many nations other than the U.S. have public bill-signing ceremonies. I don't think most monarchies do that. As for the portrait of George Washington, I have mixed feelings about it. He isn't actually doing anything. On the other hand, as the caption for the portrait suggests, he is sort of the prototype for the modern non-monarchical head of state, so that does serve a purpose in the article. Neutron (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"when not in the UK by Counsellors of State" has nothing whatever to do with being head of state of multiple countries. Counsellors of State are appointed when the Sovereign is abroad (in any country not just a Commonwealth realm) or incapacitated, in the identical way that the Vice-President acts for the President when he is incapacitated, not because the Queen is burdened by acting as head of state for the multiple countries. DrKiernan (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are obviously differences between governors general and counsellors of state, but both have the same essential function: exercise the sovereign's powers in the sovereign's absence or incapacitation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording from:In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, these roles of the head of state have been taken over by the vice-regal representative.toIn Canada, Australia and New Zealand, these head of state roles have been assumed by the Governor-General.

In all three nations the vice-regal representative is the Governor-General, and the mutually-agreed role is more towards independent heads of state rather than Imperial flunkies, hence the assumption of this defining head of state power.

Miesianiacal amended the wording to In Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the governors-general have been permitted to exercise these head of state roles.

I have reverted this change because I feel it moves away from NPOV, but I think this matter needs discussion. The changes are permanent and definitive. It is not a matter of being permitted to exercise powers which rightfully belong to the monarch, it is that these three Governors-General are now doing this head of state function in their own right. It is ridiculous to think that there might be some transfer of power back to the monarch and that they are just doing it on a temporary basis to give the Queen a rest.

I think that the phrases "taken over" and "permitted to exercise", while technically accurate, imply tension that did not actually exist. "Have been assumed by" is a neutral phrasing.

We could possibly expand this section a little, giving more background, but sources are hard to come by. A paragraph on an interior page of a thick newspaper - reflecting the uncontroversial nature of the transfer of powers. --Pete (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the case is for Australia and New Zealand, to be honest, but your wording seems to be based on some dubious personal opinions about imperialism and the sovereign's place in each country and certainly wasn't accurate in relation to Canada. I have reworded the sentence to express the Canadian situation and added relevant sources. I think the Australian and New Zealand cases need clarified and supporting sources of their own. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That is absolutely perfect! Never let it be said you lack a sense of humour! --Pete (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads of state around the world are complicit in torture and maiming of innocent civilians for cheap laughs. Militaries around the world have a solemn duty to punish the maiming of civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.17.194 (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So this page has been tagged for "multiple issues: since 2010 or 2011. Have these been resolved? Can we removed the tag? I don't see any current discussion here on the talk page. Does that mean we can remove the tags? Pfly (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the main problem with this article is that there's no "official" definition of what a head of state "really is", beyond that the phrase is used in various treaties and diplomatic protocol for the most dignified government official in a country, of which each country has their own definition and historical background. A head of state, I think, is one of those thing you instantly know when you see it. The most constructive thing to do with this article would be to get a lot of the material in the text to be properly sourced and it won't be particulary difficult to find the various constitutional texts referred to as examples. Many more examples from outside the anglosphere could also be added BTW... RicJac (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that one can instantly identify a head of state. Often the official documents are no help - North Korea's head of state has been dead for a long time and when Gaddaffi was heading Libya he apparently had no official title at all. In Australia there are two women seen as head of state, each with legitimate claims and supporters. I think I like de Gaulle's pseudo-definition most of all. --Pete (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I maintain imho that in most cases it is fairly easy to see which office is the most dignified or, paraphrasing de Gaulle, representative of a national ideal or identity. But there are certainly also, as you point out, certain cases which are not as clear-cut as the vast majority of cases. Official documents have to be seen in the context of the system of which they are part of, but that in itself does not prevent one from contrasting their content (both in terms of theory and actual practice) with corresponding documents from other countries. North Korea speaks for itself. The status of the federal vice regal office in Australia is certainly unique among the commonwealth realms in the sense that the GG has constitutional authority in its own right (despite archaic wording) and is not just a simple designee of the Monarch. But as there is no officially endorsed universal definition of what a head of state ”really is”, people tend to construe their own highly subjective interpretation of what this vague term ”really means” as seen in the Australian debate, instead of finding the relatively few lowest common denominators in a world-wide pattern of a variety of constructs. RicJac (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In the USSR neither Brezhnev nor any other Soviet leader before Gorbachev has ever been the head of state. According to the Soviet Constitution of 1924, 1936 and 1977, the country always had a collective head of state (such as the Congress of Soviets and the Supreme Soviet). Gorbachev became the first individual head of state in 1988 when the Constitution was amended to make the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, the position occupied by Gorbachev at that time, the head of the USSR. Invest some time to study history and official documents, people!99.136.195.246 (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Corrections are always welcome. Since you seem to have a clear grasp on the subject, why don't you make the appropriate corrections in the article itself. RicJac (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the over-wide definitions in the lead. The sources provided were very selective, serving only to support the notion that in some polities, some people have definitions of their own. In Australia, a constitutional monarchy, it is easily shown that the official view of who is the head of state is divided. Kevin Rudd, as Prime Minister, described the Governor-General as the Australian head of state, and she is routinely described as such in government documents, the media and interested groups such as Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. If we state things as fact, we should make sure that we are not merely giving an opinion. --Pete (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the action taken of removing he lines of text explaining how the term is generally applied in monarchies and republics. The terms are almost uniformly recognized, with exception to local debates in Australia and Japan. I understand that there’s a very fine line to be drawn between providing sources supporting a statement, conducting original research and creating synthesis, but I don’t believe that the proper and useful solution (under the perhaps naïve assumption that the editor has good intentions) is to remove it in its entirety, but rather to expand upon the qualifications and reservations that could be properly made.

I also take exception to the removal of the ”blog link” as it refers to a scholarly work. One might argue that it would be better to refer to that work directly, but the ”blog link” provides direct references to much of the case law which support the argument made in that work, which is not otherwise freely available.RicJac (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

All it takes is one exception, and a blanket definition is shot. If the rule is "All crows are black", then it only takes a single albino to force a rewrite. Generalising a blanket rule by selecting only those examples which support the case is an invitation for some clever dick to come along and point out the exception.

I got to notice this now-shot blanket definition by searching Wikipedia for linkspam. The blog in question is a very unsound source. I make the point that regardless of how many well-sourced scholarly arguments it may link to, if the Australian Prime Minister says the Australian Governor-General is the Australuan Head of State, then that is a counter-example right there. The simple fact, easily checked, is that opinion at all levels of the Australian community is divided, and there is no legal or constitutional definition of the term to draw upon for an ultimate authority. If you can find one, I would be very interested to see it. --Pete (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Now there appears to be two separate issues: the removed statements and the Australian debate.

1) All it takes is one exception, and a blanket definition is shot

That's the inherent nature of social sciences, as opposed to the natural sciences. The crux of my objection raised above is why you instead of being collaborative simply deleted what you found to be objectionable, instead of adding a note refering to the Aussie debate.

2) With respect to the Australian debate, the issue appears to be mainly about; apart from what I would characterize as slippery tounges and mere oversight of certain officeholders; the concerted effort made by Flint and Smith to put forth their argument which, as Spadijer in his book argues (the summary of which can be read in the online preview), is contrary to not only conventional wisdom but as a matter of law. The ultimate and final authority in Australia would of course only be if the term were ever to be explicitly added to the constitution, but the arguments and sources in Spadijer is imho quite convincing and definitely should be included in the Wikipedia article about the Australian debate as much as those of Flint & Smith, and I cannot see how they could possibly refute it other than by simply ignoring it.

I am not an Australian and I hold no opinion about the monarchy vs. republic issue down under, but I do nevertheless find the issue is very interesting indeed. RicJac (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to the preview: http://www.lulu.com/shop/steven-spadijer/who-is-the-australian-head-of-state-a-reply-to-professor-david-flint-and-sir-david-smith/paperback/product-20228457.html

And the deleted link: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/australian-identity/republic/the-queen-is-australia%e2%80%99s-head-of-state-part-iii RicJac (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to insert material into the head of state debate article. Be careful about any synthesis. It is easily shown that opinion in Australia is divided. Especially amongst those familiar with Australian constitutional matters. The trend here is away from the Queen, for the simple reason that she is not seen as exemplifying Australian culture and values, such as they are. It is certainly more than the two academics Smith and Flint holding an isolated view - it is held at all levels of society and is commonplace amongst reliable sources in the media. I do grow weary of people speaking out of ignorance or from a partisan position as if their own views were definitive. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The trend here is away from the Queen, for the simple reason that she is not seen as exemplifying Australian culture and values, such as they are.

I am certainly not challenging that view as the same general trend can also be seen in other commonwealth realms. Bogdanor essentially argues in his "Monarchy and the Constitution" that the present solution in the commonwealth realms is not a long-term sustainable one, given demographic changes and the issue of an evolving sense of nationhood apart from the (so to speak) British bootstraps. But all that has really nothing to do with the issue of who the head of state at present really is. The argument made by Smith and Flint is a partisan monarchist view which is clearly meant to keep the status quo by obfuscating the concepts of head of state and sovereign by clever means of sophistry and by carefully cherry picking facts to support their case: in other words, to divide and conquer among those with republican inclinations by making the issue irrelevant. That’s what any reasonable person would find out by looking up the case law citations from Spadijer in the links I provided above. The Australian debate page should also imho include some of cases referred to in the links as many of them can be found online on non-subscription sites. RicJac (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your interpretation. The only time the High Court was ever asked about the matter, they said that the Governor-General was the constitutional head of the Commonwealth.[6] But realistically, there is no definitive pronouncement, and it comes down to the head of state being whoever the people say it is. Opinion is divided at all levels of society. I'm not going to pick one partisan view over another and nor should you or anyone else. (Later) Looking closer at the "case law" cited in the blog reviewing a self-published book, all I see are minority views, usually expressed in passing, and the random comments of lower court and tribunal magistrates. If you so decry "cherry-picking" then why are you promoting it here? One could trawl through the same sources and find just as many supporting a counter-opinion. But of course the blogger does not wish to present two sides of the argument. (Later yet) Looking through the three blog posts and reviewing the comments, my opinion of "Legal expert Steven Spadijer" does not match those of the blog owner seeking to promote sales of the "book". For one thing, his opinion that the Queen may revoke or determine the powers of the Governor-General, or direct how they are employed is quite at odds with reality. The "Instructions to the Governor-General" provided by Victoria's Colonial Office at the time of Federation have long been withdrawn and it is quite clear that since 1975 at least, the Queen has stayed firmly apart from the actions of the Governor-General.[7] Furthermore, the Governor-General's constitutional powers are given to him alone and may not be altered in any way except through the operation of s128, which calls for legislation to be passed and approved by the people at referendum. The notion that the Queen could unilaterally sidestep that and (say) withdraw the Governor-General's power to appoint Ministers of State is risible. She cannot alter the Constitution by so much as a letter. --Pete (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with your interpretation. It seems clear to me that you have already made up your mind rather than seeking additional facts. Regarding the 1907 case the key word of interpretating, as convincingly made by Spadijer, is "officiating" which appears as a qualification used several times in the decision. That qualifiction is strikingly simillar to the way in which "de facto" or "effective" is used when the GG is referred to as a head of state. You are right that in most other cases the issue is only mentioned in passing (the issue is fairly academic, truth to be told), but I don't see that it is only limited to lower magistrates or minority opinions as you claim. If Smith & Flint had a waterproof case, why are they so selective in their choice of sources, or why don't they refer to the international conventions in which the term "head of state" appears? The whole issue is debatable and neither Spadijer nor Smith & Flint have clearly not put the matter to final rest. I am not a promotor of neither views so why should you be?

She cannot alter the Constitution by so much as a letter

Where have I claimed or implied that? The Queen as much any other official is bound by the constitution and the question is how certain ambigiously worded provisions should be interpreted. On the matter of theoretical intervention of the Australian monarch, that is as you say highly debatable and with good arguments on both sides of the aisle, but the application of constitutional power and the established political convention is a separate issue from who is the head of state. RicJac (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you misinterpret my position. I'm not advocating one position over another. I merely point out that both positions are held within the community, and there are various sources to support either, and various arguments for and against. The key point is that there is no definitive statement we can turn to for a final ruling. It would be good if the High Court were to give a decision on that exact question, or if legislation were to be passed to settle the matter.

My comments on Spadijer refer to one of his comments to the first blog entry, and I quote: Furthermore, aS I argue in my book (looking at everything the framers said on the matter), the Queen CAN revoke and can review any power by the Governor-General. During the Convention Debates, it was noted the GG is an agent of the Crown – in other words, the prinicipal can review and command the excerise of the powers of their agent. Whether they choose to do so – due to convention – is separate from law.

This is rubbish. The Queen cannot touch the Constitution, nor exercise any power except for those specifically given to her. To say that she could revoke the Governor-General's constitutional powers is to say that she could unilaterally amend the Constitution contrary to s128. Spadijer pushes a very dogmatic barrow, rubbishes those of differing opinions, and places far too much emphasis on a few phrases pulled out of context. Of course Justice Kirby may state an opinion firmly, but it is a minority opinion nonetheless. As so many of his opinions turned out to be. Not to disparage Kirby, who is an excellent example of a High Court Justice, a man of humanity and wit to accompany his prodigious intellect, but we really need something like Hill vs Sue, a decision of the full bench, on fundamental constitutional matters. Even in that crucial case there were dissenting opinions, and if we looked at those opinions without the wider context, we might easily be led astray. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite see how you managed to conclude that the Queen in Spadijer's interpretation of s2 & s61 would somehow axiomatically be above the written constitution, including s128. The opinion of Kirby, while in technical terms a minority opinion, was not refuted by any other justice on the bench as far as the record shows. RicJac (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The question was not being asked of the High Court. Kirby's opinion en passant has no strength and certainly cannot be used as Spadijer clearly thinks it can. If Spadjier thinks that the Queen can withdraw the Governor-General's constitutional powers, he must be proposing some extra-constitutional mechanism for change. The powers were assigned to that office when the Constitution became law in 1900 and the Queen cannot amend the Constitution except through the s128 provision, with passage through Parliament and popular approval via referendum. I'd be interested indeed to learn of Spadijer's opinion as to how his scenario where the Queen unilaterally revokes the G-G's powers might come about. --Pete (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven’t written anything about amendments, and neither has, as far as I know, Spadijer in the links above. The issue, as I understand it, is about an alternative interpretation of existing sections based on a variety of sources. The issue is only theoretical as there is no possible political benefit of such an interpretation, if correct, to be put into actual day-to-day practice.

I don’t perceive this conversation to be fruitful, since you’ve made up your mind by demanding an explicit and totally unambiguous statement from High Court case law focused solely and only on this particular issue, akin to your reasoning in Talk:Constitution_of_Australia#Queen_of_Australia_II. We agree to disagree, as reasonable people may.

Returning to the main topic. As it currently stands, there’s nothing in this article, as of now, outright stating that the Australian monarch is the Head of State of that nation as all Australian sections and citations also feature the GG, thus allowing each reader to make up their own mind on the issue while also providing a link to the specific debate article. RicJac (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's how it should be. It is not my contention that one or the other is the undisputed head of state. There are two views on the matter, widely held, and no definitive answer. Spadijer purports to provide one, but when examined, his arguments are weak, no matter how fervently he personally believes in his position. --Pete (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)