Talk:King–Byng affair

message: I thought I'd hear your opinions first, but the word "acquiesced" is rarely understood. I recommend using "accepted reluctantly". All4peace (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'acquiesce' best conveys the appropriate nuance and would argue that it is a fairly common word.  Compared to other words used in the article, Wiktionary's Frequency List for Project Gutenberg has it in the neighborhood of 'mandate', and with much higher usage than 'debacle' or 'tenuous'.  I support using the simpler of two equal choices, but don't think that is the case here.--Trystan (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplify English

message: See Talk: Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act regarding the concepts of "a unitary crown" and "a multiple crowns". G Colyer 13:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Most authorities believe Kerr's action was illegal..."  Does anyone have a source for this "fact"?  Sounds like POV to me. I'm removing it until one can be provided. --gbambino 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerr 

message: Reading this, it seems that the affair had very little to do with Canada's position in the Empire and the situation could have just as easily occurred had Canada had a monarch or President of their own. In seeking a redefinition, was King just taking advantage of the affair to push through other changes that wouldn't have made a difference? Timrollpickering 18:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King barking up the wrong tree? 

message: There's no mentioning of Prime Minister King resigning in portest of Byng's refusal to call an election (in 1926). Byng appointing Opposition Leader Arthur Meighen Prime Minister. The Meighen government being defeated by a non-cofidence vote and thus forcing the 1926 election (which King had called for earlier, but Byng refused). This article is lacking in details, If anyone could provide sources, please try an expand this article. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it should be added the reason the GG refused PM King's request fo an election. Due to a scandal, King's (in 1926) coalition goverment (Liberals-Progrressives) lost its Proggressives supporters & the Conservatives had the most seats in the House. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah ha, I see now. An anon had vandalised this article weeks ago, by deleting alot of material. Thanks for restoring the article folks. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs elaboration 

message: There's also anecdotal reports that one member of the Progressive Party was paired with an absent member of the government, and so was not supposed to vote.  He dozed off, and when his name was called, he awoke abruptly and voted, bringing down the government.
By the way, another name for Progressive Parties of the time was United Farmers. The UF premier of Manitoba, John Bracken, was elected federal Conservative leader in December 1942, and at his request, the word Progressive was added to the party's name, which it carried for the next 63 years. GBC (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The snoozing Progressive 

message: This article is very vague. There's no reference to specific dates in it. King-Byng wasn't some event several hundred years ago when documentation was spotty, it was only 80 years ago. This article should have specific dates referenced for each part of this historical event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.85.89 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 
: . DoubleBlue (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague 

message: : Byng then invited Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, who had been Prime Minister from 1920 to 1921, to form a government. Meighen did so, but made his ministers only "acting" ones; they were not sworn into office because the government still had to win a confidence vote in the House of Commons and under the laws of the time new ministers would have to seek re-election. The Liberals were furious and were able to get the Progressives to join them in a drive to bring down the government.
It's not entirely clear to me what the Liberals and Progressives were furious about. Was it because Meighen did not apparently try to win a confidence vote? Or that the ministers didn't seek re-election? Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess it was because he was trying to bypass one of the laws of the time for political convenience. (Also it's possible some of the seats may have been Liberal targets in the by-elections but I couldn't say for sure.) In politics, people often get furious whenever one's political opponents start treating laws and constitutional conventions as optional extras (regardless of their own track record on this). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  King really went off on the deep end of this and tried to suggest Byng had staged some sort of coup d'etat. Yes, this was a ludicrous claim to make, but King was even by the (low) standards of politics an unusually petty, pompous man who was deeply into the occult and viewed his life as part of some cosmic battle between the forces of Good vs. Evil. For someone like that, King really took Byng's refusal of his request to dissolve Parliament personally. This article should really mention the great feud between King and Meighen, who really, really hated each other. For someone like King who consulted his crystal ball and Ouija board (seriously, I am not making this up) for advice about how best to defeat the cosmic forces of darkness he saw himself battling, to have General Byng refuse his advice and see his archenemy Meighen sworn in as Prime Minister, this could only be the result of something underhanded. As already been explained mentioned here, at the time, ministers had to run for election whenever they were sworn in, and since Meighen had a minority government, his Cabinet were all "acting" ministers, which King used to suggest that there was something improper going on here and this was a coup committed by the Governor-General. Byng did nothing illegal or unconstitutional and contrary to what King was trying to claim, the Governor-General is not obliged to follow the Prime Minister's advice to dissolve Parliament. The only reason why this becomes an "affair" was that King was a sore loser and turned it into a crisis. --A.S. Brown (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furious 

message: Did King resign because he believed he lost confidence of the house, or did he resign because the GG refused his request? I believe the latter, hence the tag.  Knoper (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  King's Resignation 

message: I can't find any reliable references to this alternate name that loads. Microsoft Bing (ha!) comes up with https://nationalpost.com/opinion/allan-levine-that-king-byng-thing but it won't load, and everything else is Reddit, other wikis or personal webpages. Additionally, it sounds like a jokey reference to a catchphrase from Bing (TV series) so I suspected vandalism and have boldly removed it. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The King-Byng Thing