Talk:Royal assent

Article title

Every reference to the royal assent in the body of this article is in lower case. Assuming this is correct this article should be moved to "Royal assent" (small 'a').

Iota 01:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All the references in the article are wrong. Royal Assent is a proper noun, the formal name of a constitutional process. While in some contexts when referring in a generalised form to royal assent, rather than referring to the specifically defined constitutional process, the lower case for both words is acceptable, a capital R and small a would be fundamentally wrong, the equivalent of writing President of the united states or indeed, when referring to the country, United states. One can lower case a reference to a set of united states, when writing generically, but the specific name United States is always capitalised. Ditto with president and President of Ireland. The same principles apply here. One can write about a process of royal assent, but the granting of the Royal Assent. JtdIrL.

Date of last withholding of assent

The article dates the last withholding of assent at 1707. Withholding of assent was the first grievance in America's Declaration of Independence, so apparently it happened later in the century as well.

In this instance it was George III's expressed view against such a view (and such a bill may well have ended with him witholding assent) but it never was passed through parliament in order for him to withold assent on the matter.

You've confused the withholding of assent within Great Britain with the withholding of assent or disallowance of 'colonial' legislation. No Westminster legislation has had the assent withheld from it since the Scotch Militia Bill in 1708. But bills passed by colonial legislatures were presented for assent 'by the colony's Governor' (not by the King), and this assent was by no means the formality that it was at Westminster. Part of the colonists' grievances were also that governors sometimes reserved bills "for the King's pleasure" (which was not always given); and even after then, the Privy Council might still disallow the bill. In summary: the road a colonial bill had to travel was much more strewn with obstacles! 80.5.88.40 (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

It appears this is may be untrue, and Bills are quite regularly vetoed by senior royals. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.237.74 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

The UK Parliament web site gives March 11, 1708 (see http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/lareyne.pdf ) for Queen Anne's withholding of assent on the Scottish Militia Bill. I put the date in the article and cut the following note:

[1] While history and legal textbooks generally refer to the last 'withholding' of the royal assent (ie, vetoing) as occurring in 1707 when Queen Anne vetoed a Scottish militia bill, the British parliamentary website dates the veto as occurring in 1708. This is probably due to the differences between the British 'Old Style' calendar, in which a year begins at the vernal equinox (March 25), and the 'New Style' calendar, in which a year begins on January 1.

The note is probably correct, as March 11 is in the ambiguous part of the year. But now we have the full and correct (I hope) date I don't think it's necessary to mention this in the article any more. Gdr 21:53, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Although http://www.parliament.uk/works/newproc.cfm another parliamentary website says 1707

---

Well, in the Federalist Papers, the founders point out that the King had not vetoed a bill since 1707. "A very considerable period has elapsed since the negative of the crown has been exercised." (Federalist #73, by Hamilton). They said, however, that absolute veto power (which is what royal assent is) is not acceptable, and that's why the Constitution of the United States says that the President's veto can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of Congress. In Britain, the legislature could vote 99% for a bill, and if the Queen is against it, she can still refuse assent. In the United States, the President could veto, but it would be overruled by the 2/3 majority of Congress. One example of this is where the current President tried to veto the bill against torture of POWs/enemy combatants proposed by Senator John McCain. (actually the 8th amendment of the Constitution already forbids this, but McCain's bill reasserted it) McCain had a 2/3 majority in Congress so the President lost that battle. Our President is not a King or Queen and never will be; since July 4th, 1776, there has been no Monarch of the United States. Here, it is We the People collectively who are the Sovereign. LONG LIVE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!!! :-) --Brian71.116.89.82 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful for the article to note that royal assent is an absolute veto power, with no recourse in parliament (unless some places provide for recourse—do they?). It does appear quite undemocratic that such a procedure exists, whereby acts of a legislature can be utterly refused by a monarch. This should be inserted as a key reason why monarchs have not dared to refuse (or exceedingly rarely have refused) assent; that, because there is no legal ability to override such a veto, a convention of nearly always granting assent was instituted, avoiding risk of rebellion.

A fair comment should be made, then, as to the actual power of such a veto. If this power of refusal is never used—whether from fear of revolt, a respect for the people's representatives, or a mixture of both—why does such a custom continue if it's lost authority? Also, it would be of great benefit to discuss why no procedure for a veto's override has been developed. Why is there no democratic safeguard against the tyranny of a monarch, and how does this square with the notion of the supremacy of parliament? Yoho2001 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1/. Democratic safeguards... There are (at least) three Parliamentary safeguards: all legislation needs to be agreed to by Monarch and Parliament; only Parliament can approve taxation (and therefore can staff the monarch of funds); and the monarch can only maintain a standing army with the ongoing approval of Parliament (annual Acts approving it). These three factors where fundamental to the shift in power from monarch to Parliament. Second, Royal Assent cannot be used for "tyranny" by a monarch - yes any Bill needs to be agreed to by both Monarch and Parliament - however Assent cannot be retrospectively withheld (ie existing Acts cannot be revoked by the Monarch).

2/. Parliamentary sovereignty... The UK Parliament is compose of three parts: Monarch, Lords, and Commons. Parliamentary Sovereignty means that "Queen-in-Parliament" is sovereign - not any one constituent part. Royal Assent is the very embodiment of this concept.

3/. The Civil War and the Glorious Revolution established de facto and de jure that a monarch could not rule against the will of Parliament - from that time, the relationship was much softer, based on negotiation etc. Given that the monarchs were still actively involved in government until the 19th century, they had other ways of ensuring that legislation they didn't like never came forward for Royal Assent. Eg George III ended the progress of the East India Bill by informing all members of the House of Lords that anyone who voted for the Bill would no-longer considered his friend...

4/. The modern British monarch Reigns but does not rule - they are not involved in government, and act only on Government advise. However the Royal Prerogatives remain as they are often useful tools for the government. Also, the remain as a Reserve Power which could be used in case of emergency - indeed, it could be argued that the most important role of the monarch today is to act as guarantor of democracy and our freedoms, and they would be obliged to act against Parliamentary tyranny (although this of course would constitute a constitutional crisis.). The Thieving Gypsy (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy comments (was promoted)

Royal Assent

(Uncontested -- July 7)

This is a self-nomination. -- Emsworth 02:34, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Question: the article on reserved powers mentions Germany, and seems to apply to many nations, while this article only mentions Britain and the commonwealth countries. Where does this apply, and how does it relate to U.S. veto power or the powers of other heads of state? For example, does the Netherlands have royal assent, and how does it differ from the English model? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, the phrase "Royal Assent" is a British one. -- Emsworth 03:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, the article's talk page seems to indicate that more countries than Britain and commonwealth are included. And I'd still be interested in seeing how and if it affected the powers granted other heads of state. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I've added a section on other nations. -- Emsworth 16:30, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
• A good article. However, I object on the grounds that it does not cover royal assent in current crown colonies at all. Does, say, the Governor of Gibraltar have that power? Does he ever use it? Morwen - Talk 20:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added information on Crown colonies/ dependencies, and also a passage about ceremony in the Isle of Man. -- Emsworth 00:30, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support. Morwen - Talk 06:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lots of good detail. 81.168.80.170 21:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 04:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now - Nice article, but it needs a better lead section. So far I only count 2 sentences in the lead which arguably doesn't make one para when an article of that size should have two good-sized paragraphs in the lead section in order to concisely lead-in the subject. --mav
  • I've added to the lead section. -- Emsworth 18:02, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Support - great work! --mav 21:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Object. 1) The "historical development" section (UK) doesn't give many specifics as to its origin: Historically, "the agreement of all three was required for the passage of legislation."; at a minimum, a date or two would be helpful. 2) The usage of the Royal Assent needs more coverage, if this sentence is correct: "While the power to deny the Royal Assent was once exercised often..." — when / who excercised it often? The first mention in the history section is about Anne, the last monarch to use it. 3) Questions that might need answering in this article: Does anyone want to scrap the method of Royal Assent, in the UK or elsewhere? 4) Would it be realistically possible for the monarch to veto legislation, or is it all a ceremonial sham? What do people speculate would happen in such an instance? — Matt 02:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • 1) and 2) Addressed. 3) I'm sure that people want to get rid of the Royal Assent. But because it is a merely ceremonial procedure, there isn't any major opposition to it. I think that the argument would almost always fall under broader constitutional reform plans, such as the abolition of the monarchy. But the article, in my opinion, should not be concerned with major constitutional reforms and sentiments directed against the monarchy in general (as opposed to the Royal Assent itself), as such a concern is merely tangential, if not entirely off-topic. 4) This question is the most difficult to address. It is theoretically possible for the monarch to veto legislation, but realistically impossible (this is addressed in the article). The possibility is so extremely remote that speculation would probably be futile. The scenario is so difficult to envision that one cannot say how the people would react. -- Emsworth 14:10, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the additions and answers to the queries; I've removed the objection. — Matt 23:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page moves

Anyone like to comment on the factors for and against Royal Assent and Royal assent before someone moves the page again? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This, I think, has been sufficiently addressed by Jtdirl above, in the section "Article title." -- Emsworth 21:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - had not noticed that. Who am I to argue if Parliament [1] and Hansard [2] think it is a proper noun. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questionable para

There is a situation, however, in which a more direct monarchical assent is required for a bill. In order for any bill modifying the monarch's prerogative powers to be heard in Parliament, the monarch must first consent to its hearing. In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II refused her consent to the "Military Strikes Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill," which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. Due to the Queen's refusal to consent to the bill's hearing, it was automatically dropped.

This is the first I've heard of it, and Google turns up very little. Also I assume what is meant here is that the government refused consent to the bill's hearing, using the mechanism of the monarch withholding consent, rather than the Queen actually deciding the matter for herself. I think this needs rewording if anyone knows what actually happened here. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill - see http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/035/1999035.htm. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, well I've corrected the title of the bill in the article, but I'm still in the dark about exactly how it was blocked. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was a private member's bill introduced by Tam Dalyell that had its first reading on 26 January 1999 and, according to the Weekly Information Bulletin: 17th July 1999, was scheduled for second reading on 23 July 1999, but according to Weekly Information Bulletin: 29th July 1999 it was "dropped" before second reading. It's not entirely clear whether it was dropped by its sponsor (Dayell) or because it was "blocked" because Queen's Consent was not "signified" (per this page). HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work on the new article! — Trilobite (Talk) 19:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dalyell's bill is the really scandalous occasion, but there have been others, now published: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21024828 and continuing discussion in the Guardian. It still isn't quite clear what happened, but it seems never to have amounted to a refusal of assent to legislation that had been passed. The "university visitor" occasion is daft, since (at least in practice) the position is merely ceremonial. --Wikiain (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth

The reference to Canada's Constitution Act 1982 as a case where the Governor-General chooses to defer assent to the monarch was deleted as inappropriate on 5 April 2005. The Constitution Act 1982 was enacted by the UK Parliament as a schedule to the Canada Act in accordance with the pre-1982 conventions. (Though the conventions required Canadian consent, only the UK Parliament could amend the Canadian constitution until this act was passed; one of the provisions it added was an amending procedure, and the UK Parliament renounced further amending powers in the Canada Act proper.) The Governor-General of Canada cannot assent to legislation of the UK Parliament; only Buckingham Palace can do that. --RBBrittain

Canada's Constitution Act 1982 was in fact a case where the Governor General deferred assent to the Queen. The act assented to in Britain was called the Canada Act. The Constitution Act 1982 was Canadian legislation. If it was not passed in Canada, the country would have been left without a constitution.

(1) I'm fairly sure the Australia Act abolished or limited the power of the Sovereign to assent to bills for Australia, including the Australian states. I'll check it and perhaps post a small edit. (2) The article needs to be clearer that this power (like the rest of the Royal Prerogative) is always exercised on ministerial advice. There have been a couple of cases in Australia where bills were vetoed on government advice because some technical defect was discovered after they had passed the House of Representatives and the Senate. I suspect we could find them elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Nations as well. Update - See Australian Senate Practice Alan 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Australia Act didn't abolish royal assent. It did provide that state laws were not subject to withholding of assent or reservation. It also did: (1) terminate appeals to the Privy Council, excepting the express power of the High Court to certify appeals (not exercised). (2) also confirmed that the powers of the Queen in a state were to be exercised by the Governor in that state (s7). In the case of the Australia Act itself, the bill was reserved by the Governor-General for Lizzy until she was able to assent to it in person by autographing the front page IIRC. --Cliau 14:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This section claims that Royal Assent in the Commonwealth realms is given on advice of Ministers. However, at least at a Federal level in Australia, no such advice is given formally. Presumably if such advice was proferred it would, in most circumstances, be accepted.

Also, for a recent case where assent was denied on advice, see: http://www.anzacatt.org.au/prod/anzacatt/anzacatt.nsf/ca3cb73640e4b7d4ca2567ee0016638b/505b80874bb16c24ca2573c800834661/$FILE/Kate%20Murray%20on%20assent%20in%20Vic.pdf Sir rupert orangepeel (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Error detected: No Royal Commission under the 1967 procedure

I have yesterday detected an error in the article and I had removed it. It has been restored and today I again removed it. The error is: the article stated that under the procedure created by the Royal Assent Act, 1967 the Royal Assent also involved notification by Royal Commissioners, but that those did not come to Parilament, instead giving notice of the Royal Assent in Buckingham Palace, and that, in turn, the Lord Chancellor/Speaker, notified the grant of Assent to each House. This is simply wrong.

When the 1967 Act's procedure is followed (as is almost always the case nowadays -- with the exception of the end of sesssion), no Royal Commissioners are appointed (see the model of Letters Patent - those I have also added to the article yesterday). Istead, the Letters Patent are delivered directly to the Lord Chancellor/Speaker, or their deputies, who, in turn, notify the grant of Royal Assent to the Houses of Parliament sitting separately. Thus, the 1967 Act procedure dispenses with the joint assembly of both Houses and with the appointment of Royal Commissioners.

For further information see the Compagnion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords.--Antonio Basto 16:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Bill Gates

Did he really threaten to sell the palace to Bill Gates? That sounds terribly fishy to me. If we can't find a source for it, it could be just vandalism. Let's address this before the article hits the front page tomorrow. --Zantastik talk 18:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, not the palace, but the whole darn country. I found this in Britannica yearbook 1998. (Referring to events of 1997) "Though a remark by the Prince about selling Leichtenstein to Bill Gates and renaming it Microsoft was not meant to be taken seriously, in July, when faced by politicians opposing his effort to gain the power to appoint judges, he ended discussions by saying he would pack his bags and move Princess Maria, the children and himself to Vienna" Dainamo 23:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Never withheld in colonies?

Quoth the article:

As in the United Kingdom, Royal Assent is by convention never withheld, both in the independent Commonwealth Realms and in British Crown colonies and dependencies.

I'm assuming that there must be some mechanism by which the UK government can override laws passed by colonial/crown dependency legislatures, yes? Otherwise, they wouldn't really be dependencies, would they? So how do they do it if not by withholding royal assent from the laws? --Jfruh 02:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

In certain matters the constitutions (or similar) of the said dependancies make certain descisions binding (e.g. refering to the British House of Lords as the highest court in other areas the support in some way by the UK would effectively doing anything extereme enough , to warrant the witholding of assent. However real answer to this lies in the words "by convention". Should extreme necessity arise, a de facto practise does not mean it is prevented in jure. Dainamo 08:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Privy Council, not the House of Lords, is the final court of appeal for Crown colonies and dependencies and for some Commonwealth realms. Royal Assent is no longer used to control legislation in British Crown colonies. The relationship between a Crown colony and the UK (including legislative competence) is defined by UK legislation. The situation with Crown dependencies is more complex. The article should be expanded to describe Royal Assent to Scottish legislation and Northern Irish legislation. Alan 08:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Other Monarchy's where consent can be withheld

The Vatican also is a Monarchy in which consent can be witheld by the sovereign.--Samuel J. Howard 10:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Formula?

Does anyone know the Fromula for Assent/Withholding Assent in the Commonwealth?

Outside the UK, in those Commonwealth countries that still clone the British monarchy the assent is given or withheld by the Governor-General and the formula is determined by that country's laws. In the republics, likewise for presidential assent. Please sign your posts, using four tildes (~). --Wikiain (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Closed shop - UK

I seem to remember the Queen maybe reserving Royal assent on the Labour government's Closed shop legislation ? It passed in the end, but can someone else remember ? Wizzy…☎ 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Royal assent in person: (Canadian) Constitution Act, April 17, 1982

File:Ouellet approaches to sign the Constitution.jpg

Queen Elizabeth II signs the Constitution into law in Ottawa on April 17, 1982

While the monarch does not routinely give royal assent in person, it is still done on special occasions. In particular, and in contradiction to the article, Queen Elizabeth II personally signed the Canada Act#Enactment of the Act in Ottawa on 1982.

Actually, that article is a little confusing, and I'll have to research history. I think that the Canada Act was U.K. legislation, and I'm not sure who gave assent, but appendix B, the (Canadian) Constitution Act, was separately enacted in Canada, and given royal assent in person. So the caption of the picture in the Canada Act article may be incorrect.

"George I, who spoke no English"

This myth has been disproved.

Georg Ludwig was fluent in several languages, but preferred French.

He opened his first Parliament with the words “My Lords and Gentlemen, I have ordered my Lord Chancellor to declare to you, in my name, the causes of calling this Parliament” (which would seem to indicate that the King’s Speech was beyond his abilities at that time).

When Lord Cowper was reappointed as Lord Chancellor he had a private audience with the King: he spoke to the King in English, but the King replied in French (so the King certainly understood English, even though he liked to use French himself).

Following the return to government of Lord Townshend and Sir Robert Walpole, the King is said to have remarked “What did they go away for? It was their own faults” (imperfect but adequate English).

From 1723 there is a note to the King from Townshend on which the King wrote “I agree with you in everything contain’d in this letter, and desire you to communicate your opinion either to the Duke of Newcastle or H. Walpole, that instructions to the Ambassadors may be sent according to your opinion. GR.”

See: Raghild Hatton “George I: Elector and King” (1978)

Hovite 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"constitutional convention"

I'm not sure that this phrase is quite right: "In the United Kingdom the Royal Assent is a constitutional convention..." So far as I know the Royal Assent is a legal requirement - it is the non-exercise of the right to refuse it that has become convention. But please let me know if I am wrong. Art Markham (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; the statement in the article was utterly wrong! I've now replaced it. 80.5.88.40 (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

Last royal assent in person

Was Queen Victoria really the last to grant Royal Assent in person? I was under the impression that for important/historic bills (eg: the repatriation of the canadian constitution) Queen Elizabeth has signed in person in some ceremony. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.148.53 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not mistaken—just a bit confused. (I realise the person who's asked the question is unlikely to be watching, but I'll answer anyway...) Victoria was indeed the last monarch to give Royal Assent in person to an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. However, since Victoria's time the British Crown has splintered into several separate crowns, and today Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of 16 sovereign states, the Commonwealth realms. These crowns are separate, even if worn by the same person, which means that the Queen's actions as monarch of one Commonwealth realm have no impact on her other realms. Therefore, Elizabeth II can give Royal Assent to an Act of the Parliament of Canada, in her capacity as Queen of Canada, because in this country the tradition remains of having the Queen (or, in most cases, her representative, the Governor-General) grant Royal Assent in person. It all comes down to how the different customs survive in the different realms of Her Majesty. Waltham, The Duke of 23:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On 19 October 1973, Queen Elizabeth II personally assented to the Australian Royal Style and Titles Act 1973. The bill was "reserved for the Queen's pleasure" (Constitution of Australia s 58) because it concerned her personally, in that it gave her the title "Queen of Australia". For a similar reason, she had also personally assented to the Australian Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 (although some would say that she might already have been separately the monarch of Australia). I think that the 1973 Act was the last time that the Queen personally assented to legislation of an Australian parliament. However, she personally signed, while in Australia, the proclamation that brought into force the Australian version of the Australia Act 1986. The constitutional provision about reservation by the Governor-General for "the Queens's pleasure" was originally meant to allow the UK government, advising the monarch, the final say on any Australian legislation, but it would not be used in that way today. --Wikiain (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

American English

The MoS says that any article with an inherent nationality should be in that version of the language. Given that most of this article is given to Royal Assent in the UK, and the US doesn't have Royal Assent at all, surely this should be in British English? I will change all this later if no-one objects. Jess xx (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right - go for it, mate. --Wikiain (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

commencement order

There is no mention of 'commencement orders' in this article; according to the parliamentary website it is possible to creat a delay between royal assent and commencement of the terms of an Act into law. To quote "The legislation within the Bill may commence immediately, after a set period or only after a commencement order by a Government minister. A commencement order is designed to bring into force the whole or part of an Act of Parliament at a date later than the date of the Royal Assent. If there is no commencement order, the Act will come into force from midnight at the start of the day of the Royal Assent. The practical implementation of an Act is the responsibility of the appropriate government department, not Parliament."[3] In some cases a part of an Act may never receive the necesary 'enabling' legislation. A good example of this is the failure to enable Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 which would have banned parking on pavements across the UK.[4] They were still asking questions in the house about this one in 1982.[5] Here is a summary of the whole saga [6]. Another example is the failure so far to enable part of the Traffic Management Act 2004 banning the parking of cars in mandatory cycle lanes.[7] PeterEastern (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thailand

What about Thailand?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.132.52.94 (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Thailand. Maybe you could locate that info and share it with the rest of us? - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What if the sovereign is incapacitated?

Does British and/or Commonwealth law provide for the case where the sovereign is incapable of giving assent (e.g. because he/she is too ill, or is a minor, or hides in in the attic or whatever)? Please add. -- 78.50.188.146 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes: see Regency Acts. --Wikiain (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

R/royal A/assent

When the question whether caps should be used was raised at the end of 2004 (see sections above), it was asserted that the term royal assent was a proper noun and caps should be used accordingly. That was an error, which has persisted in the article, unsupported by normally correct usage such as in this quote from the current UK parliament website: Once a bill has completed all the parliamentary stages in both Houses, it is ready to receive royal assent.[8] It is usual for caps to be used in documents such as letters patent of notification issued under the royal sign manual (another uncapped phrase), but in such documents the customary style is also to use FULL CAPITALS for certain words and phrases, in a way which would not be used in normal text. In some contexts, such as Hansard, the use of caps is customary as a matter of courtesy or dignity, such as when the Speaker is recorded to have spoken the customary formula: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:.... Such usage is not suited in other contexts such as Wikipedia - see: "Constitutional and Administrative Law" by Bradley and Ewing (2007): But by the Royal Assent Act 1967, the assent, having been signified by letters patent... [9] and "Modernisation of Royal Assent in Canada"(Richardson, Last Updated: 2013-10-08). Qexigator (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

+ Nowadays, the use of caps in print is usually a solecism[10]. In the United Kingdom, with caps the "Royal Assent" properly refers to the ceremony for which the Lord Great Chamberlain[11] is chiefly responsible, when, by the laws and customs of Parliament, which derive from the 14c. (i.e, before Henry VIII, and modified by statute in and after his reign), the members of the House of Commons are summoned by Black Rod to witness the giving of the monarch's assent to bills previously passed or assented to by the Commons and by the Lords "in parliament assembled". The Clerk of the Parliaments (not the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery) is chiefly responsibe for inscribing a note on the documents recording that the assent has been given, as authorised by other documents (in modern parlance, a paper trail), such as letters patent, by which the monarch authorises his/her assent to be declared (in his/her absence) in due form, in the House of Lords, where the lords of parliament are seated, and with members of the House of Commons in attendance outside the bar of the House of Lords. When the monarch's assent was last given in person (see Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541) (at a prorogation in August 1854 (Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, 19th edn. p.564), it is said that when the name of the bill presented was read out by the clerk she (Queen Victoria) inclined her head, and this was noted on the bill by the clerk as assent given, and so recorded by the clerks in the parliamentary records for which they are responsible. See also Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824[12], [13] and [14], [15] and [16]. Likewise caps are properly used referring to the ceremony of Trooping the Colour, also known as "The Queen's Birthday Parade", but not for the (archaic) practice of marching a regiment's colours through the troops parading by companies, before and after battle. --Qexigator (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Things are written all kinds of ways all over the Internet; even within Wikipedia there isn't consistency ('Royal Family' verus 'royal family' when referring to a specific royal family, for instance); see 'royal assent' capitalised here, here, and here. As 'Royal Assent' and 'Royal Family' are, in certain contexts, proper nouns, I'm inclined to agree with the earlier consensus that the term should be capitalised. However, I recognise that it can be written without the capital letters, and so wouldn't strongly object if consensus favoured that method. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Now is a time to let the article be updated per [17], which may not have been there when the caps were thought to be acceptable. Has it been given any thought lately? Certainly, variants and anomalies in the capping of this and many other words and phrases abound (such as p/Parliament, s/Sovereign, l/Letters p/Patent). "The Smith Family" is a proper noun, but "the Smith's family" is not, nor "the Queen's family". The mere conjunction of "royal" with "assent" (outside letters patent and similar usage) does not require articles such as this to use caps. In fact in the article and other printed works of information, the use of caps other than where necessary tends to obscure the meaning of royal assent per se in the trappings of ceremony and mere habits of clerkly orthography. On the question of mismatch, the title relates to the ceremonial practice mentioned in the article, but if need be, the title can be changed in the usual way. Qexigator (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I really can't find any guidance from MOS:CAPS. That leads me to believe it's a matter of consensus. If the last one here was to capitalise 'Royal Assent', then, if a bold change to that is made and that change is reverted, a new consensus must be established. I reverted your bold edit (as I personally agree with the previous consensus); but, I'm not going to resist if you want to decapitalise the term again. Others may or may not contest that edit. (And note that this is a featured article.) But, if you do it, it's necessary that you move the page, as well. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this your attention. My present position is to let the version as now revised[18] stand, and not to propose a move and further uncaps. Qexigator (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"promulgates"

The wording of the article is also inaccurate and confusing when it begins by stating that R/royal A/assent includes "promulgation" on the part of the monarch. Qexigator (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

+ A constitutional monarch's assent to a bill presented by a legislature is distinct from promulgation of the legislation when it has been given such assent, whether or not promulgation also is "by" or in the name of the monarch. In a homely way we distinguish between the act of showing witnesses, by voice or gesture, a grant of permission for something contained in a document (assenting), and the act of putting a signature to the document, and then the act of mailing it (single or multiple copies), or (promulgating by) having copies displayed on public notice boards or advertised in the press. In this respect the article needs (some more) revision:

• The wording of the lead implied that there is no distinction in ordinary meaning or in law or constitutional practice.[19]
• In the article the word is rightly absent from "1 United Kingdom, 2 Other Commonwealth realms", but occurs in "3 British Crown dependencies" and "4 British overseas territories" and in "5 Other countries".

• In Isle of Man the distinction is correctly and clearly made:

first, Royal Assent is not sufficient to give legal effect to an Act of Tynwald. By ancient custom, an act did not come into force until it had been promulgated at an open-air sitting of Tynwald;

secondly, the Synod had similar powers, but limited to the extension to the Isle of Man of measures of the General Synod. Before 1994, Royal Assent was granted by Order in Council, as for a bill, but the power to grant Royal Assent to measures has now been delegated to the lieutenant governor. A Measure does not require promulgation.

• Hong Kong[20] had mentioned that, after becoming a special administrative region of the People's Republic of China, bills are signed and promulgated by the Chief Executive, who is both the head of the territory and the head of government. That may be notable under another topic but, while it has nothing to do with "Royal Assent", it certainly confirms the distinction between assent and promulgation. At the linked source is an item headed "How does a Bill become an Ordinance?" which states Having received the Third Reading, the bill is submitted to the Chief Executive for signature, promulgated in the Gazette and becomes a piece of enacted law.[21]

• 5.1 General (as unrevised)[22] had read: In many monarchies, such as Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Thailand, the monarch is responsible for promulgating laws. In other monarchies, such as Sweden, the government officially promulgates laws. In both cases, however, the process is usually ceremonial, whether by constitutional convention or by an explicit provision of the constitution. That in itself showed that assent and promulgation are distinct, whether more closely connected under the constitutional law and practice of certain monarchies than of others.
• Of the 10 countries named there, only the Netherlands has a citation: "How does an Act become law? Government of the Netherlands." This does not support "promulgates" (nor "Royal Assent" with caps). Under the heading "Assent" it reads: According to the Constitution of the Netherlands, a bill becomes an Act of Parliament once it is passed by the States General (the House and Senate) and ratified by the monarch. The lead minister is responsible for obtaining royal assent and for countersigning the bill. Under the next heading "Publication in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees" it reads: The Ministry of Justice is responsible for publishing Acts in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees.
• There is more about the Netherlands, reading: A law that has received Royal Assent will be published in the State Magazine, but there is no source added to the one above, and no mention of "promulgation" as such.
• It is stated of Spain's constitution that it invests the Consentimiento Real (Royal Assent) and promulgation (publication) of laws with the King of Spain, which also clearly makes the distinction between assent and promulgation. Qexigator (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Co-regency

This is a topic about a part of a country's constitution, and in this context, "their" is not a good substitute for "his or her". For instance, while the term "monarch" is gender neutral (used for a person of either sex) a monarch is either male or female. A monarchy may be constitutionally restricted to say, males as kings, excluding females. It is usual for the wife of a male monarch regnant to be known as Queen (consort) but not the husband of a Queen regnant to be known as King (consort). A Queen consort may have come from another "nation". Such gender differences should not be smoothed over by "their". There have been instances of coregency such as William and Mary, where a monarchy has had a married couple as King and Queen regnant for the remainder of their joint lives. Before that, there were the "Catholic Monarchs" Ferdinand and Isabella. Qexigator (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

+ In the case of Mary I of England's Spanish marriage: under the English common law doctrine of jure uxoris, the property and titles belonging to a woman became her husband's upon marriage, and it was feared that any man she married would thereby become King of England in fact and in name. While Mary's grandparents, Ferdinand and Isabella, had retained sovereignty of their own realms during their marriage, there was no precedent to follow in England. Under the terms of Queen Mary's Marriage Act, Philip was to be styled "King of England", all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple, for Mary's lifetime only. Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The "standard method"

"Formally, this [letters patent] remains the standard method, a fact that is recited by the wording of the letters patent for the appointment of the Royal Commissioners and by the wording of the letters patent for the granting of Royal Assent in writing under the 1967 Act ("... And forasmuch as We cannot at this time be present in the Higher House of Our said Parliament being the accustomed place for giving Our Royal Assent...")."

The quoted passage from the letters patent specifically maintains the fiction that the usual way to grant royal assent is by the monarch in person in the House of Lords (even though that no longer happens), which is the opposite of acknowledging that letters patent have become the standard method. The sentence contradicts itself; the quote does not support the fact asserted in the first part of the sentence. It needs changing. Richard75 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it to "In practice this remains the standard method, a fact that is belied by the wording of the letters patent..." Richard75 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 13:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Royal Assent → Royal assent – Not a proper noun, but rather a class of various ceremonies and legal instruments used in many countries. Should be downcased per MOS:CAPS, which specifies the removal of "unnecessary" capitalisation. As sentence case is used for Wikipedia article titles, this article from the British parliament website makes clear that "royal assent" is not capitalised in prose by convention. Regardless, this article is not only about the British tradition, but about others. As this article is not referring to specific instance of "Royal Assent" in one country, the title cannot be considered a proper noun. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom Red Slash 23:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the nom. It's not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalized. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It might be capitalised because that's how it's written in legislation. But that's not how we do things here. Richard75 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support this move, correct spelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support as nom. It isn't always capitalised in legislation - e.g. it isn't capitalised in the Australian Constitution, s 58. Wikiain (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about Malaysia?

Since Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy does it have a similar procedure as the British one or its own native way of doing things? Sion8 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"The Crown is as much Sovereign in the Courts as it is Sovereign in Parliament"

Both Queen Victoria and Edward VII, by construction, refused to sign the proposed Acts that were to become the 1911 Parliament Act, essentially on the grounds that the Act would be unconstitutional, which many believe was and still is, including the 1948 amendment. The liberal government had to wait until Edward had died in 1910. These facts contribute to the emerging notions that the perceived constitutional arrangements currently held to be true by Diciests and Parliamentary absolutists are mere opinion, no matter how much conventions and judicial precedents are held to be constitutionally forceful. A growing number of academics and constitutionalists are becoming Cokeists. The two Supreme Court judgements resulting from Miller v Government in 2017 and 2019, which few Parliamentary absolutists, junior lawyers and judiciary have yet to learnedly extrapolate meaning from, are about to become a Battle Royal in the defining issue of Boris Johnson's government if he follows through with his declared intention to clip the wings of the Courts. It would amount to the tyranny of arbitrary government if he did so, which is the central core purpose of the Glorious Revolution and Declaration of Rights 1688.

"The Crown is as much Sovereign in the Courts as it is Sovereign in Parliament" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.30.119 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fascinating issue of the ever-greater power which the judiciary have come to exercise over the last generation, and which is now starting to snowball at a truly alarming rate, I don't recognise your description of the Parliament Acts. To my knowledge no such proposal was ever put to Queen Victoria; Gladstone wanted to move to curb the power of the Lords after they threw out the Second Home Rule Bill in 1893, but his Cabinet refused to back him. I haven't come across any mention of Edward VII refusing it either when Campbell-Bannerman passed statements of intent through the Commons, but it never came to that - they were still arguing about the budget at the time he died. And I think it's pretty well established by non-fringe sources that the Parliament Acts are perfectly valid - Jackson (2005) being the key modern case.Paulturtle (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

FA in need of review

This older Featured Article is in need of a review.

There is significant unsourced text, particularly in the "Other countries" section. Malaysia and Thailand are mentioned once and never expanded upon. The Netherlands part is completely unsourced and the Spanish subsection is not much better. There are unsourced, stubby subsections like "Church of England Measures" and "In the other Commonwealth realms". The unsourced single sentence at the end masquerading as a section is conflating royal assent with presidential vetoes in European republican systems (!!!!), which is baffling considering the diversity of European countries that use the presidential veto.

This needs work to rise to current FA standards. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree, and have severely trimmed some sections, mostly on the basis of being uncited excessive detail. Currently looking at sources for those left over that may be worth keeping. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit, it looks a lot better now. I'll see what I can find in terms of sources to use in the Spanish subsection. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Spanish sources

@Ceoil: I've been looking around for Spanish sources to add to the article.

• The Royal Spanish Academy says that historically, the laws aproved by the Parliament could be approved (the sanción) or vetoed by the monarch. It also says that in the current Parliamentary monarchy, the sanción is obligatory by article 91 of the Constitution. Then it has links to articles 62 a) and 91, that are the relevant ones to this matter.
• This summary of Article 62 by the Spanish Congress covers everything in our first Spanish paragraph until the mention of Article 92 (it has a whole subsection dedicated to the sanción). So, article 62 a) invests the sanción upon the Crown, and article 91 says the King has 15 days to give the royal assent, and then has to promulgate and publish the laws that had previously been approved by the Cortes Generales. This summary by the Congress says El Rey está obligado en todo caso a sancionar la ley aprobada por el Parlamento; y deberá hacerlo en el plazo de quince días, promulgándola y ordenando su inmediata publicación, como taxativamente determina el artículo 91. - which emphasizes the King's obligation to give the assent.

• This summary by the Congress also says la sanción pasa a ser una función nominal, vaciada de contenido real, en el sentido de estar desprovista de cualquier atisbo de veto absoluto o meramente suspensivo. - "The sanción has become a nominal function, with no real content, in the sense of being devoid of any hint of absolute or merely suspensive veto."

• Article 92 says that Political decisions of special importance may be submitted to a consultative referendum of all citizens. The referendum is called by the King, after a proposal by the Presidente del Gobierno (Prime Minister of Spain), and authorized by the Congress of Deputies.

• The Belgian King annedocte is supported by El Mundo, but instead of "who had refused to sign the Belgian law legalising abortion" maybe "abdicated for 36 hours to avoid signing...", which is what the source says --> avoid to sign versus recusing to sign.
• The Boletín Oficial del Estado source fully supports the preceding text;
• Final paragraph is an if, if the Spanish monarch refused to grant royal assent. It seems a bit like a tangent.
• Still need a source for "No provision within the constitution grants the monarch an ability to veto legislation directly; however, no provision prohibits the Sovereign from withholding royal assent, which effectively constitutes a veto." - I mean, this directly contradicts the Royal Spanish Academy above and the Congress summary, I think. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, no bother. Found it in English. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• "The King's Authority to Sanction the Laws". The Constitution of Spain: A Contextual Analysis. - "the king loses this veto power". RetiredDuke (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Excellent! Will read through during the week RetiredDuke|, and we might agree next weekend as to how to approach factoid retention and tone. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Ok then. There might be better sources out there in English, but I started this wanting to know what the Spaniards call it (since we do not use this concept in Portuguese) and then I forgot to switch back to English. Well duh. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Why was United Kingdom, replaced with Commonwealth realms, as a section header?

I don't fully understand why the 'United Kingdom' section header, was changed into 'Commonwealth realms', etc, at 22:53, 31 May, 2023. Perhaps @DrKay:, @DeCausa: & @Celia Homeford: may understand the point behind that change, better then I. For now, I've reverted (sorta) back to what the section heading previously was. I won't spend too much time around this topic 'here', but I am curious, why it was initially changed. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The change has been made 'again', which highlights my question. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"United Kingdom" was not repalced by "Commonwealth realm". The "United Kingdom" header is still there. Please be accurate. Futher, if you paid attention to anything other than "United Kingdom and other Commownealth realms", you'd note the entire "Use" section was added at the same time as the other sections were reorganized to accomodate it. It pertains only to the Commonwealth Realms; it does not pertain solely to the United Kingdom; thus, your placing it under "United Kingdom" was inaccurate. It needs to go within "Commonwealth realms", which the United Kingdom is one of. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Best to change it back to what it was before May 31, 2023 (IMHO). Again, I don't see the point in the changes you made & re-made. Per status-quo, you should revert your changes. But since I'm not interested in an edit-war on this? I've pinged three others to give their input. You may (of course) ping others as well for more input. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"Best to" is just a subjective opinion; and a wandering one, since you've gone from claiming it's "best to" put the "Use" section within the "United Kingdom" section to it's "best to" delete the "Use" section and its contents. If you cannot explain why either of those things are "best to", we're done here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Are we done here? We'll have to see what others think. If they agree with you? Then we're done here. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did you ping me? I've never edited this article and no clue what this is about. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Then you and I are done here. Is that clearer? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Not quite yet, as we'll give the discussion a week. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's very badly organised. England before the acts of union and the devolved governments of the United Kingdom are discussed under the Commonwealth realms sub-section, which makes it look as though England, Scotland, Wales, etc, are realms. The earliest link to Commonwealth realm is about half way down the article, many paragraphs from the first mention of the term. The version from before the recent changes didn't suffer from these problems, so it was better before. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is now exactly as it was before 31 May 2023, save for all the Commonwealth Realms-related material being under the header "Commonwealth realms" to accomodate the new "Use" section that pertains to all the Realms. If you feel the information about the UK and its dependencies needs reorganization--a matter separate to any edit that prompted this discussion--please, have at it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The "Use" section (which would be better named "Withholding consent") is in the wrong place. Why would the body of the article start off with that? It's very confusing - it should come after the main discussion of the history and what it is. (Btw, Channel Islands and IoM shouldn't be under "United Kingdom". And they're also not Commonwealth realms)DeCausa (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure if there's some confusion here, but, to make sure there isn't: I didn't write the article.

As to my adding the "Use" section: articles often describe what the subject is before going into its history. That was, and remains, the case here, within the "United Kingdom" section; I'm sure you can see "Historical development" comes after some five and a half paragraphs describing what Royal Assent is in the UK and one potential use of it. I tried to work within the article as I found it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No confusion - I'm addressing the content of the "Use" section - you said you added that. It's a very specific and narrow section not about "use" but the specific issue of withholding consent and in fact about when it can be withheld. It doesn't describe "what it is" is my point. DeCausa (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

See the version I put in. Replacing "Commonwealth realms", with "Usage". Since we're going to add non-UK Commonwealth realms & are keeping in mind that the page is about 'royal ascent'. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If my change is reverted? I have another version to present, which will solve the heading/sub-heading bit, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)