Talk:Royal assent

message: 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)
thread_title: Article title

message: ===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? Meelar (talk) 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article candidacy comments (was promoted)

message: (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? Meelar (talk) 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Royal Assent]]

message: 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)
replies: text: This, I think, has been sufficiently addressed by Jtdirl above, in the section "Article title." -- Emsworth 21:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - had not noticed that.  Who am I to argue if Parliament  and Hansard  think it is a proper noun. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moves

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. Good work on the new article! — Trilobite (Talk) 19:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable para

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Commonwealth

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error detected: No Royal Commission under the 1967 procedure 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bill Gates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Never withheld in colonies? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formula? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Closed shop - UK

message: 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)
thread_title: "George I, who spoke no English"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "constitutional convention"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Last royal assent in person 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, right - go for it, mate.  --Wikiain (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: American English

message: 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." 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. They were still asking questions in the house about this one in 1982. Here is a summary of the whole saga . 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. PeterEastern (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  commencement order 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes:  see Regency Acts. --Wikiain (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if the sovereign is incapacitated? 

message: 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. 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...
 and "Modernisation of Royal Assent in Canada"(Richardson, Last Updated: 2013-10-08). Qexigator (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Now is a time to let the article be updated per , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for giving this your attention. My present position is to let the version as now revised stand, and not to propose a move and further uncaps. Qexigator (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  R/royal A/assent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Co-regency 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The "standard method" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about Malaysia? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "The Crown is as much Sovereign in the Courts as it is Sovereign in Parliament" 

message: : 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 . - which emphasizes the King's obligation to give the assent.
:::* This summary by the Congress also says  - "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)
thread_title: Spanish sources