Question: What website rated the Super Slim four out of five stars?

Answer: CNET

<hl> Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. <hl> In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website <hl> CNET <hl> gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

question: What website rated the Super Slim four out of five stars?, context: Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."


Question: What adjective did CNET use to describe the PS3 Super Slim's design?

Answer: "cheap"

<hl> Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. <hl> In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the <hl> "cheap" <hl> design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

question: What adjective did CNET use to describe the PS3 Super Slim's design?, context: Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."


Question: What component of the Super Slim did CNET call "the easiest yet"?

Answer: hard drive

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." <hl> The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. <hl> They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger <hl> hard drive <hl> shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

question: What component of the Super Slim did CNET call "the easiest yet"?, context: Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."


Question: What hardware component did CNET have the biggest problem with, even comparing it to an old credit card reader?

Answer: disc-loader

<hl> Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader , stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. <hl> In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and <hl> disc-loader <hl>, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and <hl> disc-loader <hl> , stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines.

question: What hardware component did CNET have the biggest problem with, even comparing it to an old credit card reader?, context: Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."


Question: Was the lowest-priced Super Slim more or less expensive than any of the PS3 Slim models?

Answer: more expensive

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." <hl> The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. <hl> They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still <hl> more expensive <hl> than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

question: Was the lowest-priced Super Slim more or less expensive than any of the PS3 Slim models?, context: Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."


Question: What magazine described the Super Slim as "nostalgic"?

Answer: T3

<hl> Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine <hl> T3 <hl> gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

question: What magazine described the Super Slim as "nostalgic"?, context: Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."


Question: What PlayStation 3 model did T3 feel the Super Slim's design was paying homage to?

Answer: the original PS3

<hl> Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3 , minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to <hl> the original PS3 <hl>, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to <hl> the original PS3 <hl> , minus the considerable excess weight.

question: What PlayStation 3 model did T3 feel the Super Slim's design was paying homage to?, context: Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."


Question: According to T3, what was the main differentiator between the "fat" PS3 and the Super Slim?

Answer: weight

<hl> Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight . <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess <hl> weight <hl>. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess <hl> weight <hl> .

question: According to T3, what was the main differentiator between the "fat" PS3 and the Super Slim?, context: Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."


Question: What hardware element did T3 feel might have issues with durability?

Answer: the top loading tray

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4." <hl>

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of <hl> the top loading tray <hl> that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

question: What hardware element did T3 feel might have issues with durability?, context: Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."


Question: T3 felt Sony was saying goodbye to past models in preparation for what next-generation console?

Answer: the PS4

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4 ." <hl>

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for <hl> the PS4 <hl>."

Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for <hl> the PS4 <hl> ."

question: T3 felt Sony was saying goodbye to past models in preparation for what next-generation console?, context: Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."


Question: When royal assent takes place in the UK, where does the sovereign make an appearance?

Answer: House of Lords

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the <hl> House of Lords <hl> or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

question: When royal assent takes place in the UK, where does the sovereign make an appearance?, context: Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: Alternatively, when UK Lord Commissioners take the sovereign's place in the ceremony, where does the ceremony take place?

Answer: Palace of Westminster

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster . <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl>. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl> .

question: Alternatively, when UK Lord Commissioners take the sovereign's place in the ceremony, where does the ceremony take place?, context: Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: Canadian governor generals can give their assent in person or by which other method?

Answer: written declaration

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. <hl> In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill. <hl>

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a <hl> written declaration <hl> notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

question: Canadian governor generals can give their assent in person or by which other method?, context: Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: With what is royal assent sometimes associated with?

Answer: elaborate ceremonies

<hl> Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies . <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with <hl> elaborate ceremonies <hl>. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with <hl> elaborate ceremonies <hl> .

question: With what is royal assent sometimes associated with?, context: Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: Where is a royal assent ceremony held within the United Kingdom?

Answer: Palace of Westminster

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster . <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl>. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl> .

question: Where is a royal assent ceremony held within the United Kingdom?, context: Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: With what method is royal assent generally granted?

Answer: letters patent

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent . <hl> In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by <hl> letters patent <hl>. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by <hl> letters patent <hl> .

question: With what method is royal assent generally granted?, context: Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: How is royal assent granted within Australia?

Answer: the governor-general merely signs the bill

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. <hl> In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill . <hl> In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, <hl> the governor-general merely signs the bill <hl>. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

In other nations, such as Australia, <hl> the governor-general merely signs the bill <hl> .

question: How is royal assent granted within Australia?, context: Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: Royal assent is a process of approving a nation's legislative acts by whom?

Answer: constitutional monarch

<hl> Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's <hl> constitutional monarch <hl> (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

question: Royal assent is a process of approving a nation's legislative acts by whom?, context: Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: Which three modern monarchies allow their ruler to withhold royal assent?

Answer: United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl>), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl> ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government.

question: Which three modern monarchies allow their ruler to withhold royal assent?, context: Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: Since which century have modern political processes forgone royal assent?

Answer: 18th

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century. <hl>

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the <hl> 18th <hl> century.

question: Since which century have modern political processes forgone royal assent?, context: Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: What nations allow the withold of the royal assent?

Answer: United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl>), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl> ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government.

question: What nations allow the withold of the royal assent?, context: Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: Under what circumstances does a monarch typically use the royal assent?

Answer: a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government . <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in <hl> a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government <hl>. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in <hl> a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government <hl> .

question: Under what circumstances does a monarch typically use the royal assent?, context: Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: Is usage of the royal assent frequent or rare in today's societies?

Answer: exceedingly rare

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century. <hl>

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is <hl> exceedingly rare <hl> in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

question: Is usage of the royal assent frequent or rare in today's societies?, context: Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: Modern-day sovereigns often acts on the advice of whom?

Answer: ministers

<hl> Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers . <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl>. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl> .

question: Modern-day sovereigns often acts on the advice of whom?, context: Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.


Question: In the event that the monarch refuses to give royal assent, what can the monarch make use of?

Answer: reserve powers

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. <hl> Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers . <hl>

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's <hl> reserve powers <hl>.

Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's <hl> reserve powers <hl> .

question: In the event that the monarch refuses to give royal assent, what can the monarch make use of?, context: Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.


Question: Whose advice does a sovereign follow?

Answer: his or her ministers

<hl> Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers . <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of <hl> his or her ministers <hl>. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of <hl> his or her ministers <hl> .

question: Whose advice does a sovereign follow?, context: Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.


Question: Who often maintains parliamentary support and obtains the passage of bills?

Answer: ministers

<hl> Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers . <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl>. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl> .

question: Who often maintains parliamentary support and obtains the passage of bills?, context: Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.


Question: Is it probable, improbable, or impossible that a sovereign would withhold assent?

Answer: improbable

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. <hl> An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly <hl> improbable <hl> that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

question: Is it probable, improbable, or impossible that a sovereign would withhold assent?, context: Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.


Question: What is another name for "Curia Regis"?

Answer: Royal Council

<hl> Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council , in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. <hl> The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or <hl> Royal Council <hl>, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or <hl> Royal Council <hl> , in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament.

question: What is another name for "Curia Regis"?, context: Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.


Question: Who was it that peculiarly called a full parliament without royal authorization in 1265?

Answer: Earl of Leicester

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. <hl> In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the <hl> Earl of Leicester <hl> irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

question: Who was it that peculiarly called a full parliament without royal authorization in 1265?, context: Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.


Question: As a result, the bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed which body of parliament?

Answer: House of Lords

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords , while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. <hl> The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the <hl> House of Lords <hl>, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the <hl> House of Lords <hl> , while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons.

question: As a result, the bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed which body of parliament?, context: Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.


Question: Which body did the shire and borough representatives form?

Answer: House of Commons

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons . <hl> The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the <hl> House of Commons <hl>. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the <hl> House of Commons <hl> .

question: Which body did the shire and borough representatives form?, context: Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law. During Henry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the Queen's (King's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.