Talk:Royal Assent

Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star

Royal Assent is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Uh, Martin, this doesn't only apply to the UK, you know. It certainly applies here in Oz, and probably to most places with a constitutional monarchy. (Am I volunteering to write a more comprehensive thing? Not today I'm not. Maybe one day. WTF? I can always un-redirect it then, I guess. Tannin 11:53 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough - I freely admit lack of knowledge about other constitutional monarchies... the existing content referred only to the UK, so I made a rash (and wrong) assumption.

perhaps a redirect to constitutional monarchy would be better? Martin

Sounds good to me, Martin. I think it's a topic that could have a short entry of its own, or be part of CM. Redirecting to there, at least for the time being is the best, I think. Tannin

Have done. :) Serves me right for being so UK-centric... ;-) Martin

Oh, this redirect is not a good thing. Royal Assent is an important power of the crown, at at a least theoretical one. Eight other pages link to Royal Assent, and it paid a key role in a 1975 constitutional crisis in Australia. The CM page doesn't contain the phrase "royal assent" anywhere, so someone following this link is just going to get more confused. I'll try to slap a bandaid on the article, but I'm not an expert on the topic.

Hold on a minute. Royal Assent had nothing to do with the 1975 crisis in Australia. It doesn't refer to reserve powers, it refers to one power (which in republics is called singing Bills into law). The 1975 crisis had nothing to do with the Royal Assent, it was to do with Loss of Supply and whether Whitlam had to seek a dissolution having lost supply, or whether he could continue on and keep trying to get it. But we do need a page on the Royal Assent, it is a fundamental constitutional term. JtdIrL 00:44 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I *said* I wasn't an expert on the topic. Please correct what I wrote where you think it needs help. According to [1] (http://www.gg.govt.nz/media/speeches.asp?type=constitutional&ID=167), the five reserve powers are: (1) to appoint a Prime Minister; (2) to dismiss a Prime Minister; (3) to refuse to dissolve Parliament; (4) to force a dissolution of Parliament; and (5) to refuse assent to legislation. Note that the article does say that some constitutionalists deny the fifth power. Regarding the 1975 crisis, I may have misunderstood what a few pages led me to believe.

No problem. I am working on a re-write of the page. JtdIrL 01:57 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 Article title 2 Date of last withholding of assent 3 Featured Article candidacy comments (was promoted) 3.1 Royal Assent 4 Page moves 5 Questionable para

Article title

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

Iota 01:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

Date of last withholding of assent

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

---

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

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

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

Featured Article candidacy comments (was promoted)

Royal Assent

(Uncontested -- July 7)

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

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

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

Page moves

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

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

Thanks - had not noticed that. Who am I to argue if Parliament [2] (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/compso29.htm) and Hansard [3] (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/30408-01.htm) think it is a proper noun. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questionable para

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

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

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

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

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

It was a private member's bill introduced by Tam Dalyell that had its first reading on 26 January 1999 and, according to the Weekly Information Bulletin: 17th July 1999 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmwib/wb990717/pub.htm), was scheduled for second reading on 23 July 1999, but according to Weekly Information Bulletin: 29th July 1999 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmwib/wb990729/pub.htm) it was "dropped" before second reading. It's not entirely clear whether it was dropped by its sponsor (Dayell) or because it was "blocked" because Queen's Consent was not "signified" (per this page (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/ukparl_hl?DB=ukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=iraq+parliamentari+approv+bill+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/pa/cm199899/cmagenda/ob990723.htm)). HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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