Talk:Royal Assent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Royal Assent is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. |
 |
Royal Assent appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 18, 2005. |
[edit] 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
[edit] Date of last withholding of assent
The article dates the last withholding of assent at 1707. Withholding of assent was the first grievance in America's Declaration of Independence, so apparently it happened later in the century as well.
- In this instance it was George III's expressed view against such a view (and such a bill may well have ended with him witholding assent) but it never was passed through parliament in order for him to withold assent on the matter.
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)
[edit] Featured Article candidacy comments (was promoted)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- As far as I know, the phrase "Royal Assent" is a British one. -- Emsworth 03:24, 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) - 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
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
- Canada's Constitution Act 1982 was in fact a case where the Governor General deferred assent to the Queen. The act assented to in Britain was called the Canada Act. The Constitution Act 1982 was Canadian legislation. If it was not passed in Canada, the country would have been left without a constitution.
- 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)
-
-
- It was a private member's bill introduced by Tam Dalyell that had its first reading on 26 January 1999 and, according to the Weekly Information Bulletin: 17th July 1999, was scheduled for second reading on 23 July 1999, but according to Weekly Information Bulletin: 29th July 1999 it was "dropped" before second reading. It's not entirely clear whether it was dropped by its sponsor (Dayell) or because it was "blocked" because Queen's Consent was not "signified" (per this page). HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. Good work on the new article! — Trilobite (Talk) 19:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- (1) I'm fairly sure the Australia Act abolished or limited the power of the Sovereign to assent to bills for Australia, including the Australian states. I'll check it and perhaps post a small edit. (2) The article needs to be clearer that this power (like the rest of the Royal Prerogative) is always exercised on ministerial advice. There have been a couple of cases in Australia where bills were vetoed on government advice because some technical defect was discovered after they had passed the House of Representatives and the Senate. I suspect we could find them elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Nations as well. Update - See Australian Senate Practice Alan 00:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Error detected: No Royal Commission under the 1967 procedure
I have yesterday detected an error in the article and I had removed it. It has been restored and today I again removed it. The error is: the article stated that under the procedure created by the Royal Assent Act, 1967 the Royal Assent also involved notification by Royal Commissioners, but that those did not come to Parilament, instead giving notice of the Royal Assent in Buckingham Palace, and that, in turn, the Lord Chancellor/Speaker, notified the grant of Assent to each House. This is simply wrong.
When the 1967 Act's procedure is followed (as is almost always the case nowadays -- with the exception of the end of sesssion), no Royal Commissioners are appointed (see the model of Letters Patent - those I have also added to the article yesterday). Istead, the Letters Patent are delivered directly to the Lord Chancellor/Speaker, or their deputies, who, in turn, notify the grant of Royal Assent to the Houses of Parliament sitting separately. Thus, the 1967 Act procedure dispenses with the joint assembly of both Houses and with the appointment of Royal Commissioners.
For further information see the Compagnion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords.--Antonio Basto 16:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bill Gates
Did he really threaten to sell the palace to Bill Gates? That sounds terribly fishy to me. If we can't find a source for it, it could be just vandalism. Let's address this before the article hits the front page tomorrow. --Zantastik talk 18:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Interestingly, not the palace, but the whole darn country. I found this in Britannica yearbook 1998. (Referring to events of 1997) "Though a remark by the Prince about selling Leichtenstein to Bill Gates and renaming it Microsoft was not meant to be taken seriously, in July, when faced by politicians opposing his effort to gain the power to appoint judges, he ended discussions by saying he would pack his bags and move Princess Maria, the children and himself to Vienna" Dainamo 23:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Never withheld in colonies?
Quoth the article:
- As in the United Kingdom, Royal Assent is by convention never withheld, both in the independent Commonwealth Realms and in British Crown colonies and dependencies.
I'm assuming that there must be some mechanism by which the UK government can override laws passed by colonial/crown dependency legislatures, yes? Otherwise, they wouldn't really be dependencies, would they? So how do they do it if not by withholding royal assent from the laws? --Jfruh 02:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- In certain matters the constitutions (or similar) of the said dependancies make certain descisions binding (e.g. refering to the British House of Lords as the highest court in other areas the support in some way by the UK would effectively doing anything extereme enough , to warrant the witholding of assent. However real answer to this lies in the words "by convention". Should extreme necessity arise, a de facto practise does not mean it is prevented in jure. Dainamo 08:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The Privy Council, not the House of Lords, is the final court of appeal for Crown colonies and dependencies and for some Commonwealth realms. Royal Assent is no longer used to control legislation in British Crown colonies. The relationship between a Crown colony and the UK (including legislative competence) is defined by UK legislation. The situation with Crown dependencies is more complex. The article should be expanded to describe Royal Assent to Scottish legislation and Northern Irish legislation. Alan 08:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Other Monarchy's where consent can be withheld
The Vatican also is a Monarchy in which consent can be witheld by the sovereign.--Samuel J. Howard 10:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Formula?
Does anyone know the Fromula for Assent/Withholding Assent in the Commonwealth?
[edit] Closed shop - UK
I seem to remember the Queen maybe reserving Royal assent on the Labour government's Closed shop legislation ? It passed in the end, but can someone else remember ? Wizzy…☎ 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Royal assent in person: (Canadian) Constitution Act, April 17, 1982
While the monarch does not routinely give royal assent in person, it is still done on special occasions. In particular, and in contradiction to the article, Queen Elizabeth II personally signed the Canada Act#Enactment of the Act in Ottawa on 1982.
Actually, that article is a little confusing, and I'll have to research history. I think that the Canada Act was U.K. legislation, and I'm not sure who gave assent, but appendix B, the (Canadian) Constitution Act, was separately enacted in Canada, and given royal assent in person. So the caption of the picture in the Canada Act article may be incorrect.
