Talk:Royal Prerogative
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] First PM to use royal prerogative
We know that in modern times the royal prerogative is exercised by the monarch on the PM's advice. But who was the first PM to advise the Sovereign on when to use them? Does this convention date back to Walpole, or is it a relatively recent convention? Lapafrax 22:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- My guess is that there is no answer to this question. There are of course still occasions when royal prerogative may still be exercised without advice, ie, when there is no-one to advise the Sovereign. I expect that kings such as Charles II and William III & II exercised their own judgment with advice from their ministers, and royal deference to ministerial advice increased over time. The Angel of Islington 08:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Minor Royals' Criminal Record
How is the Princess Royal's criminal record relevant to the Royal Prerogative?
If it is not I will rephrase to clarify that the scope of immunity extends only to the monarch herself.
[edit] Category:Political terms
Since reserve power is in Category:Political terms, why wouldn't this article be in that category as well? --Ancheta Wis 11:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Royal prerogative v. Reserve powers
This article states: "Though some republican heads of state possess similar powers, they are not coterminous, containing a number of fundamental differences. See reserve powers." However, no explanation or elaboration is given as to why the terms are different. Neither does the article on reserve powers, which seems to be more than happy to include a summary of the Royal prerogative in its scope.
Can anyone please elaborate on what the fundemental differences are? Many thanks... Tuckmantom (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
