I'm just not sure how I should understand things like
this BBC article showing pro-republican political groups being outraged over "royal consent", which technically is distinct from Royal Assent but functions more or less the same, as a denial of royal consent is also functionally a royal veto. It's explicit here that (a) royal consent being applied only under advice of ministers is a matter of
convention, not law, and (b) this degree of involvement (which some called totally unacceptable interference by the royal family, either the Queen or the then-Prince) can in fact function as a veto.
Here is a quote from that article:
It shows that the Queen was asked to approve changes to child maintenance in 2007, national insurance in 2004 and paternity pay in 2006 because they would apply to employees of the Royal Households and the "interests of the crown" were likely to be affected.
Legislation introducing tuition fees in 2004 required approval because of the Crown's historical role as a visitor of universities while a bill legalising civil partnerships needed consent because of a declaration on its validity which "would bind Her Majesty".
This is about the ability of the monarch to govern their own affairs. It is not about general law-making.
You'll also note that the article reports the Cabinet Office stating that "consent had only ever been refused on ministers' advice and never for a government bill". The claim by the republicans that "This is clearly more than a formality. It is hard to believe the palace's claim that consent is only withheld on the instruction of ministers" is mere assertion. Personally, I trust the Cabinet Office.
As for the relationship between convention and law, in circumstances where you're not very familiar with it, I'd suggest that you don't rely too heavily on it to set out your own ideas about RPGing. I already posted, upthread, that the leading Australian textbook takes the position that much of what traditionally, in the UK, would be regarded as convention is, in Australia, law. Even in the context of the UK, articulating the difference between
law and
convention is non-trivial, and relies on particular features of the common law, parliamentary law-making by way of statute, and justiciability - and also on the distinctive British jurisprudential tradition of Bentham, Austin and Dicey - which do not necessarily generalise to other legal systems and have (in my view) little applicability to the analysis of game rules.
For instance, it is well-known that breaches of convention are in general not justiciable (sometimes they are, at least in an indirect fashion) and hence will not attract a court-ordered sanction. But what is the relationship between
a rule being a law and
a rule being enforceable by court-ordered sanction? This is not a trivial question; but it is also irrelevant to the analysis of RPGing.
Like...this is perfectly in keeping with the laws of the UK, and at least in principle any Commonwealth nation that has not abolished the monarchy.
I am an expert on the Australian Constitution. I have taught constitutional law. I am a published scholar in the field. My expert opinion has been sought by lawmakers and by journalists. What you say is not correct, in principle or otherwise. Have you consulted
Stellios and Zines? If you haven't, then you are not in a position to comment on Australia.
It's also seen as horrifically offensive to some folks, as a breach of the non-interference convention regarding the monarch, but (AFAIK) it is still true to the laws of the UK, which would need to actually be changed in order to forbid this practice.
What would that even mean? Have you read the fox-hunting case, discussing the constitutional standing, in the UK, of the Parliament Acts? Have you read the prorogation case?
To me, you seem to have a more-or-less Wikipedia-level grasp of the relevant issues. But no more.
For instance, how would Parliament go about abolishing the need for Royal Assent, if the monarch were not prepared to assent to such a Bill?
Hell,
the Parliament itself says that this still could, theoretically, happen. Emphasis added: "Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament.
While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality."
What does "right" mean in this sentence? And how do you reconcile "does not happen" with "could happen"?
There are answers to these questions, but nothing that you have posted suggests that you are familiar with them. They are complex, and involve difficult questions of jurisprudence, of legal and political history, and of judicial practice.
If so many places, including the BBC, claim that the monarch could deny actual Royal Assent, and has denied royal consent, why is it actually a matter of law that they cannot?
All you are doing here is reiterating a mid-level undergraduate account of the distinction between law and convention. But you are doing so in a way that fails to convey an accurate understanding of the details of the constitution, the way that it operates, etc.
I mean, the US army clearly has sufficient fire-power to kill any judge that it wishes to, to fight off any police officers that it wishes to, etc. Yet - at least as I understand things - the US army routinely confirms to judicial orders given against it. Why? To say "because it's the law" is no answer at all - parallel laws operate in many jurisdictions, but they don't stop the armies in those jurisdictions from staging coups etc.
One answer is "convention" and "expectation". This answer is richly developed in the work of Martin Krygier.
How, then, does the US constitutional framework ultimately differ from that of the UK? That is a tricky question. A sceptical answer is given in the essay "Can there be a written constitution?" by John Gardner. Other answers are also possible.
But none of this matters to the play of RPGs, or the ways that their rules work.