Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9556395" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I'm just not sure how I should understand things like <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21024828" target="_blank">this BBC article </a>showing pro-republican political groups being outraged over &quot;royal consent&quot;, 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.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. 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.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?Hell, the Parliament itself <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/" target="_blank">says that this still could, theoretically, happen</a>. Emphasis added: &quot;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.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9556395, member: 6790260"] I'm just not sure how I should understand things like [URL='https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21024828']this BBC article [/URL]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 [I]convention[/I], 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. Like...this is perfectly in keeping with the [I]laws[/I] of the UK, and at least in principle any Commonwealth nation that has not abolished the monarchy. It's also seen as horrifically offensive to some folks, as a breach of the non-interference [I]convention[/I] regarding the monarch, but (AFAIK) it is still true to the [I]laws[/I] of the UK, which would need to actually be changed in order to forbid this practice. If so many places, including the BBC, claim that the monarch [I]could[/I] deny actual Royal Assent, and [I]has[/I] denied royal consent, why is it actually a matter of law that they cannot? Hell, [I]the Parliament itself[/I] [URL='https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/royal-assent/']says that this still could, theoretically, happen[/URL]. Emphasis added: "Royal Assent is the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. [B]While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen[/B]; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality." [/QUOTE]

Verification