Talk:Royal prerogative

Nature of the Prerogative

Needs a better definition, Dicey is a good start, but not the only interpretation of the Royal Prerogative. Look at Markensinis, Munro, etc. --89.21.227.114 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

The transfer of government powers from the Monarch to the Cabinet (Prime Ministers were still First Among Equals until the early twentieth century, not the quasi-presidential figures they have now become) was a long, slow process between 1688 and the 1830s. It probably really started under Queen Anne (Lords Treasurer like Godolphin, Harley etc) rather than Walpole as is sometimes supposed - Walpole just seemed more powerful as Parliaments had become septennial rather than triennial, the King spent a lot of time in Hanover and could barely understand English, and W was in for 21 years. As late as the early 1800s there was still no question of the King's right to veto legislation (Pitt the Younger resigned in 1800 as Catholic Emancipation was not going to get past George III) or to sack a government which had annoyed him too much (Grenville 1807). Thereafter Victoria, Edward VII and even George V exercised their reserve powers as Head of State (giving permission for premature elections to be held, getting involved in the formation of governments etc) rather more actively than Elizabeth II does nowadays.Paulturtle (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.181.39.143 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 June 2007

Crown is bound by law only in official capacity = legibus solutus in personal capacity as the Monarch. Define Crown, Define Monarch, define official and personal capacity; define convention. --89.21.227.114 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of this section is that agents of the Crown are essentially proxies for the Crown and so ought not to be prosecutable in that role since they are exercising the Royal Prerogative on the Monarch's behalf, using powers delegated to them. On the other hand the Crown might sue or prosecute the individual for abusing her power or whatever, or for reasons unrelated to her role as an agent of the Crown, in which case the individual is clearly distinguishable from the Crown in terms of legal identity. The Princess Royal undertakes some official duties for the Queen and so is sometimes an agent of the Crown, theoretically immune from prosecution in such capacity; but in cases like controlling her own dogs she's merely a private individual who happens to be a member of the Royal Family, so the fact she has a criminal record is unremarkable in this context. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, IANAL, so don't take this at face value. I think this needs properly sourcing to establish in the article why the criminal record is noteworthy (it is, IMO, as it highlights the fact that agents of the Crown aren't always immune from prosecution). Hairy Dude (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

In 2000, PM Blair use Royal Perogative to evict islanders from the islands near the Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean) so that it could be leased to the USA as a forward base for Middle East operations in the war zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.156.212 (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The reserve powers article does seem to be including a lot of Royal Prerogative powers which are nowadays (by convention) government powers exercised in the Queen's name - sometimes not really subject to Parliamentary approval. "Reserve powers" ought really to be used about the Queen's powers (as head of the armed forces, police and civil service) to take charge in a constitutional crisis, e.g. to sack a Prime Minister who had gone mad and refused to resign despite losing an election and then a confidence vote in the House of Commons - the same emergency powers which a figurehead president would have in a country like Ireland or Germany.Paulturtle (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Artical viewpoint

This artical is very Anglo-centric. There are Royal prerogatives in other nations, and in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 these preogatives are expressly codified. Should this aritcal be renamed "Royal prerogatives (United Kingdom)" and have other articals named "Royal prerogatives (Spain)" and ect? Or should this artical be rewritten for a wider world view. In lack there of, I have summerized Spanish royal prerogatives on the Monarchy of Spain page. What guidence to does anyone offer?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the archive discussions suggest why this article has heretofore tended to focus on the UK/England: "Royal Prerogative" is not used in British history & politics as a synonym for "powers of the monarch" since most of the powers of the Crown are not considered part of the royal prerogative. Rather, "royal prerogative" seems to be used in English to mean something closer to "powers reserved by precedent or by custom to the Crown". The prerogative consists of powers that do not belong to the Crown by express grant in the constitution or law. There has been debate here on whether there survives a similar authority in other monarchies, and a suggestion was made that the term, at least, seems nowadays unique (in Western monarchies) to the UK and Commonwealth realms. Looking at Spain's current constitution, none of the powers conferred on the Sovereign in articles 62 or 63 qualify as "royal prerogative" by this definition. But Article 65(2) and parts of Articles 65(1) and 56(2) might be considered functions of the Spanish royal prerogative. And I suspect the British version is what has been written about here because that is what those writing were interested in or familiar with. If it can be documented that "royal prerogative" is the English version of an equivalent term in other languages (or if the same concept is represented by a different term that has been translated as "royal prerogative"), by all means this is the place where the royal prerogative of other monarachies should be explained, as verifiable in reliable sources. Lethiere (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for responding!

It seems a slight nuance in definition to be sure, and I see your point. However, if not “Royal Prerogative”, what would a constitutionally codified authority of a monarch be called? Weather Spanish or UK or Netherlands, royal authority, the rights (prerogative) and authority of the monarch, did evolve along similar lines and often from similar points or legal concepts. If in the UK constitutional tradition the Royal Prerogative has been more narrowly defined as "the residue of discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the Crown, whether such power be in fact exercised by the King himself or by his Ministers" does that then disqualify the use of the term for other monarchies when it is constitutionally codified and in active use? I have to admit some confusion. From my vantage point, "Royal Prerogative" is the "rights" of the monarch, especially if they are codified. Weather or not those rights, or how those rights are used, may be a different matter. But I admit Lethiere I may be wrong and am looking for clarity. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Forking UK Content

OK. I have taken the plunge and tried to split out UK content from World content. This was/is not an easy exercise and I would appreciate your patience and assistance. I have created a separate page for Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom:

• Royal Prerogative (United Kingdom)

I think that was the right thing to do as there are major differences between Royal Prerogative in the UK and in for example Spain. The existing article contained a lot of detail that only applied to the UK.

Please help by editing. If any of you know about the Royal Prerogative in Canada or other countries/territories then please consider starting a separate article about these.

John Cross (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleared blank space,duplicate of signature above that was here, (link removed) my fork. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Link removed. AGK 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Royal Prerogative → Royal prerogative –

We don't upcase royal assent; there seems no reason to do so here, either: she invoked royal prerogative. Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. An exception is apparently made for the Queen, although this itself has been controversial (two queens in three centuries).

And here is an example of lower case. Not sure how authoritative this one is. The Guardian. This looks authoritative. Tony (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This one is clear on Wikipedia style grounds alone; but here is Google ngrams evidence to show the overwhelming preference for lower case in books. The search is on "by royal prerogative,by Royal Prerogative", with "by" to minimise contamination from uses in capitalised titles. Noetica^Tea? 09:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support speedy close as non-controversial 75.37.195.231 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support Outback the koala (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. 10 out of 13 more or less random Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliament of Northern Ireland that I looked at on Legislation.gov.uk (out of a possible 37 Acts and Instruments returned by the advanced search function) appeared not to capitalize the word "prerogative". Capitalised: [1][2][3]. Not capitalised:[4] [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. James500 (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, the search function doesn't seem to discriminate against capitalization, see here, which produces the same 37 results. James500 (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs more explanation

From the article, there is "Individual prerogatives can be abolished by Parliament, although in the United Kingdom special procedure applies". What does it mean by "although in the United Kingdom special procedure applies"? It sounds rather obscure and I think an example of this is needed. Komitsuki (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Common law?

It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of common law, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not.

This usage of "common law" seems to be obscure. So, does the common law in this sentence refer to the English legal system or laws that are not codified? It is rather confusing. I hope someone reword this sentence. Komitsuki (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It means English Law in general. Some Royal Prerogative has been limited by statute, e.g. the recent Fixed Term Parliament Act which means it is no longer up to the Monarch to dissolve Parliament (although it is fairly new law, so it is not yet clear how much power is now vested in the Speaker and whether or not the Queen still retains any emergency reserve powers in this area). It is established law that the Royal Prerogative can never be increased (unless, one supposes, Parliament specifically so legislates). Large chunks of the Royal Prerogative still legally exist but by convention are exercised by Ministers or by the Prime Minister (e.g. the right to appoint and sack other ministers) in the Queen's name, some of it not subject to Parliamentary approval. The recent Syria vote suggests that a convention is now evolving that ministers will not in future exercise the Queen's right to engage in military operations without Parliamentary approval. However, convention is generally not thought to be legally enforceable.Paulturtle (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Canada

"The issuance of passports also remains within the royal prerogative in Canada. The terms for the issuing of passports by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Crown are set out in the Canadian Passport Order,[12] issued by the Governor General-in-Council. The Canadian government has used the royal prerogative on two occasions to deny a passport to a Canadian citizen, Abdurahman Khadr and Fateh Kamel. Lawsuits filed at the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada did not find in their favour." Whose favour? Khadr and Kamel, or the Governor General? Kiltpin (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the article for Fateh Kamel, it seems that the suits failed. --Pete (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Pete, I have made a minor edit to reflect that. Kiltpin (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)