This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The text of the law refers to "the Queen" specifically - Does this law apply when a King reigns? —Random832 (contribs) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, under the Interpretation Act 1978 any reference to the monarch at the time a law was passed includes the monarch at any later time, whoever it is. Richard75 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I suggest that the second sentence is wrong information. I think that it is possible for a 'non-lethal assault' (although I am not sure exactly what phrase this means) could well be an overt act of compassing the Sovereign's death. I do not think an intention to kill is necessary, as this sentence suggests.
Halsbury says, if I remember correctly, that if a person wilfully does an act whereby the Sovereign's life may be endangered, that that is sufficient. James500 (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think you are right. I have rewritten the paragraph. Richard75 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
