How Monarchs Shape Nations: Changing Laws With A Stroke

The role of monarchs in modern society has been a topic of debate, with some arguing for a purely ceremonial monarchy and others advocating for a semi-constitutional monarchy where the monarch retains certain powers. While theoretically, monarchs in nations like the United Kingdom, Norway, and the Netherlands can withhold assent to laws, in practice, this rarely occurs. The last time a monarch vetoed a bill was over 300 years ago, and today, royal assent is typically a formality. The power to veto was historically exercised by European monarchs but has become rare since the 18th century. The monarch's role in law-making is now seen as a certification that a bill has passed established parliamentary procedures, and any attempt to veto a bill could trigger a constitutional crisis. However, some argue that a monarch can refuse assent if a bill threatens the democratic basis of the constitution. This power dynamic between the monarch and legislative bodies continues to be a subject of discussion and speculation.

The monarch's right to veto

The power to veto by withholding royal assent was once frequently exercised by European monarchs, but this practice has become very rare since the 18th century. In the United Kingdom, the Sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords to grant royal assent, or they may appoint Lords Commissioners to announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted in a less ceremonial manner by letters patent.

Historically, monarchs have used their veto power to block bills that they believe would subvert the democratic basis of the constitution or threaten their own power. For example, Charles II withheld royal assent from a bill in 1678 that would have given Parliament control of the militia, and William III vetoed the Judges Bill in 1692, which would have removed his right to dismiss judges at will. In more recent times, the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, which sought to transfer the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament.

While the monarch's right to veto is still technically in place in some nations, it is now generally seen as a ceremonial role, and the power to block legislation is rarely exercised. In some cases, the monarch's approval of a bill may be sought as a formality, but it is unlikely for them to withhold assent unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Royal assent

While the monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, this is now considered a formality and it is very rare for this to happen. The last occasion was in 1708, when Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. In modern times, the issue has been raised only once, during the early days of the premiership of Boris Johnson while the UK was negotiating a Brexit agreement with the EU. There were rumours that Johnson might advise the then-sovereign, Elizabeth II, to withhold assent on an unfavourable bill.

Robert Blackburn suggested that the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures. Rodney Brazier, however, argued that a monarch can still refuse royal assent to a bill that "sought to subvert the democratic basis of the constitution". Brazier admitted that doing so would lead to grave difficulties of definition and that it would be better for the monarch to find a different method of expressing their concern. The only situation in which royal assent could be denied, according to Brazier, would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses against the wishes of the cabinet, and the royal assent stage offered the cabinet a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.

The role of the cabinet

While the UK does have a monarch, the role is largely ceremonial and the monarch does not actively participate in creating or changing laws. Instead, the power to create and change laws lies with the government and parliament. The government is made up of the prime minister and the cabinet, who are responsible for proposing and implementing laws.

The cabinet is a group of senior government ministers responsible for advising and making decisions on government policy. It is the executive branch of the government and is responsible for coordinating and implementing the government's policies. The cabinet is led by the prime minister, who is the head of the government and is responsible for appointing the other members of the cabinet.

The cabinet will also often work closely with the prime minister to develop and implement the government's legislative agenda. This includes deciding which laws will be proposed and prioritised, as well as coordinating the government's response to any proposed laws from the opposition or other members of parliament. The cabinet is also responsible for ensuring that the laws and policies proposed by the government are consistent and coherent. They reflect the government's overall policy goals and objectives.

In addition to their role in law-making, the cabinet also has important executive and administrative functions. They are responsible for overseeing the implementation of laws and policies, as well as managing the day-to-day operations of their respective departments or ministries. This includes tasks such as allocating resources, managing staff, and ensuring that the laws and policies are being carried out effectively and efficiently. The cabinet is ultimately accountable to the prime minister and, through them, to parliament and the public for their performance and the success of the government's policies.

The democratic basis of the constitution

In nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, and Monaco, the monarch can theoretically withhold assent to laws, but it is extremely rare for them to do so unless there is a dire political emergency or on the advice of the government. The power to veto by withholding royal assent was historically exercised more frequently by European monarchs, but such occurrences have become rare since the 18th century.

The role of the monarch in the legislative process has evolved over time. During the reign of Henry VI, it became standard practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would only become law with the sovereign's assent. The monarch was, and still is, considered the enactor of laws. However, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 provided a preamble that excluded the House of Lords from this process.

While the monarch technically retains the right to refuse royal assent, it is generally accepted that they should not veto a bill except on ministerial advice. Legal scholars have debated the extent of the monarch's power, with Robert Blackburn arguing that the granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and certifying that a bill has passed established parliamentary procedures. On the other hand, Rodney Brazier suggests that a monarch can refuse assent if a bill "sought to subvert the democratic basis of the constitution," although he acknowledges the challenges in defining this and suggests alternative methods for the monarch to express concern.

In summary, while a monarch technically has the power to change the law by withholding assent, in practice, this power is rarely exercised and is largely considered a ceremonial formality. The democratic basis of the constitution is upheld by the monarch's respect for the legislative process and the advice of the government.

The sovereign as the enactor of laws

The monarch or sovereign is the enactor of laws. During Henry VI's reign, it became common practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would only become law if the sovereign's assent was obtained. This practice has continued, with all acts including the clause:

> "Be it enacted by the King's (Queen's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows..."

Theoretically, a monarch can withhold assent to laws, thereby changing the law. However, this power is rarely exercised, and the last time it occurred was over 300 years ago in 1708. In the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, and Monaco, the monarch can withhold assent to laws but almost never does so unless there is a dire political emergency or on the advice of the government.

The power to veto by withholding royal assent was historically used by European monarchs but has become very rare since the 18th century. Today, royal assent is regarded as a formality and a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures. While a monarch can still refuse royal assent, this would only occur on ministerial advice or if a bill sought to subvert the democratic basis of the constitution.

Frequently asked questions