What is the point of a Royal Assent?
<p>Some say that a monarch cannot withhold <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Royal Assent</a> to a bill passed by the parliament. Really?</p>
<p>What happens if they refuse to grant assent to any law passed by the parliament unless they are personally satisfied with the law — effectively trying to coerce the parliament into making such laws as the monarch wishes?</p>
<p>In such a case, would the parliament depose the monarch? Would it replace them by a more obedient one?</p>
<p>But if the parliament can just do that, what is the point of seeking Royal Assent in the first place? What's the point of not effecting a passed bill straight away instead?</p>

<h2>Because rituals are important</h2>
<p>You might well ask what is the point of the ceremony of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rod#:%7E:text=As%20part%20of%20the%20ritual,of%20the%20monarch%20to%20attend." rel="noreferrer">Black Rod</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Black Rod is best known for their part in the ceremonies surrounding the State Opening of Parliament and the Speech from the throne. They summon the Commons to attend the speech and lead them to the Lords. As part of the ritual, the doors to the chamber of the House of Commons are slammed in the approaching Black Rod's face. This is to symbolise the Commons' independence of the Sovereign. Black Rod then strikes the door three times with the staff, and is then admitted and issues the summons of the monarch to attend.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Societies are not run by laws - they are run by convention and custom.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.</p>
<p>Terry Pratchett, Hogfather</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The purpose of Royal Assent is to preserve the convention and custom that the United Kingdom is ruled by a King to avoid dealing with the reality that it's ruled by the people just like you and me which is and should be a truly terrifying thought. This is not a dig at politicians, judges, and civil servants: it applies equally to your doctor, the engineer who designed your house and the plumber who fitted your toilet.</p>
<h2>What would happen if it was refused?</h2>
<p>Well, a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis" rel="noreferrer">constitutional crisis</a> would happen. The UK and most other Commonwealth countries have had a few; they seem to find a solution. However, it's a <em>crisis</em> primarily because no one knows how it will be resolved in advance.</p>
<p>This particular crisis is unlikely to arise:</p>
<ul>
<li>the last time it happened was in 1708 by Queen Anne who was acting on the advice of her ministers (who were answerable to Parliament for their actions).</li>
<li>the last time it happened against the wishes of the government was in 1696 by William III.</li>
<li>the last time a monarch considered it was in 1914 by George V who decided it should not be done without &quot;convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time&quot;.</li>
</ul>

<p>Jurisdiction: <a href="/questions/tagged/united-kingdom" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="united-kingdom-container">united-kingdom</a></p>
<p>The monarch, in its capacity of granting royal assent, <em>is</em> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a component of Parliament</a>. So a &quot;bill passed by the parilament&quot; by definition means a bill which has had royal assent. If there is no royal assent, then the bill does not pass. The claim that a monarch cannot withhold Royal Assent is false. They can withhold it. By convention, they do not. The repercussions of them refusing Royal Assent would be political rather than legal and, short of some judicial creativity, would require a non-legal solution.</p>
<p>There is no particular point to this other than the fact that this is how it has been done historically, it has never caused a problem so far, and the UK prefers to keep the tradition. Presumably if it ever caused a problem in the future then it would be reconsidered.</p>

<p>Jurisdiction: <a href="/questions/tagged/united-kingdom" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;united-kingdom&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="united-kingdom-container">united-kingdom</a></p>
<p>First, I quote Maurice Sunkin's <em>Public Law Text Cases Materials</em> (4th edn, 2019), page 34.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Withholding
Royal Assent (for example, because the Queen had a moral objection to something in the bill)
would be undemocratic. Conclusion: there is a convention.<sup>31</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><sup>31</sup> Matters may be somewhat more complicated. If you want to delve deeper, see <a href="https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/25/nick-barber-can-royal-assent-be-refused-on-the-advice-of-the-prime-minster/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">N.W. Barber, ‘Can Royal
Assent Be Refused on the Advice of the Prime Minister?’, UK Constitutional Law Blog, 25 September 2013,
http:// ukconstitutionallaw.org.</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I quote Keith Ewing, <em>Constitutional and Administrative Law</em> (18th edn, 2022), pages 21-2.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The
monarch’s legal power to refuse Assent was last exercised by Queen Anne in 1708, when
(apparently with the approval of her ministers and without objection by Parliament) Assent
was refused to the Scottish Militia Bill.<sup>120</sup> In the Irish crisis of 1912–14, the Unionists suggested
to George V that he should withhold Assent from the Bill to give home rule to Ireland.
The Liberal Prime Minister, Asquith, advised the King against this and the Royal Assent
was granted.121 While the Queen may not of her own initiative refuse the Royal Assent, the position might be different if ministers advised her to do so, although this advice would have
to be defended in Parliament and, depending on the circumstances, could be highly controversial.
122</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><sup>120</sup> Hearn, <em>The Government of England</em>, p 61.<br />
<sup>121</sup> Jennings, <em>Cabinet Government</em>, pp 395–400. Cf Brazier, <em>Constitutional Practice</em>, pp 193–6. See too:
Twomey, <em>The Veiled Sceptre</em>.<br />
<sup>122</sup> The highly acclaimed 2014 play by Mike Bartlett, <em>Charles III</em>, has as its premise King Charles III exercising
his refusal of Assent to a Bill limiting press freedom, with significant consequences. A real-world
example arose in the fraught process of negotiations with the EU over withdrawal, when Parliament twice
passed primary legislation obliging the Government to seek an extension of membership which it did not
wish to seek (see ch 6). Could the Prime Minister constitutionally have advised the Queen to refuse the
Royal Assent to such Bills? It is well arguable that such advice could have been given, although whether
the Queen was then bound to accept that advice – contrary as it would have been to the expressed wishes
of both Houses of Parliament – is a further vexed question. The obvious and considerable constitutional
ramifications of such steps have usually caused politicians to avoid such questions having to be asked, and
it is a testament to the political tensions over Brexit that they were more seriously considered than at any
time in recent history.</p>
</blockquote>

parliamentary-procedure monarchy