Talk:Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom

Article's origin as fork
The history of the creation of this article is necessarty to clarify why the British royal prerogative is not to be found under the article for all other monarchies' royal prerogative, so I am pasting below the two sections from the original article's talk page which place this article in historical context. Lethiere (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (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)

Queries
Royal Prerogative: caps on first appearance, then lower case. I'd prefer (and so does the MoS) lower case, I think. But I'm not altogether certain. Definitely the MoS says lower case for "prime minister", unless there's a name attached to it, and "cabinet" (I've just asked there a day ago in relation to the new British government, articles about which are peppered with wrong caps all over the place. I believe "the Queen" is the exception). Link "Royal Prerogative" if there's an article?

I think most readers won't know the difference between "consitutional presence" and "power". It's a very complicated, unclear area of constitutional law: emporer's new clothes if you ask me. Needs to be carefully worded or constitutional wonks will be upset. I'll return tomorrow if I can manage it. Tony  (talk)  13:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with all of that. I'll get on making the changes shortly. AGK   13:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

PS "The prerogative is the name of the remaining portion of the Crown's original authority..." – is that a full-stop in the original, or are you chopping off the rest of the sentence? If the former, do this.... If the latter, do this ... with a space, non-breaking if you want. Tony  (talk)  13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I think Ironholds wrote that portion, so you'll need to ask him, as I don't use all the sources he does (and vice versa). AGK   13:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

At the same time
In the History section, near the end of the first paragraph, there is now a portion of a sentence which was left over after the rest was changed. What was "At the same time it was recognised that the monarch could not impose taxation without Parliament's consent, something recognised by Sir Thomas Smith and other writers of the period" now says, "At the same time. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the matter of taxation: Sir Thomas Smith and other writers of the period pointed out the monarch could not impose taxation without Parliament's consent".

And then the following sentence begins with "At the same time". While it surely is a lovely phrase, perhaps this part of the article doesn't need two at the same times at the same time.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't spot that; thanks! Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead images
The passport image has been deleted, and the other available photograph of a British passport cannot be used because of copyright issues. Perhaps someone could provide a different example to go with the orders of chivalry (with a suitable image to illustrate it)? Waltham, The Duke of 10:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

how was the royal prerogative so limited?
I'm curious how it came about that the monarchy ceded all of it's rights and privileges to the parliament and prime minister? We all know about King John and the barons forcing the Magna Carta but that really did little besides secure certain rights for the Barons and for centuries after its signing the monarch still wielded enormous power. Why did they suddenly stop withholding accent from bills of parliament? When did they lose control of the royal courts of justice which Henry Plantagenet used to lure cases away from baronial courts and established the common law. Why would a monarch assent to a bill of parliament if it limited his own power.--Drewder (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * a mix of things. The big ones, though, are in sequence the Magna Carta, the English Restoration and, most damningly, the Glorious Revolution and associated Bill of Rights, which (for the first time) put Parliament-dictated restrictions on what the monarch could do. Afrer that it was largely a change to customary law through customary law, not through written, explicit legislation. To use the example provided (assent to Parliamentary legislation): strictly speaking that right still exists! Practically, it doesn't. There's the quiet understanding that it won't be used, after one of the Georges tried and got in rather a lot of trouble because of it. The last time it was debated seriously (that we know of) was the Government of Ireland Act 1914, where George V reluctantly decided not to intervene, noting that assent should only be withheld in the case of national emergency if the legislation comes into force. Ironholds (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like it turns out to be a case of when the monarch stops using a power everyone assumes that they will continue to not use the power. I'm curious what would have happened had the queen refused to assent to Scottish independence had the election gone the other way. In any case it would be nice if the article went more in depth on when each prerogative ceased to be a practical power and started being exercised exclusively by those upstarts in parliament. Certainly the Queen appointing her son to be a field marshal in both the Army and the Navy implies she still has some power in reserve even if she doesn't utilize it very often. I don't think even the President of the United States could have gotten away with such a move.Drewder (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's more of a convention-based appointment; the Prince of Wales is always appointed to something! Generally it varies from power to power; I'm not sure if I could source most of my random trivia, unfortunately :(. Ironholds (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100414023100/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Exercise by Ministers
I came to this article hoping to read more about the reality as much as the theory. HMQ very rarely indeed (never?) uses the prerogative independently: the reality is that the RP is (almost) exclusively used by Ministers. Authority to invoke article 50 and subsequently to accept the terms of divorce, it seems, are matters that the PM believes are within the authority of HMG - but merely asserts this rather than provides any basis for it. I suspect that we have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide, but in the meantime surely it is odd that the general RP article has more to say on UK Constitutional Convention than has this specific one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2016
 * As you correctly say, the Queen herself has nothing to do with all this Brexit business: she leaves such decisions to her ministers. To put it otherwise, the monarch's executive rights are essentially the government's rights. The matter in dispute here is the extent to which the prerogative, as exercised by Her Majesty's Government, includes the authority to invoke article 50. As is written here, the prerogative "is in much use in the realm of foreign affairs", within which the UK's relations with the EU arguably fall, and it is the monarch who "forms international treaties", which regulate these relations. This seems to be the attitude of the Prime Minister, and there is ample precedent for it.
 * On the other hand, the connection with the EU is particularly deep; if invoking article 50 touches on rights and obligations enshrined by statute, as argued by proponents of parliamentary involvement in the decision, it could be that the government is overstepping its authority. The sections on limitations and judicial review do offer some idea about the superiority of statute law (and by extension, parliamentary authority) and the process in which the judicial branch checks the use of the prerogative.
 * Until the courts rule on the matter, as you seem to understand, we cannot be sure what the precise limit is here. I do agree that the subject is one of interest, and worthy of inclusion in the article. Any analysis, however, will have to be based on reliable secondary sources, and I imagine some time will need to pass before sufficient material becomes available for a relevant paragraph to be written in this article. Waltham, The Duke of 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

In the light of the UK Supreme Court judgment of 24 September 2019 {R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) [2019] UKSC 41} concerning the legality of the prorogation of parliament by the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, I suggest this article needs a complete overhaul to incorporate the legal basis of - and limitations to - the use of this power by the executive. The judgment itself cites many of the landmark cases which have sought to limit this power and also provides an insight to the relationship, and tensions, between the UK executive, legislature and judiciary. [User: Przesiac 24 September 2019] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.135.147 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Reelections
The article doesn't highlight what people should do when parliament is dissolved. Should it be reelected or not. Please expand. Thanks! AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 17:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Mercy and the GCHQ case
The article currently reads: The granting of a pardon is not subject to judicial review, as confirmed by Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service. I haven't read the case, so I presume it's true that the judge said that mercy was not subject to judicial review. However, whereas the GCHQ case confirmed that prerogative powers may be susceptible to review, mercy was not the power at issue in that case, so those remarks would be obiter, not "confirmation" that it is not. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)