Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Assent
(Uncontested -- July 7)
This is a self-nomination. -- Emsworth 02:34, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Question: the article on reserved powers mentions Germany, and seems to apply to many nations, while this article only mentions Britain and the commonwealth countries. Where does this apply, and how does it relate to U.S. veto power or the powers of other heads of state? For example, does the Netherlands have royal assent, and how does it differ from the English model? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the phrase "Royal Assent" is a British one. -- Emsworth 03:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the article's talk page seems to indicate that more countries than Britain and commonwealth are included. And I'd still be interested in seeing how and if it affected the powers granted other heads of state. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I've added a section on other nations. -- Emsworth 16:30, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the article's talk page seems to indicate that more countries than Britain and commonwealth are included. And I'd still be interested in seeing how and if it affected the powers granted other heads of state. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the phrase "Royal Assent" is a British one. -- Emsworth 03:24, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
- A good article.
However, I object on the grounds that it does not cover royal assent in current crown colonies at all. Does, say, the Governor of Gibraltar have that power? Does he ever use it?Morwen - Talk 20:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I object. Royal Assent, when granted under the new procedure created by the Royal Assent Act, 1967, is not notified by Royal Commissioners in Buckingham Palace. The article states, wrongly, that under the 1967 Act´s procedure, Royal Commissioners are also used, but they notify Assent in Buckingham Palace, rather then in Parliament. This is wrong, as I have pointed out in the article´s discussion page. While Assent by Commission is still used in the end of session, and is still a possibility, when the procedure created by the Royal Assent Act, 1967 is used (which is the most common procedure nowadays and which is a different procedure than Assent by Commission), then no Royal Commissioners are used at all. Under the new procedure created as an alternative to Assent by Commission by the Royal Assent Act, 1967, there are no Royal Commissioners. The very text of the Letters Patent show that, under the 1967 Act´s procedure, no Royal Commissioners are appointed. The "Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Procedures of the House of Lords makes clear that, the 1967 Act´s procedure is totally different from Assent by Commission, videlicet: " ROYAL ASSENT 6.172 Letters Patent are issued from time to time to signify the Royal Assent to bills and Measures passed by both Houses of Parliament.; 6.173 Royal Assent is usually notified to each House sitting separately in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Assent Act 1967. Once Royal Assent has been notified to both Houses, the bills become Acts of Parliament. If notification is given on different days to each House, the date of Royal Assent is the date of notification in the second House.; 6.174 Notification is frequently given before starred questions, but it may take place at any break between two items of business, or at the end of business, if necessary after an adjournment. The order in which notification is given is as follows: supply bills, other public bills, provisional order confirmation bills, private bills, personal bills, Measures. 6.175 Royal Assent may also be signified by Commission, as described in appendix H (page 233). --Antonio Basto 12:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Having rectified the article myself, I do now remove the above objection, as long as the inaccurate information is not re-inserted in the article (as unfortunately happened before). --Antonio Basto 00:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Lots of good detail. 81.168.80.170 21:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely. James F. (talk) 04:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Object for now - Nice article, but it needs a better lead section. So far I only count 2 sentences in the lead which arguably doesn't make one para when an article of that size should have two good-sized paragraphs in the lead section in order to concisely lead-in the subject.--mav
- Support.
Object. 1) The "historical development" section (UK) doesn't give many specifics as to its origin: Historically, "the agreement of all three was required for the passage of legislation."; at a minimum, a date or two would be helpful. 2) The usage of the Royal Assent needs more coverage, if this sentence is correct: "While the power to deny the Royal Assent was once exercised often..." — when / who excercised it often? The first mention in the history section is about Anne, the last monarch to use it. 3) Questions that might need answering in this article: Does anyone want to scrap the method of Royal Assent, in the UK or elsewhere? 4) Would it be realistically possible for the monarch to veto legislation, or is it all a ceremonial sham? What do people speculate would happen in such an instance?— Matt 02:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)- 1) and 2) Addressed. 3) I'm sure that people want to get rid of the Royal Assent. But because it is a merely ceremonial procedure, there isn't any major opposition to it. I think that the argument would almost always fall under broader constitutional reform plans, such as the abolition of the monarchy. But the article, in my opinion, should not be concerned with major constitutional reforms and sentiments directed against the monarchy in general (as opposed to the Royal Assent itself), as such a concern is merely tangential, if not entirely off-topic. 4) This question is the most difficult to address. It is theoretically possible for the monarch to veto legislation, but realistically impossible (this is addressed in the article). The possibility is so extremely remote that speculation would probably be futile. The scenario is so difficult to envision that one cannot say how the people would react. -- Emsworth 14:10, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additions and answers to the queries; I've removed the objection. — Matt 23:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- 1) and 2) Addressed. 3) I'm sure that people want to get rid of the Royal Assent. But because it is a merely ceremonial procedure, there isn't any major opposition to it. I think that the argument would almost always fall under broader constitutional reform plans, such as the abolition of the monarchy. But the article, in my opinion, should not be concerned with major constitutional reforms and sentiments directed against the monarchy in general (as opposed to the Royal Assent itself), as such a concern is merely tangential, if not entirely off-topic. 4) This question is the most difficult to address. It is theoretically possible for the monarch to veto legislation, but realistically impossible (this is addressed in the article). The possibility is so extremely remote that speculation would probably be futile. The scenario is so difficult to envision that one cannot say how the people would react. -- Emsworth 14:10, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)