Editing Royal assent (section)

==Usage==
The monarch would today not veto a bill, except on ministerial advice. Robert Blackburn suggested 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,<ref>{{citation| first=Robert| last=Blackburn| title=Monarchy and the Personal Prerogatives| page=554| work=Note 2| year=2004| publisher=Public L}}</ref> whereas Rodney Brazier argued that a monarch can still refuse royal assent to a bill that "sought to subvert the democratic basis of the constitution". However, Brazier went on to admit doing such a thing would lead to "grave difficulties of definition" and it would be better if the monarch sought a different method of expressing their concern.<ref>{{citation| first=Rodney| last=Brazier| title=Monarchy and the Personal Prerogatives – A personal response to Professor Blackburn| page=47| work=Note 8| year=2005| publisher=Public L}}</ref> The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.<ref>{{citation| url=https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/22.1-Full-Issue.pdf| editor-last1=Lagassé| editor-first1=Philippe| editor-last2=MacDonald| editor-first2=Nicholas A.| title=The Crown in the 21st Century| first1=Robert| last1=Hazell| last2=Morris| first2=Bob| series=If the Queen Has No Reserve Powers Left, What Is the Modern Monarchy For?| journal=Review of Constitutional Studies| volume=22| issue=1| year=2017| page=11| publisher=Centre for Constitutional Studies| location=Edmonton| accessdate=May 31, 2023| archive-date=16 August 2022| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816131152/https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/22.1-Full-Issue.pdf| url-status=live}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
{{See also|Royal Assent Act 1967}}

Before the [[Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541]] ([[33 Hen. 8]]. c. 21) allowed for delegation of the power to [[Lords Commissioners]], assent was always required to be given by the sovereign in person before Parliament.<ref>{{cite book |last=Carroll |first=Alex |date=1998 |title=Constitutional and Administrative Law |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FU1KAQAAIAAJ |location=London |publisher=Financial Times/Prentice Hall |page=207 |isbn=978-0273625711}}</ref> The last time it was given by the sovereign in person in Parliament was during the reign of [[Queen Victoria]] at a [[Prorogation in the United Kingdom|prorogation]] on 12 August 1854.<ref>{{cite book |date=1976 |editor-first=David |editor-last=Lidderdale |title=[[Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice|Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament]] |edition=19th |isbn=0-406-29102-0 |page=564|publisher=Butterworths }}</ref>{{efn|This was also the last occasion on which Parliament was prorogued by the monarch in person<ref>{{cite book |date=1976 |editor-first=David |editor-last=Lidderdale |title=[[Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice|Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament]] |edition=19th |isbn=0-406-29102-0 |page=261|publisher=Butterworths }}</ref>}} The act was repealed and replaced by the [[Royal Assent Act 1967]]. However section 1(2) of that act does not prevent the sovereign from declaring assent in person if he or she so desires.

Royal assent is the final step required for a parliamentary bill to become law. Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options:
* grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an [[act of Parliament]].
* delay the bill's assent through the use of [[Reserve power#United Kingdom|reserve power]]s, thereby invoking a veto<ref name="bennion1981"/>
* refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.<ref>{{cite book |editor-first=Thomas |editor-last=Erskine May |title=[[Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice|A Practical Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament]] |page=373 |edition=2nd |date=1851}}</ref>

The last bill that was refused assent was the [[Scottish Militia Bill]] during [[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne's]] reign in 1708.<ref>''Lords' Journals'' ''(1705–1709),'' p. 506</ref>

[[Erskine May]]'s ''[[Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice|Parliamentary Practice]]'' advises "...and from that sanction they cannot be legally withheld", meaning that bills must be sent for royal assent, not that it must be given.<ref>{{cite book |date=1976 |editor-first=David |editor-last=Lidderdale |title=[[Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice|Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament]] |edition=19th |isbn=0-406-29102-0 |page=562|publisher=Butterworths }}, citing Hats. p. 339, 13 ''Lords' Journals'', p. 756</ref> However, some authorities have stated that the sovereign no longer has the power to withhold assent from a bill ''against'' the advice of ministers.<ref>{{cite book |author-link=John Campbell, 1st Baron Campbell |first=John |last=Campbell |title=Lives of the Chancellors |volume=III |page=354}}</ref><ref>[[Gilbert Burnet]], ''A History of my Own Time'', vol. II (1734), p. 274.</ref>

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03861.pdf | title=The Royal Prerogative | publisher=House of Commons Library | date=30 December 2009 | access-date=26 August 2014 | author1=Gay, Oonagh |author2=Maer, Lucinda}}</ref> However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by his or her ministers.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/22/robert-craig-could-the-government-advise-the-queen-to-refuse-royal-assent-to-a-backbench-bill/ |title=Robert Craig: Could the Government Advise the Queen to Refuse Royal Assent to a Backbench Bill? |date=22 January 2019 |access-date=3 February 2019 |archive-date=3 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190203143536/https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/22/robert-craig-could-the-government-advise-the-queen-to-refuse-royal-assent-to-a-backbench-bill/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of Parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is unlikely that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld.<ref name="bennion1981">{{cite journal |title=Modern Royal Assent Procedure at Westminster |last=Bennion |first=Francis |author-link=Francis Bennion |journal=Statute Law Review |date=November 1981 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=133–147|doi=10.1093/slr/2.3.133 }}</ref> This possibility did arise during the early days of the premiership of [[Boris Johnson]] while the UK was negotiating a [[Brexit]] agreement with the EU. The Speaker of the House of Commons had allowed debate on a bill against the government's wishes, and the government of the day was effectively in a minority on the most pressing parliamentary issue at the time. As such, there were rumours that the prime minister might advise the then-sovereign, Elizabeth II, to withhold assent on an unfavourable bill.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://fortune.com/2019/09/01/brexit-queen-boris-johnson | title=Brexit Dragged the Queen into Politics – And Isn't Letting Go | access-date=9 November 2022 | archive-date=12 November 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112021827/https://fortune.com/2019/09/01/brexit-queen-boris-johnson/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

====Historical development====
Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the ''[[Curia regis]]'', or Royal Council, in which senior magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into Parliament.<ref>{{cite book |last=Pollard |first=A. F. |title=The Evolution of Parliament |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.24781 |location=New York |publisher=Longmans, Green and Co. |date=1920 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.24781/page/n60 36]–45}}</ref> In 1265, [[Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester|the Earl of Leicester]] [[Simon de Montfort's Parliament|irregularly called a full parliament]] without royal authorisation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Barzel |first1=Yoram |last2=Kiser |first2=Edgar |title=The Development and Decline of Medieval Voting Institutions: A Comparison of England and France |journal=Economic Inquiry |volume=35 |issue=2 |year=1997 | page= 252 |doi=10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01907.x}}</ref> Membership of the so-called [[Model Parliament]], established in 1295 under [[Edward I of England|Edward I]], eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the [[House of Lords]], while the two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough led the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Sayles |first=G. O. |title=The King's Parliament of England |url=https://archive.org/details/kingsparliamento0000sayl |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=W. W. Norton |year=1974 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/kingsparliamento0000sayl/page/106 106]–107}}</ref> The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law.<ref name="auto">{{cite web |url=http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/house-of-lords-guide-and-information-on-the-house-of-lords-p |title=House of Lords |website=politics.co.uk |access-date=9 December 2011 |archive-date=13 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213184122/http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/house-of-lords-guide-and-information-on-the-house-of-lords-p |url-status=dead }}</ref>

During [[Henry VI of England|Henry VI]]'s reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the Sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include 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 [[Lords Temporal|Temporal]], and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...".<ref name="auto"/> The [[Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949]] provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.

The power of Parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. [[Charles I of England|Charles I]] dissolved Parliament in 1629, after it passed motions and bills critical of—and seeking to restrict—his arbitrary exercise of power. During the eleven years of [[Personal rule of Charles I, 1629–1640|personal rule]] that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions such as raising taxes without Parliament's approval.<ref>"[http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page76.asp Charles I (r. 1625–49)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120603124123/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page76.asp |date=3 June 2012 }}". Royal Household at Buckingham Palace. Retrieved 12 April 2007.</ref>

The form of the [[Coronation Oath]] taken by monarchs up to and including James I and Charles I included a promise (in Latin) to uphold the rightful laws and customs ''quas vulgus elegerit''.{{efn|The full text is as follows: ''Concedis justas leges et consuetudines esse tenendas? et promittis per te eas esse protegendas quas vulgus elegerit, secundum vires tuas?  Respondebit, Concedo et promitto.''<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/mannerofcoronati02chur |page=[https://archive.org/details/mannerofcoronati02chur/page/21 21] |title=The Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First of England |location=London |date=1892 |editor=Wordsworth |publisher=Henry Bradshaw Liturgical Text Society}}</ref>}} There was a controversy over the meaning of this phrase: the verb ''elegerit'' is ambiguous, representing either the future perfect ("which the common people ''shall'' have chosen"), or perfect subjunctive ("which the common people ''may'' have chosen").  Charles I, adopting the latter interpretation, considered himself committed only to uphold those laws and customs that ''already existed'' at the time of his coronation.<ref>{{cite book |title=Subjects and Sovereigns: The Grand Controversy Over Legal Sovereignty in Stuart England |first1=Corrinne Comstock |last1=Weston |first2=Janelle Renfrow |last2=Greenberg |publisher=Cambridge University Press |orig-year=1981 |year=2002 |edition=first paperback |isbn=9780521892865 |page=65 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=l_3QvrAy1J4C |location=Cambridge}}</ref>   The [[Long Parliament]] preferred the former translation, interpreting the oath as an undertaking to assent to any law passed by Parliament, as the representative of the "common people".  The restoration [[Convention Parliament (1399)|Convention Parliament]] resolved the issue by removing the disputed phrase from the Oath.<ref name="carafano"/>

After the [[English Civil War|Civil War]], it was accepted that Parliament should be summoned to meet regularly, but it was still commonplace for monarchs to refuse royal assent to bills. The [[Sedition Act 1661]] even made it a treasonable offence to suggest that Parliament had "a legislative power without the king".<ref name="carafano"/>  In 1678, [[Charles II of England|Charles II]] withheld royal assent from a bill "for preserving the Peace of the Kingdom by raising the [[Militia]], and continuing them in Duty for Two and Forty Days,"<ref>"[http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=11613 House of Lords Journal Volume 13: 27 November 1678] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927221513/http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=11613 |date=27 September 2007 }}". Journal of the House of Lords: volume 13: 1675–1681 (1771), pp. 380–385. Retrieved 12 April 2007.</ref> suggesting that he, not Parliament, should control the militia.<ref>"[http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/lareyne.pdf The making and keeping of Acts] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200224023902/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/lareyne.pdf |date=24 February 2020 }}" (PDF). ''History Today'', Vol. VI, pp. 765–773, 1956. Retrieved 18 April 2007.</ref> [[William III of England|William III]] made comparatively liberal use of the royal veto, withholding assent from five public bills between 1692 and 1696.<ref name="carafano">{{cite journal |journal=Albion |title=William III and the Negative Voice |first=James Jay |last=Carafano |year=1987 |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=509–525 |jstor=4049472 |doi=10.2307/4049472 }}</ref>  These were:

* The Judges Bill (vetoed 1692) would have regulated the fees charged by judges, and removed the right of the monarch to dismiss judges at will, stipulating that a judge should hold his commission "on good behaviour".  One contemporary observer reported that William's veto was recommended by the judges themselves, concerned that the regulation of their fees would deprive them of a lucrative source of income.<ref name="carafano"/>
* The Royal Mines Bill (vetoed 1692) would have clearly defined the monarch's right to seize any mine containing gold or silver. A similar bill was again passed by Parliament and given royal assent in the following year.<ref name="carafano"/>
* The Triennial Bill (vetoed 1693) would have ensured Parliament would meet annually, and that no parliament could last longer than three years.  A similar law, without the requirement for annual parliamentary sessions, was approved by the king in 1694 and became law.<ref name="carafano"/>
* The Place Bill (vetoed 1694) would have prevented members of Parliament from accepting any office or employment under the Crown without standing for re-election.<ref name="carafano"/> A similar provision was later approved by William as part of the [[Act of Settlement 1701]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Pickering |first1=Danby |title=Statutes at Large From the Eighth Year of King William to the Second Year of Queen Anne, Vol. X |date=1764 |publisher=Joseph Bentham |location=London |page=360 |quote=That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons |url=https://archive.org/stream/statutesatlarge31britgoog#page/n407/mode/2up}}</ref>
* The Qualifications Bill (vetoed 1696) would have established property qualifications for members of Parliament.<ref name="carafano"/>

Carafano suggests that William III considered the royal veto "his personal legislative tool".<ref name="carafano"/>  By contrast, the last Stuart monarch, [[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]], withheld her assent from a bill just once.  On 11 March 1708, she vetoed the [[Scottish Militia Bill]] on the advice of her ministers.  No monarch has since withheld royal assent from a bill passed by Parliament.<ref>{{cite web|title=House of Lords Journal Volume 18: 11 March 1708|url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol18/pp504-506#h3-0015/|website=www.british-history.ac.uk|access-date=30 April 2017|archive-date=10 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171210015954/http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol18/pp504-506#h3-0015/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=parliament.uk FAQs|url=http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/search-finding-aids-to-online-collections-/archives-faqs/records-frequently-asked-questions/#jump-link-6|website=www.parliament.uk|access-date=30 April 2017|archive-date=3 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171003052237/http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/search-finding-aids-to-online-collections-/archives-faqs/records-frequently-asked-questions/#jump-link-6|url-status=live}}</ref>

During the rule of the succeeding [[House of Hanover|Hanoverian dynasty]], power was gradually exercised more by Parliament and the government. The first Hanoverian monarch, [[George I of Great Britain|George I]], became heir presumptive and then king late in life. Speaking English as a second language and being at first unfamiliar with British politics and customs, he relied on his ministers to a greater extent than had previous monarchs. Later Hanoverian monarchs attempted to restore royal control over legislation: [[George III]] and [[George IV]] both openly opposed [[Catholic emancipation]]<ref>{{cite web |last=Conway |first=Stephen |title=Book Review: George III: An Essay in Monarchy |url=http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/conwayS2.html |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210054/http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/conwayS2.html |archivedate=27 September 2007 |publisher=The Institute of Historical Research |date=February 2003 |access-date=12 April 2007}}</ref><ref name=Giv>"[https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/george_iv_king.shtml George IV (1762–1830)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191225203809/http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/george_iv_king.shtml |date=25 December 2019 }}". BBC History. Retrieved 12 April 2007.</ref> and asserted that to grant assent to a Catholic emancipation bill would violate the [[Coronation of the British monarch|Coronation Oath]], which required the sovereign to preserve and protect the established [[Church of England]] from papal domination, and would grant rights to individuals who were in league with a foreign power which did not recognise their legitimacy. However, George IV reluctantly granted his assent upon the advice of his ministers.<ref name=Giv /> Thus, as the concept of ministerial responsibility has evolved, the power to withhold royal assent has fallen into disuse, both in the United Kingdom and in the other Commonwealth realms.

In 1914, [[George V]] took legal advice on withholding royal assent from the [[Home Rule Act 1914|Government of Ireland Bill]]; then highly contentious legislation that the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] government intended to push through Parliament by means of the [[Parliament Act 1911]]. He decided not to withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time".<ref>{{cite book |title=Constitutional and Administrative Law |pages=243 |edition=13th |last1=Bradley |first1=A. W.  |last2=Ewing |first2=K. D.  |name-list-style=amp |year=2003 |publisher=Longmans |location=London |isbn=0-582-43807-1 }}</ref>

It has been mooted that, in modern times, the government could advise the monarch to withhold royal assent, but that elected politicians should strive to avoid such a scenario.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Craig|first=Robert|date=22 January 2019|title=Could the Government Advise the Queen to Refuse Royal Assent to a Backbench Bill?|url=https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/22/robert-craig-could-the-government-advise-the-queen-to-refuse-royal-assent-to-a-backbench-bill|access-date=12 March 2021|website=UK Constitutional Law Association|archive-date=3 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303095139/https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/22/robert-craig-could-the-government-advise-the-queen-to-refuse-royal-assent-to-a-backbench-bill/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=====Scotland=====

Royal assent is the final stage in the legislative process for Acts of the [[Scottish Parliament]]. The process is governed by sections 28, 32, 33, and 35 of the [[Scotland Act 1998]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents | title=Scotland Act 1998 | publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] | access-date=30 August 2014 | archive-date=29 June 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160629003653/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents | url-status=live }}</ref> After a bill has been passed, the [[Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament]] submits it to the monarch for royal assent after a four-week period, during which the [[Advocate General for Scotland]], the [[Lord Advocate]], the [[Attorney General]] or the [[Secretary of State for Scotland]]<ref>"[http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/18641.aspx Stage of a bill] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610135421/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/18641.aspx |date=10 June 2015 }}". The Scottish Parliament. Retrieved 29 June 2015.</ref> may refer the bill to the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]] (prior to 1 October 2009, the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]]) for review of its legality. Royal assent is signified by letters patent under the [[Great Seal of Scotland]] as set out in the [[Scottish Parliament (Letters Patent and Proclamations) Order 1999]] ([[SI 1999]]/737) and of which notice is published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast Gazettes.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/737/contents/made | title=The Scottish Parliament (Letters Patent and Proclamations) Order 1999 | publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] | access-date=30 August 2014 | archive-date=18 October 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131018034315/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/737/contents/made | url-status=live }}</ref>

The authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland to prohibit the submission of a bill passed by the Scottish Parliament for royal assent was first used in January 2023 for the [[Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-64288757|title=UK government to block Scottish gender bill|date=16 January 2023|via=www.bbc.com|access-date=27 November 2023|archive-date=23 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231123112529/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-64288757|url-status=live}}</ref>

=====Wales=====

[[Measure of the National Assembly for Wales|Measures]], which were the means by which the [[National Assembly for Wales]] passed legislation between 2006 and 2011, were assented to by Queen Elizabeth II by means of an [[Order in Council]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/32/section/102 | title=Section 102 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 | publisher=[[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] | access-date=30 August 2014 | archive-date=13 July 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140713023105/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/32/section/102 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/mwa2008/oic/mwaoic_20080001_en.pdf Order in Council] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090219075253/http://opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/mwa2008/oic/mwaoic_20080001_en.pdf |date=19 February 2009 }} dated 9 July 2008, approving The NHS Redress (Wales) Measure 2008, the first Measure to be passed by the Assembly on 6 May 2008. Office of Public Sector Information</ref> Section 102 of the [[Government of Wales Act 2006]] required the Clerk to the Assembly to present measures passed by the assembly after a four-week period during which the [[Counsel General for Wales]] or the [[Attorney General]] could refer the proposed measure to the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]] for a decision as to whether the measure was within the assembly's legislative competence. Following the [[2011 Welsh devolution referendum|referendum held in March 2011]], in which the majority voted for the assembly's law-making powers to be extended,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wales.gov.uk/legislation/referendumpowers/?lang=en|title=Welsh referendum 2011|publisher=Welsh Assembly Government|access-date=23 March 2011|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110407205232/http://wales.gov.uk/legislation/referendumpowers/?lang=en|archive-date=7 April 2011|df=dmy-all}}</ref> measures were replaced by [[Act of the National Assembly for Wales|Acts of the Assembly]].<ref name=Wales>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/752/pdfs/uksi_20110752_en.pdf|title=The National Assembly for Wales (Letters Patent) Order 2011|publisher=Legislation.gov.uk|access-date=23 March 2011|date=16 March 2011|archive-date=13 November 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121113205736/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/752/pdfs/uksi_20110752_en.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

=====Northern Ireland=====
{{Infobox UK legislation
| short_title           = Northern Ireland (Royal Assent to Bills) Order 1999
| type                  = Statutory Instrument
| parliament            = Parliament of the United Kingdom
| year                  = 1999
| citation              = [[SI 1999]]/664
| introduced_commons    = 
| introduced_lords      = 
| territorial_extent    = 
| si_made_date          = 10 March 1999
| si_laid_date          = 
| commencement          = 2 December 1999
| expiry_date           = 
| repeal_date           = 
| amends                = 
| replaces              = 
| primary_legislation   = [[Northern Ireland Act 1998]]
| eu_directives         = 
| amendments            = 
| repealing_legislation = 
| related_legislation   = 
| status                = 
| legislation_history   = 
| theyworkforyou        = 
| millbankhansard       = 
| original_text         = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/664/made
| revised_text          = 
| use_new_UK-LEG        = 
| UK-LEG_title          = 
| collapsed             = yes
}}
Under section 14 of the [[Northern Ireland Act 1998]], a bill which has been approved by the [[Northern Ireland Assembly]] is presented to the monarch by the [[Secretary of State for Northern Ireland]] for royal assent after a four-week waiting period during which the [[Attorney General for Northern Ireland]] may refer the bill to the Supreme Court. Assent is given by means of letters patent in the following form set out in the '''{{visible anchor|Northern Ireland (Royal Assent to Bills) Order 1999}}''' ([[SI 1999]]/664).<ref name=NI>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/664/pdfs/uksi_19990664_en.pdf|title=The Northern Ireland (Royal Assent to Bills) Order 1999|publisher=Legislation.gov.uk|access-date=8 October 2011|date=8 October 2011|archive-date=18 December 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101218081751/http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/664/pdfs/uksi_19990664_en.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

Between 1922 and 1972, bills passed by the [[Parliament of Northern Ireland]] were passed to the [[Governor of Northern Ireland]] for royal assent under the [[Government of Ireland Act 1920]], replacing the office of [[Lord Lieutenant of Ireland|Lord Lieutenant]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/goi231220.htm#8|title=CAIN: Government of Ireland Act, 1920|website=cain.ulst.ac.uk|access-date=15 June 2012|archive-date=21 December 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061221035944/http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/goi231220.htm#8|url-status=live}}</ref>

=====Jersey and Guernsey=====
The Lieutenant Governors of the [[Bailiwick of Jersey]] and of the [[Bailiwick of Guernsey|Bailiwick and Islands of Guernsey]] do not have the authority to grant assent, nor, as proxies, as the British Crown's representative, deliver assent, to legislation emanating from the respective legislatures of these islands. The States of Jersey Law 2005 abolishes the power of the 
Lieutenant Governor to directly impose a formal veto to a resolution of the States of Jersey.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.jerseylaw.je/laws/current/Pages/16.800.aspx|title=States of Jersey Law 2005|access-date=7 April 2013|website=[[Jersey Legal Information Board]]|archive-date=26 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026180153/https://www.jerseylaw.je/laws/current/Pages/16.800.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>

The equivalent of the royal assent is formally granted or formally refused on the formal advice of the Committee of Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey in pursuance of Queen Elizabeth II's Order-in-Council of 22 February 1952. A recent example when the equivalent of royal assent was refused was in 2007, concerning reforms to the constitution of the [[Sark#Chief Pleas|Chief Pleas of Sark]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0119_Judgment.pdf|title=R (on the application of Barclay and others) v Secretary of State for Justice and others|publisher=UK Supreme Court|access-date=25 October 2010|date=1 December 2009|archive-date=8 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408224928/http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2009_0119_Judgment.pdf|url-status=dead}} See paragraph 27.</ref> (A revised version of the proposed reforms was subsequently given the equivalent of royal assent.<ref>''R (Barclay) v Secretary of State for Justice'', paragraph 30.</ref>)

=====Isle of Man=====
Special procedures apply to legislation passed by the [[Tynwald]] of the [[Isle of Man]]. Before the Lordship of the Island was purchased by the British Crown in 1765 (the [[History of the Isle of Man#Revestment|Revestment]]), the assent of the [[Lord of Mann#17th and 18th centuries|Lord of Mann]] to a bill was signified by letter to the Governor.<ref>E.g., letter from Duke of Atholl, 11 June 1757, allowing and confirming An Act to prevent Clandestine Marriages: {{citation |editor-last=Gell |editor-first=J  |title=Statutes of the Isle of Man |volume=I |location=Douglas |year=1883 |page=284 }}</ref> After 1765, the equivalent of royal assent was at first signified by the letter from the Secretary of State to the Governor;<ref>E.g., letter from Duke of Portland (Secretary of State) to Duke of Atholl (Governor), 15 July 1796, advising of the King's approval to two Acts but withholding assent to a third: op. cit p. 352</ref> but, during the [[British Regency]], the practice began of granting the equivalent of royal assent to Manx legislation by Orders in Council,<ref>E.g., Order in Council of 7 March 1814 approving two Acts: op. cit. p. 381</ref> which continues to this day, though limited to exceptional cases since 1981. That year the '''{{visible anchor|Royal Assent to Legislation (Isle of Man) Order 1981}}''' delegated to the [[Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man|Lieutenant Governor]] the power to grant royal assent to bills passed by [[Tynwald]]. The Lieutenant Governor must, however, refer any bill impacting on reserved powers (defence, foreign relations, nationality law, the relationship between the Island and the United Kingdom and any matters relating to the Monarch) to the British government for advice, on which he is required to act.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gov.im/media/1355821/royal-assent-prerogative-order.pdf |title=Royal Assent to Legislation (Isle of Man) Order 1981 |website=gov.im|access-date=3 June 2017|archive-date=16 August 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220816222234/https://www.gov.im/media/1355821/royal-assent-prerogative-order.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Since 1993, the [[Diocese of Sodor and Man|Sodor and Man]] [[diocesan synod]] of the [[Church of England]] within the [[Province of York]] has had power to enact measures making provision "with respect to any matter concerning the Church of England in the Island". If approved by Tynwald, a measure "shall have the force and effect of an Act of Tynwald upon the Royal Assent thereto being announced to the Tynwald".<ref>{{citation  | title = Church Legislation Procedure Act 1993 section 2  | url = http://www.gumbley.net/clpa1993.htm  | access-date = 6 January 2010  | archive-date = 8 July 2008  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080708202300/http://www.gumbley.net/clpa1993.htm  | url-status = live  }}</ref> Between the passing of the [[Church (Application of General Synod Measures) Act 1979]] and 1993, the diocesan synod had similar powers, but limited to the extension to the Isle of Man of measures of the [[General Synod of the Church of England|General Synod]].<ref>Church (Application of General Synod Measures) Act 1979</ref> Before 1994, the equivalent of royal assent was granted by Order in Council, as for a bill, but the power to grant the equivalent of royal assent to measures has now been delegated to the Lieutenant Governor by the [[Sodor and Man Diocesan Synod Measures Order 1994]]. A Measure does not require ''promulgation''.<ref>{{citation  |title = Church Legislation Procedure Act 1993 Sch.1 para.4(2)  |url = http://www.gumbley.net/clpa1993.htm  |access-date = 6 January 2010  |archive-date = 8 July 2008  |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080708202300/http://www.gumbley.net/clpa1993.htm  |url-status = live  }}</ref>

====Relationship to royal consent====
{{Main|Royal Consent}}

King's Consent and Prince's Consent are distinct from royal assent. They are required only for bills affecting the [[royal prerogative]] and the personal property and "personal interests" of the monarch, and are granted before parliament has debated or voted to pass a bill. They are internal parliamentary rules of procedure that could, in principle, be dispensed with by Parliament. Consent is always granted on the advice of the government; the monarch never takes the decision to withhold consent.

===Other Commonwealth realms===
In [[Commonwealth realm]]s other than the UK, royal assent is granted or withheld either by the realm's sovereign or, more frequently, by the representative of the sovereign, the [[Governor-general#Commonwealth realms|governor-general]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/whole.html|title=Constitution Act 1986|publisher=Parliamentary Counsel Office|access-date=29 October 2010|archive-date=26 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200126023639/http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0114/latest/whole.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In Australia and Canada, which are [[federation]]s, assent in each state or province is granted or withheld by the relevant [[Governors of the Australian states|governor]] or [[Lieutenant Governor (Canada)|lieutenant governor]], respectively.

In Australia, in the special case of a bill proposing to amend the constitution, the bill is submitted to the electorate in a referendum and must receive majority support before receiving royal assent. All other bills passed normally by the Parliament become acts of Parliament once they have received royal assent.<ref>{{cite book |title=House of Representatives Practice |publisher=Parliament of Australia |language=en |chapter=10 – Legislation |access-date=20 September 2018 |chapter-url=https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6/Practice6HTML?file=Chapter10&section=08&fullscreen=1 |archive-date=13 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180913154218/https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice6/Practice6HTML?file=Chapter10&section=08&fullscreen=1 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In [[Solomon Islands]] and [[Tuvalu]], royal assent may not be refused and constitutional provisions require it to be granted in a timely manner.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Solomon_Islands_2018|title=Section 59, Constitution of Solomon Islands|year=2018|publisher=Constitute Project|access-date=28 November 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://tuvalu-legislation.tv/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1986/1986-0001/1986-0001_2.pdf|title=Section 88, Constitution of Tuvalu|publisher=Government of Tuvalu|year=2023|access-date=28 November 2024|page=60}}</ref> In [[Antigua and Barbuda]], [[Saint Lucia]], and [[Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]], the governor-general may not withhold assent if a bill has fulfilled all constitutional requirements.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Antigua/antigua-barbuda.html|title=Section 52, Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda|publisher=Political Database of the Americas|year=1981|access-date=28 November 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/St_Lucia_1978|title=Section 47, Constitution of St Lucia|year=1978|access-date=28 November 2024|publisher=Constitute Project}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.oas.org/juridico/PDFs/mesicic4_svg_const.pdf|title=Section 43, Constitution of St Vincent and the Grenadines|year=1979|access-date=28 November 2024|publisher=Organization of American States}}</ref> In [[Papua New Guinea]], no royal assent is required for the passage of bills and legislation instead becomes effective on the certification of the [[Speaker of the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea|speaker of the national parliament]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.parliament.gov.pg/images/misc/PNG-CONSTITUTION.pdf|title=Section 110, Constitution of Papua New Guinea|publisher=Parliament of Papua New Guinea|year=1975|access-date=28 November 2024}}</ref>

====Canada====
For Canada, the lieutenant governors may defer assent to the [[Governor General of Canada|governor general]],<ref>{{Citation| url=http://canadiancrown.gc.ca/DAMAssetPub/DAM-CRN-jblDmt-dmdJbl/STAGING/texte-text/crnMpls_1336157759317_eng.pdf?WT.contentAuthority=4.4.4| last=MacLeod| first=Kevin S.| author-link=Kevin S. MacLeod| title=A Crown of Maples| place=Ottawa| publisher=Queen's Printer for Canada| year=2015| page=25| isbn=978-0-662-46012-1| access-date=5 February 2016| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110140303/http://canadiancrown.gc.ca/DAMAssetPub/DAM-CRN-jblDmt-dmdJbl/STAGING/texte-text/crnMpls_1336157759317_eng.pdf?WT.contentAuthority=4.4.4| archive-date=10 November 2012| url-status=dead| df=dmy-all}}</ref> who may defer assent to federal bills to the sovereign.<ref>{{Citation| date=29 March 1867| title=Constitution Act, 1867| series=IV.55| location=Westminster| url=http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html| access-date=5 February 2016| archive-date=3 February 2010| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100203024121/http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html| url-status=live}}</ref> If the governor general is unable to give assent, it can be done by a [[Deputy of the Governor General of Canada|deputy]], specifically [[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada|a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada]]. Through Canadian history, royal assent has been withheld by a lieutenant governor approximately 90 times, the last occurring in Saskatchewan in 1961.<ref>{{harvnb| MacLeod| 2015| p=25}}</ref>

It is not actually necessary for the governor general to sign a bill passed by a legislature, the signature being merely an attestation. In each case, the parliament must be apprised of the granting of assent before the bill is considered to have become law.<ref name=Senate53>{{citation| url=http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/SPIP/pdf/SPIP-2015-06-01-e.pdf| author=Senate of Canada| title=Senate Procedure and Practice| page=53| date=June 2015| publisher=Queen's Printer for Canada| location=Ottawa| access-date=15 November 2015| archive-date=20 August 2015| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150820000112/http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/SPIP/pdf/SPIP-2015-06-01-e.pdf| url-status=live}}</ref> Two methods are available: the sovereign's representatives may grant assent in the presence of both houses of parliament. Alternatively, each house may be notified separately, usually by the speaker of that house. Both houses must be notified on the same day. Notice to the House of Commons while it is not in session may be given by way of publishing a special issue of the ''Journals of the House of Commons''. The Senate must be sitting and the governor general's letter read aloud by the speaker.<ref name=Senate53/>