The Royal “Veto”

by D.J. Webb

Do you recall I wrote a short article over Prince Charles vetoing laws in advance? It turns out that any laws that affect Crown rights or property are referred for comment to the Queen or Prince Charles, including, eg asking him his views on the foxhunting law – as he is the owner of a large landed estate. See

The basis for getting a Royal view in advance is the Erskine May book of parliamentary procedure. But as you can see at , this manual was first compiled in 1844 by the clerk of the House of Commons. It’s precepts have no basis in Common Law or statute – it is just one man’s view of how things should be done constitutionally, and probably reflects the view in 1844 that the Crown had a Coronation Oath to keep up and needed to be able to give input. Just because this is how things have been done doesn’t mean in my view they should be done this way. The Queen should have the opportunity to case a royal veto at the end of the process – given the she has spurned her oath in countless ways it seems wrong to accord her any more influence than that.

21 responses to “The Royal “Veto”

  1. Asking what someone thinks of proposed legislation is good practise. It should be extended to ask all of us. As for the particular legislation on fox hunting, it should have been left to individual land owners to decide.Which they already had the right to do-so legislation wasn’t necessary from a liberty angle. But governments don’t legislate with liberty in mind. Prince Charles could have said no and it would still have passed.So the fact of him being asked and us not being asked just makes him and us equal really-that is- equally irrelevant

  2. Unfortnately patricia people will not sanction cruelty to animals these day’s on either private or public property, being brought up in the country, I have
    witnessed the diabolical cruelty inflicted on animals in the name of so called
    blood sports, we will not be returning back to these dark day’s, the people
    simply will not tolerate these medievil practices any longer.

  3. Secondly indiviidual land owners, seem to think they can declear their
    own little peice of land as an independent state, the defiance of statue
    law must not be tolerated to the advantage of a few.

  4. Of course patricia, you talk of land, you should concern yourself with history,
    and establish where many of these people obtained their land from, what
    about the confiscation of Saxon land by military might, or the wealthy judge
    land owners who become rich on the proceeds of injustice and corruption for instance, rights of landowners, don’t make me laugh please.

  5. These new breed of landowners, they make me sick, they think their lord of
    the manor, with their faudulent costs of arms, those who take £70,000 in
    legal fees to pervert the course of justice are not land owners they are land
    theives, they should be “Burned At The Sake” for their heinous crimes, that
    would only be a small portion of the justice they really deserve.

  6. Thank you Ken, I’ve done that history. It ends with- “well get off your horse and I’ll fight you for it” joke. Who did the Saxons steal the land from? Doesn’t really matter now. We have nearly two thousand years of land owning rights behind us. Your statement on fox hunting is entirely subjective-just like mine. Do you eat meat? what about animals being herded about into abattoirs to be killed. Do they not sense danger and panic,but get killed anyway. Foxes kill livestock,they’re in competition with the farmer so they need to be dealt with. If some people want to dress up and make a carnival of it so what.

  7. Yes, well at least I try to do something about ill treatment of animals, I soon got in touch with
    the australian animal protection department when I found out animals were
    being exported to asia and suffering horrific abuse in slaughter houses when a journalist smuggled out a video, at least they emailed claiming they were going to do something about the dire situation.
    I don’t just talk patricia, Don’t tell me what foxes do My lady, I come
    from a long line of farming, spent a lot of time in the field, I’m one person you won’t hoodwink on such issues
    there is such a thing as security of livestock, Fox hunting is against the law,
    and that is the way it is going to stay, Fred the fox will be passing my gate
    at 3am regular as clock work, he does me no harm, but the bastards who
    boke his leg in a man trap did, is that your sort of thing, Patricia, frankly
    you defeat the point of the object of getting off a horse to fight, you stay
    on and run your enemy through with a lance, my dear lady!

  8. PS, you can call me ken, but i find that horrific it reminds me of that ken
    Clarke man, Yuk!

  9. Of course, partricia, you might consider there are humane way’s of killing animals, we have moved on from the time of “Medievil England” and tearing things to pieces with dog’s, these people who bager bait and hunt for the sake of wicknesses, are bearly human in discription, I’m glad they have been outlawed and put quite rightly into the catagory of the criminal fraternity, this is where they should be of course. I like the argument foxes are in direct competition with farmers, yes, I bet, you seem to be saying the fox is as intelligent as the lord of the manor, I bow out My lady, no arguments here on that point, You say dress up and have a carnival, not the sort of carnival i would wish to attend for sure!

  10. I believe the last use of the Royal Veto was by Queen Anne. Although monarchs as late as Queen Victoria sometimes tried to use informal pressure on some aspects of policy.

    To treat Queen Elizabeth as a politician or her “Oath” as a statement of politcs (rather than as a RITUAL – wiht no more political content than the playing of “Zadok the Priest”) is just an error.

    It is similar to the various green ink users who write letters to the government deparments that this or that policy violates the Great Charta of 1215 or the Bill or Rights of the 17th century.

    As of such things has not been dead letters for centuries.

    Actually I would like a more active monarchy – and a polity where tradtionial documents had some weight.

    However, that is not the United Kingdom.

  11. By the way there is someone who is associated with this site who is an atheist (so an oath to God would be meaningless to this person), a utilitarian (so appeals to traditional rights woudl be meaningless to this person), and a follower of 19th century legal thinkers such as Maitland (and so believes Parliamet can do anything it likes – whether or not it violates the Bill of Rights or the Great Charter).

    Any guesses as to who this person might be?

    I repeat that I hate the tradtional limits on government power being dead letters – but they have been dead letters for a very long time.

    It is hardly the fault of the present Queen.

  12. Boo-hoo! Poor Fred the fox!

    These evil hunters are “bearly human” ?

    How dare they treat their property as if it were their property. Their property really belongs to the state!

  13. Well Carl. it’s not such the property issue, it’s the way these people intereact
    with their environment, I have sympathy with a “Poacher” he kills for food
    out of poverty, I have no sympathy, for those who kill for the sake of killing
    for fun, anyone who has witnessed some of these so called field sports,
    particularly “Bager Bating” or “Hear” coursing, would realise these people
    in some cases are like deprived “Cave Men” when it comes to killing animals,
    they are barbarians who enjoy the act of taking life, it is we, who have encroached into the world of natural history, we have a responsibility to
    the maintenance, stability, and management of our wild life. This management must not lay in the hands of cave men or barbarians, but
    entrusted to those with intelligent understanding of the issue, Fred was
    here long before you Carl.

  14. Carl, Take in some wisdom, from the American Indians, or the Eskiom, they
    never kill more than they need, they respect their environment.

  15. Secondly, let me tell you this their property belongs to the people they have
    stolen it from through fraud and legalised theft, as implimented by certain
    governments who I will not name, but the numer 7 connects.

  16. Karl you are mistaken – Indians (and other hunter-gatherer peoples) often killed without need. Indeed whole species were wiped out bythem (such as the North American horse – horses were reintroduced by the Spanish).

    The “noble savage” idea is just one of myths of Rosseau (and others).

    Without PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS the environment is doomed.

    As for the Royal Estates – they were indeed taken away from the Royal family in the 18th century.

    The Civil List is about one third of the amount of revenue the government gets from the Royal Estates. The Civil List should be abolished – and the Royal Estates returned to the direct control of the Royal Family (the Queen is still the formal owner).

    As for saying that land was stolen X centuries ago – that carries no moral weight (because both victims and aggressors are long dead).

    “Your anncestors stole this – so we can justly take it from you” is just one of the many fallacies of the French Revolution.

  17. American history paticularly in flims, does indicate it was the american who
    wiped out buffalo on some occasions to deprive the indians of food, in any event, such an argument would not be a defence to sanction such behaviour at the current time. There is no justification for fraud or crime on
    grounds such as that being committed within the justice system, or legalised
    practices of theft through via corrupted applications of criminal law. These
    people should be in prison. Along with corrupted police and other officials,
    within th ranks of establishment.

  18. Karl I firmly support the private ownership of the American Bison – even if some of the biggest owners are people such as Ted Turner (a man I do not like).

  19. Poor ted. Lucky Bison!

  20. Pingback: Director’s Bulletin, 26th May 2013 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  21. Pingback: An Update from the Libertarian Alliance « Attack the System