Royal assent is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the legislature, either directly or through an official acting on the monarch's behalf. In some jurisdictions, royal assent is equivalent to promulgation, while in others that is a separate step. Under a modern constitutional monarchy, royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Even in nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and Monaco which still, in theory, permit their monarch to withhold assent to laws, the monarch almost never does so, except in a dire political emergency or on advice of government. While the power to veto by withholding royal assent was once exercised often by European monarchs, such an occurrence has been very rare since the eighteenth century.
Royal assent is typically associated with elaborate ceremony. In the United Kingdom the Sovereign may appear personally in the House of Lords or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster for this purpose. Royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In many Commonwealth realms, royal assent is delegated to a governor-general as the representative of the monarch.
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. The last time it was given by the sovereign in person in Parliament was during the reign of Queen Victoria at a prorogation on 12 August 1854. The act was repealed and replaced by the Royal Assent Act 1967. 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 powers, thereby invoking a veto.
refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
The last bill that was refused assent was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708. Some authorities have stated that the sovereign no longer has the power to withhold assent from a bill against the advice of ministers.
Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of their ministers. There is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by their ministers.
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. 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.
The monarch would today not veto a bill, except on ministerial advice. Professor of constitutional law at King's College London 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, whereas Manchester University professor emeritus Rodney Brazier argued that a monarch can still refuse royal assent to a bill that "sought to subvert the democratic basis of the constitution". 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. 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.
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. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. Membership of the so-called Model Parliament, established in 1295 under 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 House of Commons. The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law.
During 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 Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...". 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 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 that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions such as raising taxes without Parliament's approval.
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. 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. 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 resolved the issue by removing the disputed phrase from the Oath.
After the 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". In 1678, 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", suggesting that he, not Parliament, should control the militia. William III made comparatively liberal use of the royal veto, withholding assent from five public bills between 1692 and 1696. 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.