The Queen and Prince Charles can veto laws if the laws damage their own private interests.

[Solopower]

'A little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it does not harm their private interests ... '

I don't think the Queen and Prince C should have these powers. And who else can veto laws??

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

I wish it was me and you solo!!

I think this'll prove to be a damp squib. Royal Assent has always been needed for laws, the and the stuff about how a new measure would apply to the Crown is necessary because Crown contracts are different in law to those made with other bodies. They are more likely to be ensuring that measures will be binding, rather than facilitating loopholes. Both Palaces have said they do not oppose this, and it's totally up to the Cabinet Office to decide on release.

I feel a touch of the Sir Humphreys coming on - remember the episode when he opposed the release of Cabinet papers, because it would make Ministers look like asses?

I hope the papers are released - needs to be done later this month, it seems. And I wonder how far back they'll go?

Do you mean 'Royal Assent'? That is hardly a little known power

Is the guardian becoming a parody of itself or the Daily fail. Are the scaremongering faux outrage articles about anything and everything etc. just them trying to create hysteria in a vain attempt to stem their 17% drop in readership??

I expect the Guardian has its agenda as do all newspapers.

So it's OK, is it, that the Queen and Charles can alter laws? Who else has the power to do this?

The Queen is the head of state. Charles will be the next one, when she pops her clogs or decides to stand down. Surely the issue is why we have heads of state who get the job just because of who they are born to, rather than the details of exactly what powers they automatically get?

Well there is that, AMumInScotland.

But imagine if MPs had the power to alter laws that affected their own private interests?

That would be odd. 'Royal assent' means just that.

How is this news to anyone?

From reading the article I gather that if the govt decided, for example, to pass a law that said that all the planning applications for housing developments, say, had to be agreed to, and a local council on one of Charles' vast estates decided to build a block of flats against Charles' wishes, he could veto it. Or am I wrong?

He could. But could you imagine the press scrutiny and negative pr if he did this all the time for no good reason?

You know we have a monarchy right?

I think this was mostly battled out during Queen Victoria's reign - the delicate balance between having a monarch as head of state and trusting them not to stick their oar in politically.

It's a balance that seems to work at the moment so [shrug].

MPs pass laws all the time to suit their own interests - politically, electorally. It's how things work. We just have to trust that the scrutiny will stop the really crap laws getting through - but it doesn't always work.

Guardian writing utter shite as usual.

Interesting piece here from The Independent on why the Cabinet Office vetoes publication of anything before the normal 30 year rule period.

Royal Assent isn't a little known issue, nor is the constitutional arrangement whereby the Monarch is consulted and is permitted to advise. Witholding consent ie veto (as alluded to in the thread title) has never been used.

This is a non-problem. The Queen no more vetos laws then writes the speech with which she opens Parliament each year. Just because something could theoretically happen doesn't mean it will in practice. Must be a slow day at the Guardian...

The Queen is the Head of State. In theory she has a great number of "powers". She could, for example, refuse to invite the premier elect to form a government. Is this very likely? No.

That we have a Head of State separate from the government is an important part of the way our country is run. It basically provides a safety net to prevent nasty stuff like dictatorships arising. There's simply no point in this at all if she has absolutely no power.

But it's all theoretical. In practice, she meets people, signs stuff & shakes hands. That's about it.

And doesn't Prince Charles have the right to object to anything that is planned for his own land - just like any of us do? So, I'm not sure why that would be significant?

You didn't notice the castles and crowns?

It is the summer .. historically a slow news time, so the Grauniad journalists decided to do some research.

As far as I'm aware, the Queen has never failed to give Royal Assent to a piece of legislation.