No, I really don't think it does. What the article says is that "the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced," it details "what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws," and that "Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills"

Being consulted on proposed legislation before it is introduced, or while it is in draft, is by no means the same as being able to veto it once it's passed through both Houses of Parliament.

Storm in a teacup, I tell you.

Yeabut. As the articles point out, consultation with party you know to have a constitutional right of veto, is not the same as a normal consultation is it? The article quotes a source as saying it's like a nuclear deterrent, just having it is usually sufficient, you don't have to push the button.

Anyway, let's see if the Gov further resists revealing the information they been told to provide.

A loophole is not a convention. The royals should not have any more rights than any other citizen. Very simple concept of equality.

Ah, but you see, the Queen is not "any other citizen." She is the monarch, and there is no "concept of equality" where a monarch is concerned. Like it or not, the UK is a monarchy. Sure there are those who think this is a poor idea. I can't see that any alternative is better: at least in the UK (unlike, for example, the US) the head of state and the head of government are different people, so there's not so much crossover between political and civil appointments (the UK's foreign ambassadors, for example, are not political appointees).

Some countries seem to have got the hang of presidential republics (India springs to mind as a good example of how to do it, despite the somewhat excitable nature of the federal Parliament). Others have a more formally defined role for a monarch within a written constitution (for example the Netherlands, although the monarch and the government are defined in a rather paradoxical pair of clauses in the constitution as being effectively one and the same...), but nobody in the UK worth listening to has ever come up with a suitable alternative.

Not sure how coherent this is. That was a rather nice bottle of red this evening...

We're talking about Charles. The exemption from the Freedom of Information Act that puts the Queen above the law also puts Charles and William above the law. I accept your point about the monarch but the same cannot apply to the heirs.

And are you sure his "veto" didn't prevent yet another god awful carbuncle being erected in London? I happen to agree with Charles' taste in architecture (if not his taste in wives).

Any evidence of his vetoing a very good piece of legislation? That would be interesting reading.

It is quite beside the point what he vetoes. The fact some individuals share his taste is a ridiculous argument in favour of undemocratic intervention in the legislative process.

Are you seriously arguing that no-one should be consulted in the legislative process?

I don't particularly like the chap, but his opinion is as valid as anyone else's opinion on matters that affect them personally.

Of course not. I am arguing that he should not have a veto.

OK, so, once again, what veto does he have, in light of the fact that Parliament votes on the legislation after he has been consulted?

This is what we're about to discover. The specifics of how it works, I mean. It's no defence to say that it's innocuous because it's informal. Most of the relationship between the royals and the Parliament is informal, or conventional. That does not make it powerless.

Oh, I hate carbuncles as much as you. I live in (or very near) Toronto. There is reference in the paltry material available that he chatted with certain folk in Dubai and the result was RR being fired. The carbuncle remark was however, I think, directed elsewhere.

But none of this has any connection to his veto over legislation.

I never said I was in favour of undemocratic intervention, so don't put words in my mouth, thank you. My point is simply that undemocratic or not, his interventions may have actually been for the good. I'm ashamed to say (but will say it anyway) that I'd probably only get really annoyed if I found out that his intervention resulted in the deaths of puppies or something. We're talking about a building here, not whether we went to war in Iraq.

And as far as "undemocratic intervention" goes, David Cameron wasn't elected, and he's poking his nose in all over the shop. The truth is, there are unelected big-wigs affecting policy all the time. That's what all those expensive and exclusive clubs in London are for. It happens in every country. I'd be more cross if I didn't agree with his politics, granted, but I'm not sure why Charles comes up for particular scorn in this regard. The fact is, the RF are used like puppets to charm dignitaries from other countries and get their business and investment. He's a citizen, why shouldn't he be able to use his influence for his own benefit sometimes and not just for those of others?

I'm still on the fence on this one, to be fair, so am really just playing the devil's avocado (or whatever), but I would seriously like to know if he's ever made any truly appalling decisions.

Your post clearly implied that there was a positive side to his veto, which is undemocratic intervention in the legislature. And furthermore you reiterate this position here:

And here:


While the principle is all that matters, we're talking about more then "buildings" although the details are only emerging. Finally, David Cameron most certainly was elected, by the voters of the Witney Consituency, and overwhelmingly as well. The fact remains, simple and glaring: a member of a private dynasty should not have a veto over parliamentary legislation. never mind public subsidies like his 60k one night in Jersey etc.

The carbuncle was a proposed modern style extension to the National Gallery. Presumably he would also classify the pyramid at the Louvre and and the ROM as carbuncles.

Isn't he interfering in two ways, one is sending of mad black spider memos to ministers voicing his opinions freely. The second is that the Duchy of Cornwall has a veto over any legislation that affects the Duchy.