2

I'm trying to improve; so I thought to attempt a draft of a question before posting on the Main Site. Please advise if this helps?

Title: Did the monarchy try to reject apartheid legislation?

Body: Apartheid legislation (eg Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953) required and received Royal Assent. My assumption is that the monarch could have denied these Acts passed by the Parliament of South Africa, but please advise if this is unsound.

  • 1
    At first glance, the question in the title and the implied question in the body are different. The title asks "did they try...?" while the body asks "could they (legally) have tried...?". The first is a matter of history, while the latter is an issue of law. – Steve Bird Mar 22 '15 at 21:44
  • @SteveBird Thanks for the feedback. What if I simply omitted the last sentence? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Mar 22 '15 at 22:24
  • The answer to the question as stated here is: effectively the Crown could not constitutionally deny this act assent, and the Monarch would have had to be present in person, and still could not constitutionally deny this act assent. – Samuel Russell Mar 23 '15 at 0:19
  • @SamuelRussell Would you please clarify exactly where the Monarch would have had to be present in person ? – Greek - Area 51 Proposal Mar 23 '15 at 15:51
  • That the Monarch would have had to be physically present as a human being in South Africa in order to act as the Crown. – Samuel Russell Mar 31 '15 at 1:24
  • 1
    Why has this been downvoted? I find quite commentable to come here and ask for help on how to correctly ask questions!!! – o0'. May 12 '15 at 9:22
  • 1
    @Lohoris I don't know either, but I thank you for your support! – Greek - Area 51 Proposal May 16 '15 at 16:59
3

Urgh.

Why did The Crown give assent to Apartheid legislation during the 1950s?

Why did The Crown give assent to Apartheid legislation during the 1950s? For example, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953 was assented to by the crown. The relevant law in the 1950s was the South Africa Act 1909 as amended by the Status of the Union Act 1934. HV Evatt describes the situation as being that the Crown, being the King or Governor General, could only act on the advice of their ministers. (HV Evatt 1936, The King and His Dominion Governors, 298-300)

Answer [IANAL] is:

The Crown could not refuse assent without launching a coup d'etat against parliament in circumstances that would have produced outrage against the Crown sufficient to result in an election that would surely return a ministry bound to dismiss the existing Governor General, and, potentially, force a republic. Westminster inspired Crowns have generally sought to avoid such monstrous controversy, and the exceptions (to my knowledge Lang in NSW, Whitlam in the Commonwealth of Australia) have been intensely divisive.

The King or Queen or the Governor General could not legally refuse assent without having dismissed the executive council (effectively dismissing a government) and thus appointing a new executive council to advise them to refuse assent.

The Governor General could not have legally advised the Monarch, and the Monarch could not have legally advised the Governor General on this course. If the Monarch chose to intervene, they would have had to done so in person.

Such an action would have been an extreme and highly controversial use of reserve powers, amounting to a coup d'etat by the Crown over a policy issue (a bill supported by parliament). Compare to the outrage in Australia when the Governor General had at least the excuse of a blocked supply bill as a fig leaf for what I believe amounted to a coup.

Sources: HV Evatt 1936, The King and His Dominion Governors, 298-300ff

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .