Question: What component of the Super Slim did CNET call "the easiest yet"?

Answer: hard drive

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." <hl> The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. <hl> They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger <hl> hard drive <hl> shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."


Question: What hardware component did CNET have the biggest problem with, even comparing it to an old credit card reader?

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Answer: disc-loader

<hl> Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader , stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. <hl> In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and <hl> disc-loader <hl>, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and <hl> disc-loader <hl> , stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines.


Question: Was the lowest-priced Super Slim more or less expensive than any of the PS3 Slim models?

Answer: more expensive

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." <hl> The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still more expensive than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. <hl> They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."

Tech media website CNET gave new Super Slim 4 out of 5 stars ("Excellent"), saying "The Super Slim PlayStation 3 shrinks a powerful gaming machine into an even tinier package while maintaining the same features as its predecessors: a great gaming library and a strong array of streaming services [...]", whilst also criticising the "cheap" design and disc-loader, stating: "Sometimes [the cover] doesn't catch and you feel like you're using one of those old credit card imprinter machines. In short, it feels cheap. You don't realize how convenient autoloading disc trays are until they're gone. Whether it was to cut costs or save space, this move is ultimately a step back." The criticism also was due to price, stating the cheapest Super Slim model was still <hl> more expensive <hl> than the cheapest Slim model, and that the smaller size and bigger hard drive shouldn't be considered an upgrade when the hard drive on a Slim model is easily removed and replaced. They did praise that the hard drive of the Super Slim model is "the easiest yet. Simply sliding off the side panel reveals the drive bay, which can quickly be unscrewed." They also stated that whilst the Super Slim model is not in any way an upgrade, it could be an indicator as to what's to come. "It may not be revolutionary, but the Super Slim PS3 is the same impressive machine in a much smaller package. There doesn't seem to be any reason for existing PS3 owners to upgrade, but for the prospective PS3 buyer, the Super Slim is probably the way to go if you can deal with not having a slot-loading disc drive."


Question: What magazine described the Super Slim as "nostalgic"?

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Answer: T3

<hl> Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine <hl> T3 <hl> gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."


Question: What PlayStation 3 model did T3 feel the Super Slim's design was paying homage to?

Answer: the original PS3

<hl> Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3 , minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to <hl> the original PS3 <hl>, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to <hl> the original PS3 <hl> , minus the considerable excess weight.


Question: According to T3, what was the main differentiator between the "fat" PS3 and the Super Slim?

Answer: weight

<hl> Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight . <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess <hl> weight <hl>. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess <hl> weight <hl> .


Question: What hardware element did T3 feel might have issues with durability?

Answer: the top loading tray

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4." <hl>

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of <hl> the top loading tray <hl> that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4."


Question: T3 felt Sony was saying goodbye to past models in preparation for what next-generation console?

Answer: the PS4

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. <hl> Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for the PS4 ." <hl>

Technology magazine T3 gave the Super Slim model a positive review, stating the console is almost "nostalgic" in the design similarities to the original "fat" model, "While we don’t know whether it will play PS3 games or Blu-ray discs any differently yet, the look and feel of the new PS3 Slim is an obvious homage to the original PS3, minus the considerable excess weight. Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for <hl> the PS4 <hl>."

Immediately we would be concerned about the durability of the top loading tray that feels like it could be yanked straight out off the console, but ultimately it all feels like Sony's nostalgic way of signing off the current generation console in anticipation for <hl> the PS4 <hl> ."


Question: When royal assent takes place in the UK, where does the sovereign make an appearance?

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Answer: House of Lords

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the sovereign may appear personally in the <hl> House of Lords <hl> or may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: Alternatively, when UK Lord Commissioners take the sovereign's place in the ceremony, where does the ceremony take place?

Answer: Palace of Westminster

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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 . <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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 <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl>. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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 <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl> .


Question: Canadian governor generals can give their assent in person or by which other method?

Answer: written declaration

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. <hl> In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill. <hl>

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a <hl> written declaration <hl> notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.


Question: With what is royal assent sometimes associated with?

Answer: elaborate ceremonies

<hl> Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies . <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with <hl> elaborate ceremonies <hl>. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with <hl> elaborate ceremonies <hl> .


Question: Where is a royal assent ceremony held within the United Kingdom?

Answer: Palace of Westminster

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. <hl> In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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 . <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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 <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl>. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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 <hl> Palace of Westminster <hl> .


Question: With what method is royal assent generally granted?

Answer: letters patent

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. <hl> However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent . <hl> In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by <hl> letters patent <hl>. In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by <hl> letters patent <hl> .


Question: How is royal assent granted within Australia?

Answer: the governor-general merely signs the bill

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. <hl> In other nations, such as Australia, the governor-general merely signs the bill . <hl> In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

Royal assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, for instance, 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. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, such as Australia, <hl> the governor-general merely signs the bill <hl>. In Canada, the governor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony held in the Senate or by a written declaration notifying parliament of his or her agreement to the bill.

In other nations, such as Australia, <hl> the governor-general merely signs the bill <hl> .


Question: Royal assent is a process of approving a nation's legislative acts by whom?

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Answer: constitutional monarch

<hl> Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's <hl> constitutional monarch <hl> (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: Which three modern monarchies allow their ruler to withhold royal assent?

Answer: United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl>), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl> ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government.


Question: Since which century have modern political processes forgone royal assent?

Answer: 18th

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century. <hl>

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the <hl> 18th <hl> century.


Question: What nations allow the withold of the royal assent?

Answer: United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl>), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the <hl> United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein <hl> ), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government.


Question: Under what circumstances does a monarch typically use the royal assent?

Answer: a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. <hl> In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government . <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in <hl> a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government <hl>. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.

In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in <hl> a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government <hl> .


Question: Is usage of the royal assent frequent or rare in today's societies?

Answer: exceedingly rare

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. <hl> While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is exceedingly rare in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century. <hl>

Royal assent is the method by which a country's constitutional monarch (possibly through a delegated official) formally approves an act of that nation's parliament, thus making it a law or letting it be promulgated as law. In the vast majority of contemporary monarchies, this act is considered to be little more than a formality; even in those nations which still permit their ruler to withhold the royal assent (such as the United Kingdom, Norway, and Liechtenstein), the monarch almost never does so, save in a dire political emergency or upon the advice of their government. While the power to withhold royal assent was once exercised often in European monarchies, it is <hl> exceedingly rare <hl> in the modern, democratic political atmosphere that has developed there since the 18th century.


Question: Modern-day sovereigns often acts on the advice of whom?

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Answer: ministers

<hl> Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers . <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl>. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl> .


Question: In the event that the monarch refuses to give royal assent, what can the monarch make use of?

Answer: reserve powers

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. <hl> Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers . <hl>

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's <hl> reserve powers <hl>.

Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's <hl> reserve powers <hl> .


Question: Whose advice does a sovereign follow?

Answer: his or her ministers

<hl> Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers . <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of <hl> his or her ministers <hl>. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of <hl> his or her ministers <hl> .


Question: Who often maintains parliamentary support and obtains the passage of bills?

Answer: ministers

<hl> Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers . <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl>. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her <hl> ministers <hl> .


Question: Is it probable, improbable, or impossible that a sovereign would withhold assent?

Answer: improbable

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. <hl> Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. <hl> An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly <hl> improbable <hl> that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in good faith, though it is difficult to make an interpretation on what this circumstance might constitute. Hence, in modern practice, royal assent is always granted; a refusal to do so would be appropriate only in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.


Question: What is another name for "Curia Regis"?

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Answer: Royal Council

<hl> Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council , in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. <hl> The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or <hl> Royal Council <hl>, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or <hl> Royal Council <hl> , in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament.


Question: Who was it that peculiarly called a full parliament without royal authorization in 1265?

Answer: Earl of Leicester

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. <hl> In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the <hl> Earl of Leicester <hl> irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.


Question: As a result, the bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed which body of parliament?

Answer: House of Lords

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords , while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. <hl> 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the <hl> House of Lords <hl>, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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 body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the <hl> House of Lords <hl> , while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons.


Question: Which body did the shire and borough representatives form?

Answer: House of Commons

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons . <hl> 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the <hl> House of Commons <hl>. 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 Queen's (King'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 body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the <hl> House of Commons <hl> .


Question: From what did parliament evolve?

Answer: Curia Regis, or Royal Council

<hl> Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council , in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. <hl> The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the <hl> Curia Regis, or Royal Council <hl>, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the <hl> Curia Regis, or Royal Council <hl> , in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament.


Question: What positions were contained within the House of Lords?

Answer: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons. <hl> 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: <hl> bishops, abbots, earls, and barons <hl> formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.


Question: Which branch of parliament contains shire and borough representatives?

Answer: House of Commons

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. <hl> The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the House of Commons . <hl> 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the <hl> House of Commons <hl>. 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 Queen's (King'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 body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed the <hl> House of Commons <hl> .


Question: A bill could not become a law without whose assent?

Answer: the sovereign

<hl> Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. <hl> The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by <hl> the sovereign <hl> acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.


Question: Who is considered the enactor of laws?

Answer: the sovereign

<hl> Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. <hl> The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.

Originally, legislative power was exercised by <hl> the sovereign <hl> acting on the advice of the Curia Regis, or Royal Council, in which important magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into parliament. The so-called Model Parliament included bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough among its members. In 1265, the Earl of Leicester irregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation. The body eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed the House of Lords, while the shire and borough representatives formed 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 Queen's (King'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.


Question: Which monarch was responsible for dissolving parliament in 1629?

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

Answer: Charles I

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. <hl> Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills seeking to restrict his arbitrary exercise of power. <hl> During the eleven years of personal rule that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions, such as raising taxes without parliament's approval. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. <hl> Charles I <hl> dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.


Question: What is one action this monarch took that is typically left to the discretion of parliament?

Answer: raising taxes

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills seeking to restrict his arbitrary exercise of power. <hl> During the eleven years of personal rule that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions, such as raising taxes without parliament's approval. <hl> After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills seeking to restrict his arbitrary exercise of power. During the eleven years of personal rule that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions, such as <hl> raising taxes <hl> without parliament's approval. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.


Question: After which event was it decided that parliament should meet on a regular basis?

Answer: English Civil War

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. <hl> After the English 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. <hl> In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the <hl> English Civil War <hl>, it was accepted that parliament should be summoned to meet regularly, but it was still commonplace for monarchs to refuse royal assent to bills. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

After the <hl> English Civil War <hl> , it was accepted that parliament should be summoned to meet regularly, but it was still commonplace for monarchs to refuse royal assent to bills.


Question: Like Charles II had previously done, the last Stuart monarch withheld assent. Who was this monarch?

Answer: Anne

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. <hl> The last Stuart monarch, Anne , similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. <hl> No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, <hl> Anne <hl>, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The last Stuart monarch, <hl> Anne <hl> , similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland.


Question: Which ruler removed parliament in 1629?

Answer: Charles I

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. <hl> Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills seeking to restrict his arbitrary exercise of power. <hl> During the eleven years of personal rule that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions, such as raising taxes without parliament's approval. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. <hl> Charles I <hl> dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.


Question: Under whose advice did Anne withold the royal assent?

Answer: her ministers

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. <hl> The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers , her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. <hl> No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills 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. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of <hl> her ministers <hl>, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of <hl> her ministers <hl> , her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland.


Question: What did motions attempt to accomplish that prompted Charles I to dissolve parliament in 1629?

Answer: restrict his arbitrary exercise of power

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. <hl> Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills seeking to restrict his arbitrary exercise of power . <hl> During the eleven years of personal rule that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions, such as raising taxes without parliament's approval. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

The power of parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs. Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills seeking to <hl> restrict his arbitrary exercise of power <hl>. During the eleven years of personal rule that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions, such as raising taxes without parliament's approval. After the English 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. In 1678, Charles II withheld his 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. The last Stuart monarch, Anne, similarly withheld on 11 March 1708, on the advice of her ministers, her assent from a bill for the settling of Militia in Scotland. No monarch has since withheld royal assent on a bill passed by the British parliament.

Charles I dissolved parliament in 1629, after it passed motions critical of and bills seeking to <hl> restrict his arbitrary exercise of power <hl> .