My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for raising an issue which I think he raised at Second Reading. The effect of his amendment would be to ensure that in no instance could the sovereign’s consent or otherwise to a royal marriage be challenged in the courts. It has to be said that over the 240 years when consent has been required, it has not been tested in the courts. But in the Government’s view the decision, given that it is a decision taken by the sovereign, could not be challenged in the sovereign’s courts. We do not believe it to be necessary to provide for this in the Bill. Indeed, whether the number is six or 12, it is an unlikely event that someone so close to the Throne would contemplate such an action. My point is that the decision would be one made by the sovereign and would not be challengeable in the courts of the sovereign.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 28 February 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Succession to the Crown Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
743 c1253 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-11-20 10:49:16 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-28/13022861000492
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-28/13022861000492
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-02-28/13022861000492