JCA3

@JasonLoch @mitch_mishyy in subs. 1st sitting as a Parliament, first act: that since Wm+Mary had [1] accepted the crown tendered by the Estates, and [2] sworn the oath required prior to exercise of royal authority; their royal authority was recognised by parliament rps.ac.uk [1689/6/11]

@mitch_mishyy Yes; it's an instruction to the Lord High Commissioner to the Parliament of Scotland.

Appointing a Canon of Westminster or Windsor involves a Writ of Mandamus in addition to the Letters Patent. This use of the Writ may be unique to the Royal Peculiars. The Writ's eschatocol is unusual for an instrument which passes under the Great Seal. 1/2

@JasonLoch @mitch_mishyy Crawford replaced him as president during the 5 June sitting of the Estates, and Hamilton gave the assent to an act turning the meeting of Estates into a Parliament. Crawford then adjourned the sitting 2/

@JasonLoch @mitch_mishyy when the instruction was signed, Hamilton himself was still President of the Estates (elected 14 March). Hamilton’s commission was signed by William on 31 May and was registered and sealed 5 June. 1/

@JasonLoch That trad practice seems sensible. Perhaps a bit like the RA on asps being the date of registration in register of the great seal

@A2JCA4 Traditionally, the date at Westminster was the date the instrument was received by the Chancery, not the date of the signature. Today, that's often going to coincide with sealing in practice. 2/2

Today's Commission for Prorogation was apparently signed by the King even though he's currently in the US. If it had been signed by Counsellors of State, the eschatocol would have been completely different. It seems he hasn't delegated his powers for this trip.

@JasonLoch Had quick look re recent asp and relative LsP. 2026 asp 12 [Digital Assets] passed 5/3/26, RA 16/4/26, [per “legislation” website.] Edin Gazette notice published 21/4/26 states LsP signed at Balmoral 9/4/26.

@A2JCA4 Given modern technology, the Commission could have been signed and sealed on the same day. But I'm not aware of any firm evidence that the date on devolved LP is the date of the signature. I think it's more likely to follow Westminster practice. 1/2

@JasonLoch Yes, agreed. But difference isn’t just stating a location other than Westminster. The date stated is the date of signature, rather than of sealing. -[ I’d understood your earlier tweet to mean that 29 April was the date the LsP for RA/prorog. was sealed.]

@A2JCA4 Yes; Letters Patent which pass under the seals of devolved administrations generally use a specific royal residence in their teste clauses as in this example from Northern Ireland.

@JasonLoch Gazettes 4338 & 4366: royal proclamations of 5 June, & 8 Sept, 1707 notifying, and summoning, “the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, and the Commissioners for Shires and Burghs….”

@A2JCA4 Westminster always appears in the teste clause of UK Letters Patent since it refers to the place where the document was sealed.

@JasonLoch Also on the Commissioners for S+B, the bifurcation [from knights, citizens and burgesses] seems to have existed from before the first GB parl met: 2/

@JasonLoch Also, the RC text refers to “knights, citizens and burgesses” (dropped from dissolution proclamations after 1959), but not to commissioners for shires and burghs DYK if/when and how MPs representing Scotland became “knights citizens and burgesses” -?

@davidtorrance @richard_coxon Did you ever find any precedents? rps.ac.uk A1425/5/1 - parliamentary forfeiture/attainder of Albany Stewarts [ie regime change (via returning James I) after the death of the Constable] - seems to fit what Mr Jones said (though unlikely what he meant).

@richard_coxon I've been digging into precedents but can't find any from 1425...

Comments in the Commons earlier today (from Darren Jones) appear to suggest there will be no bespoke bill to remove Lord Mandelson’s peerage, only legislation making general provision for peerage removal (in certain circumstances)

@JasonLoch Would the “all other Publick Seals” in sIX have been of empire-wide application in some period of time?

@A2JCA4 Yes, for most seals they are a matter of custom and aren't legally necessary. The only seals that might actually require an Order are those of the Duchy of Lancaster and the public seals "lately in use elsewhere than in the United Kingdom."

At the Accession Council, the King made an Order authorizing the continued use of the existing Great Seal of Scotland. This seems to have been a first since there was no such Order in 1952 (though there *was* one for Northern Ireland's Great Seal). 1/6

@davidtorrance (Eg countermand arrives just after wafer impressed but while document still in the building - seems inconceivable LsP enforceable against grantor). 2/2

A life peerage is only created once Letters Patent are sealed with the Great Seal at the Crown Office in the House of Lords. Notice of this is published in the London Gazette, but that's simply publicising something that has already happened

A repost for a @commonslibrary briefing from 2024 on the process by which life peers are created (link in next post)

@davidtorrance Sealing likely too early a point in time. Only once LsP actually or constructively delivered would “real rights” have been created. 1/2

@davidtorrance @CanonRobinWard @Jubbster Do you mean the later doesn’t narrate the earlier; or something more technical? - thank you

@CanonRobinWard @Jubbster We know from the Gazette that it was a Royal Warrant, though not one pursuant to the 2004 Warrant governing the Roll itself

This confirms that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor remains the Duke of York but that that title will not be used in official documents following its removal from the Roll of the Peerage: questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questi…

@davidtorrance @mitch_mishyy @Dr_W_E_Bulmer @mopeng But if you were to analyse the incidents of a peerage title, the things the 2004 warrant links to appearing on the roll are not insignificant. Perhaps the assertions in that warrant deserve greater scrutiny.

@mitch_mishyy @Dr_W_E_Bulmer @mopeng The dukedom hasn’t been deprived or removed

Two notices have just appeared in the London Gazette, the 1st for Letters Patent removing “HRH” & “Prince” from Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (still with no hyphen) & the 2nd for a Royal Warrant instructing the Lord Chancellor to remove the Duke of York from the Roll of the Peerage

@davidtorrance @jaquie_f [Finding multiplicity of threads on this confusing, so apologies if already stated]: - M looks like middle name, W as surname, given the “my children …” text in 1960 LsP.

@jaquie_f The 1960 declaration by QEII regarding this surname had a hyphen.

@CanonRobinWard @davidtorrance 1948 LP gazette notice [L:38452] refers to “Prince” Philip, who apparently (i) renounced foreign titles/status/dignity in 1947, (ii) wasn’t created a prince in UK until 1957, (iii)was descendant of Victoria born after the 1917 LP……??

@davidtorrance Sorry it’s 22 October 1948.

My @commonslibrary short briefing on the removal of titles and honours has been updated to take account of the announcement from Buckingham Palace at the end of last month: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…