Jason Loch 🏳️‍🌈

The perils of translation.

One wonders how many of these submissions the Prime Minister will be signing in the days to come.

@claydon_calder I don't know if there are formal instruments of appointment for honorary appointments.

@JasonLoch Supposing one is made an honorary canon of Westminster, Windsor, etc., does the text show the dignity, but not the place of, a Canon?

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

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

@JasonLoch What's that Copped Hall one? I've never seen that before... Is it Scottish?

@mitch_mishyy Yes; most of those instruments are essentially variations on the Royal Warrant. Colonial governors' commissions used that eschatocol prior to the 19th century. It could appear in various types of instructions too, though you're right that this usage was eventually abandoned.

@JasonLoch Or just any instrument under the Sign Manual rather than the Great Seal (eg Commissions for the Civil Service, the Diplomatic Service and Armed Forces; and colonial Governors from sometime in about the mid-19th century I believe). Though notably not colonial Instructions iirc.

@MrSkinnerTweet @TopDeckCat If that was her formal title at Peterhouse, I don't think the Crown Office can be faulted for including it. Giving them free rein to edit titles seems like it could result in even more 'Peterhouse Colleges'!

@TopDeckCat @JasonLoch Also Welfare Officer 🤮 good grief it’s out of place on letters patent.

@TopDeckCat I guess they haven't read Peterhouse's FAQs.

@JasonLoch Peterhouse *College*?!

@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

@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

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.

@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 Thank you. does that mean LsP attestation differs by seal applied? [from v. limited sampling]“Scottish seal” ones seem to refer to the date of the ‘wet signature’ rather than (later) sealing…1/

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

@JasonLoch DYK why it’s got “Westminster” and “29 April” which can’t both be correct. Is it mere unwillingness to alter the location in the template?

@danielneljack For Westminster LP/Warrants, the distinction has to do with the act that makes them official. I'm not aware of a specific reason for devolved LP taking a different approach, though it's worth noting that Scottish LP have long featured a royal residence in their datum clauses.

@JasonLoch How interesting. Do you know the reason for this distinction?

@JEVSergeant @willpaddyg I don't know why they don't reprint it, though it's worth noting that the list of bills is prepared by the Public Bill Office while the submission is prepared by the Crown Office. Whipping out the red pen might be more efficient than asking the PBO to send over a revised list.

@willpaddyg @JasonLoch How hard would it be to reprint the relevant page? Or is it somehow significant that the original order is also shown?

When Royal Assent is needed, the Lord Chancellor makes a submission to the Sovereign like this one. Note that the list of bills has been altered with red pen to change the ordering. I knew about these kinds of changes from Erskine May, but they're more common than I realized. 1/2

@willpaddyg Because it affects the chapter numbers.

@JasonLoch What is the point of reordering them?

Of the 8 Royal Assent-related submissions I received from the MoJ, 5 of them have been emended. Reorderings are the most common type of alteration, but there are also instances of bills being struck out because they didn't pass in time. 2/2

@RoyalHistGeeks Yeah, almost everything they've done in the past can now be done by the King remotely. But I could see Counsellors of State continuing to hold PC meetings or receiving ambassadors' credentials since it could be hard for the King to do those things while traveling.

@JasonLoch You have to wonder how much need there will be for Counsellors of state in the future given technology

@RoyalHistGeeks @gricory On a side note, the Crown Office already uses an electronic version of their own seal in certain situations.

@gricory @JasonLoch No reason that the official wording can’t reflect the wording on electronic signatures. A digital great seal probably also makes sense