Does the King still sign laws or is there a Regent?

[AsDaRa]

In all constitutional monarchies I know about the King/Queen has no power, but still has formal constitutional duties. Like signing laws which parliament agreed about upon. Only then the law can become active. Kings/Queens sign these laws always. (Else there would be a constitutional crisis.)

In Thailand the King has no power. But does anyone know if a Thai law can only become law if signed by the monarch? I assume that to be the case, it is pretty standard. If so, is this very ailing King still signing laws every day? I can't believe it to be honest. But this should mean there must be a Regent now in Thailand? But I never hear anything about that.

[cdnmatt]

Yes, the King technically has royal assent, meaning all laws within Thailand are signed off by him / the monarchy before becoming law of the land. At the same time, for another example, no laws are passed in Canada without the Queen of England signing off of them still.

Nonetheless, dangerous topic to be discussing.

[AsDaRa]

Why dangerous? We just ask how it works in Thailand. This is not an anti-monarchy topic. I love constitutional monarchies and the traditions and pomp associated with it.

If a law legally must be signed by the King it is a normal question to ask if he is still doing that? And if not, who signs then? Shouldn't there be a Regent?

[cdnmatt]

Nothing to do with what you posted specifically. Just it's a slippery slope due to what others may reply with who don't take lese majeste laws into account as seriously as others.

[scottish-guy]

...the Queen of England...

Are you trying to start a fight Matt - or get a job at the Daily Mail?

Elizabeth of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (ignoring WW1 name changing jiggery pokery) holds NO such title - she should no more be addressed as "Queen of England" than as "Queen of Canada"

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

I could even argue about the Elizabeth the Second part, but I wouldnt dream of derailing a thread

[Nirish guy]

Equally then I wonder does the Queen (UK) physically still sign each and every law passed individually and does she just have to sign for just the UK or all laws passed through her entire Realm including Canada etc etc or is that passed down to her governors etc on a daily basis?

I see from a quick Google search that in 2010 alone there were 3500 laws passed, so that's about 10 a day in the UK alone.

So I a wonder does Her Maj ACTUALLY sit and read them all or by the time they get to her have her lackies already read and completed all the paperwork for her and present then for a rubber stamp job ( quite literally ? !) or is she allowed to pile them up and then sign some form of proforma type cover note that basically says "right bugger off, I'm busy Queening so you can consider those last 50 laws you gave me as signed now" so hurry up and bring me another Gin !

In also guessing that whatever neat trick one or other Kings or Queens have worked out over the years to cut down on their work load they've probably shared with each other on the QT too.

[cdnmatt]

No idea about the UK, but in Canada at least there's a Lieutenant Govenor who's appointed by the Royal Family, and they're the one who signs all Canadian laws. And no, the Lieutenant Govenor doesn't even read the laws, and doesn't really have a choice as to whether or not they sign them. It's just there for tradition sake, and doesn't have any legislative meaning.

[Smiles]

" ... no laws are passed in Canada without the Queen of England signing off of them still ... "

I'm assuming you mean that the Governor General signs all parliamentary bills. There is a significance difference, in the sense that for a long time now England has absolutely nothing to do with Canadian governance.
Governors General are chosen within Canada by the Prime Minister and the Privy Council. He/she then runs it by the Queen, but it's purely ornamental .... the Old Girl would never disagree with the PM's choice.

[AsDaRa]

By the way the idea of a Regent for Thailand is a good idea to smooth the transition to the new monarch. The King is still around, so what is the risk creating the crown prince Regent? People will accept it because the beloved King is still King, he is still there.

Edited My consultancy fee is 0 EUR. This is free advice. Because I want Thailand to remain stable.

[arsenal]

Matt: It certainly does have legaslative meaning. Without his/her signature it simply cannot become law without another act of thr Canadian Parliament and even then it would probably require royal assent. Just the same as in the UK. It is one of the checks and balances that meke constitutional monarchies/parliaments so much more stable than Presidencies.