Legal Definitions - rege inconsulto

Rege inconsulto is a historical legal term originating from Latin, meaning "the king not having been consulted." It referred to a specific type of formal order, known as a writ, issued by a monarch (such as a king or queen) to judges.

This writ commanded the judges to immediately halt proceedings in a particular legal case until the sovereign had been consulted and provided further instructions. The primary purpose of a rege inconsulto writ was to prevent any judicial decision or action that might potentially harm the Crown's interests, authority, or prerogatives without the monarch's direct input and approval.

Here are some examples illustrating how this term would have applied historically:

• A Challenge to Royal Land Ownership:

  Imagine a powerful duke in medieval England bringing a lawsuit against the Crown, claiming ancient feudal rights to a vast and valuable forest that the King considered his own property. The case begins to proceed in a local court, and the judges are hearing arguments.

  Upon learning of this legal challenge, the King, concerned that a ruling against the Crown could diminish his wealth and authority, issues a rege inconsulto writ to the judges. This writ immediately stops the court proceedings. The King would then consult with his most trusted legal advisors to understand the implications of the case and decide how to best protect the Crown's interests, perhaps by moving the case to a higher royal court or by intervening directly in the legal arguments.

• A Politically Sensitive Treason Trial:

  Consider a prominent courtier accused of treason against the Queen. The trial is highly publicized and involves complex political factions within the kingdom. The Queen fears that the judges might be influenced by public sentiment or rival nobles, leading to an outcome that could destabilize her rule or undermine her authority.

  To maintain control over such a critical matter, the Queen issues a rege inconsulto. This writ compels the judges to pause the trial. The Queen would then use this time to personally review the evidence, consult with her privy council, and ensure that any further proceedings or eventual verdict aligns with the Crown's political stability and her own position of power.

• Dispute Over a Royal Charter or Monopoly:

  Suppose a group of merchants challenges a royal charter granted by the King, which gives a favored company a monopoly over a lucrative trade route. The merchants argue in court that the charter is unfair and exceeds the King's legitimate powers, potentially setting a precedent that could limit future royal decrees.

  Viewing this as a direct challenge to his royal prerogative – his inherent right to issue such charters – the King issues a rege inconsulto to the judges. This action halts the legal proceedings. The King would then consult with his legal counsel to strategize how to defend his authority and ensure that the court does not undermine his power to govern or set a precedent that could restrict his ability to issue future royal decrees.