When the king was away, did their queens sign Acts of Parliament on their behalf?

Question

I'm actually referring to a circumstance in the event that they are joint sovereigns. Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, Mary I of England and Philip II of Spain, and William III and Mary II of England, Scotland, and Ireland are my examples. All three pairs apparently had a system set for them that required both of their signatures on royal documents and Acts of Parliament...but what happened when one was overseas or in another country/realm of the many they ruled over (Ferdinand, Phillip, and William seemed like they were traveling often while their wives stayed behind)?

Was it good enough for only one spouse to sign?

Answer 1

William and Mary II were England's first (and only) dual monarchs. So for them, either could sign.

Philip was not the Sovereign, Mary I was. So only Mary could sign. This was another unique situation; usually the husband would get all the wife's property, which included titles. People were not happy that Mary was marrying the king of Spain, and that was part of the deal.

Up to Henry VII, sovereigns always had to grant consent in person. From the time of Henry VIII, monarchs have been able to grant assent by sending a group of privy councillors to do it on their behalf. This became the norm. Apparently the last occassion assent was granted in person was 1854.

So in other words, the Queen consort never had any role in granting assent. Either the king had to do it himself, or he could send members of the privy council.

Answer 2

The question is flawed. It assumes that only a Queen regnant sharing power with her husband or other partner could ever sign laws and other government documents in the absence of the male ruler. That is not the case. It was perfectly possible for a queen consort to sign sign laws and other government documents in the absence of her husband.

On 13 May 1888, Princess Isabel of Brazil signed the lei aurea or Golden Law abolishing slavery in Brazil. She was acting as regent while her father the emperor was in Europe for medical treatment.

Empress Isabella was the regent of Spain in 1529-1532 and in 1535-1539 while her husband, Emperor Charles V was away. No doubt she signed a number of bills into law.

At that time the rightful ruler of Castile, etc. was her mother-in-law Queen regnant Juan la Loca ("Jane the Insane") but she had been called insane by her father King Ferdinand II of Aragon and her son and co-king Emperor Charles V and locked away with no outside contact.

After Emperor Charles V came of age he put female relations in charge of the Netherlands; his Aunt Margaret widowed Duchess of savoy until 1531 and his sister the widowed Queen Mary of Hungary and Bohemia until 1555.

Emperor Henry V left his wife, Empress Matilda or Maude (later claimant of the English throne) as the regent of Italy from 1118-1119.

And there are many other examples of queens consort without any political power while their husbands are in the country ruling while their husbands are away.

Thus it would seem logical that Queens regnant who were co rulers with their husbands could sign laws and other important documents while their husbands were out of the country.

But of course the best answer would be actual proof of the procedure in specific cases.