“The suspension of Parliament — not dissolution, but pause — is named for 'asking ahead': prorogare in Latin means to propose or ask for an extension of time. Prorogation is the executive's request that the legislature take a break.”
Latin prorogare combines pro- (before, forward) and rogare (to ask, to propose). To prorogue was to propose a continuation, to ask for an extension — the Roman praetor who sought to extend a military command for another year asked pro rogation, a forward-asking. In English constitutional usage, prorogation is the suspension of Parliament between sessions: Parliament is not dissolved (the elections happen at dissolution) but suspended, paused.
The prerogative of prorogation belongs to the Crown, exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. Unlike dissolution, prorogation does not end the Parliament — it suspends it. Bills that have not passed do not automatically fail; they can be carried over to the next session (or not). The difference between prorogation and dissolution was made politically vivid in 2019.
In August 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue Parliament for five weeks — an unusually long prorogation timed to reduce Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit negotiations. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019), ruled the prorogation unlawful — it 'had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.' The Latin asking-ahead had become an attempt to silence the legislature.
The Miller case of 2019 is now a landmark constitutional case, establishing that the executive's power to prorogue Parliament is subject to judicial review. The ancient Latin rogation — the asking — found its limits when the court recognized that some asking is really commanding.
Related Words
Today
The 2019 Miller case demonstrated that constitutional conventions — even ancient, unwritten ones — are not immune to judicial scrutiny when the executive uses them to silence the legislature. The Latin asking-ahead had, in 2019, become something that did not ask at all: it commanded silence.
The Supreme Court's language was precise: the prorogation 'had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.' The five justices found the legal principle already present in the constitutional tradition; they did not invent it. The ancient Latin rogation contained, always, the assumption that Parliament would remain able to respond.
Explore more words