Not that old story!
I’m curious too. Wikipedia actually puts the date at 1935, citing Nathan Tidridge’s Canada’s Constitutional Monarchy. That would make the Lieutenant Governor in question George Des Brisay de Blois, but his bio on the PEI govt webpage doesn’t mention the event. Still looking for details.
Bugger. Just found the Tidridge citation in a sample chapter on the publisher’s website, but it’s just “the last time royal assent was refused was in PEI in 1935.” So that’s a dead end.
Aha! Not only is that citation unhelpful, it is also incorrect. The event in fact occurred in 1945 involving de Blois’s successor Bradford William LePage.
Gorsnak has it. The explanation I’ve usually heard is that the Lt Gov had strong views on prohibition, and found it difficult to let go of politics.
Interesting! What did King George VI have to say about that?
I know, I know: Probably nothing.
Yes, nothing. The question of giving or withholding Assent to a Bill of the PEI parliament is not a matter for the monarch, but for the Lt Governor.
The King could not grant Assent to the Bill. He could, of course, remove the LG and appoint one who would Assent to the Bill, but he would only do that if advised to by his PEI ministers. And, as you surmise, he would make no public comment either on the matter of Assent or on the matter of replacing the LG.
Actually, it’s a bit different in Canada, UDS. The provincial Lt Govs aren’t appointed directly by the monarch, but by the GovGen in the name of the monarch. It’s the GovGen who has the power to remove a Lt Gov, but would only do so on the advice of the federla government, not the provincial gov’t, since they do not have any power to advise the Gov. Gen.
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
Interesting! What did King George VI have to say about that?
I know, I know: Probably nothing.
[/QUOTE]
He was a busy man; no need to bother him about some odd shenanigans going on in his name in a small little island. Plus, wouldn’t want to give him any ideas. Dangerous thing, ideas. 
Indeed. Didn’t George VI once want to pardon someone in a capital case, but the Home Secretary of the day wouldn’t so “advise” him? Can’t find a reference to that now.
The former prison chaplain, and now barrister, Harry Potter (not he of film wizard fame) did a highly interesting series on English Law (that which passed into Magna Carta, the US legal system and that of all Commonwealth [i.e. former Empire] countries), called ‘The Strange Case of the Law’.
If you want to know the extent of these laws, and how they then and now affect the monarch, you could do a lot worse that watch it - this is the first one:
Actually, here’s all three episodes:
Not Scientology either. Under the Act of Settlement, being a Roman Catholic was an automatic bar. If the new monarch isn’t Roman Catholic he/she “shall join in communion with the Church of England.” This wording was because Sophia’s son, George, was Lutheran. I doubt that the hierarchy of the C of E would consider a practising Scientologist to be in communion with the Church.
The occasion for testing this has never arisen, but I think the usual understanding of this requirement has little to do with what the hierarchy consider. It’s a pragmatic test; does the monarch take the sacrament at an Anglican eucharist? If the monarch’s conscience forbids it, then the monarch is not in communion. Or if the discipline of the church forbids it - e.g. if the monarch is not baptised - the the monarch is not in communion. But if there are no obstacles of this kind, and the monarch does in fact take the sacrament, then the monarch is in communion, however heterodox some of his theological opinsions may be.