The Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 starts with:
Whenever his Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall be pleased,
The Prorogation Act 1867 starts with:
Whenever (save as herein-after excepted) Her Majesty shall be pleased,
The former explicitly mentions heirs and successors, whereas the latter doesn't. Is there a difference, legally, between the phrasings? To me, the latter would seem only to apply to the reigning monarch at the time of the act's passing (or, perhaps, any female monarch in the future). Practically, though, this doesn't seem the case, bringing me to question why the phrasing is different at all, when such detail seems to be put into the way these are worded.