Counsellors of State

[tommy100]

True and not to go too off topic but even if Edo and Bea moved there part time it would have potentially caused headaches for the Counsellors of State system. It also shows why having people who aren't "official working members of the Royal Family" as CoS is tricky - if they are doing other things with their lives you can't expect them to do what suits for being a CoS if they aren't doing royal duties. Whilst I'm sure for example Beatrice would always do what was asked of her if she was available if she did want to move abroad - as her sister has done - it would be hard to ask her not to. This is where IMO there is greater harmony in being a working member of the RF and being a Counsellor of State.

 

[FigTree]

True and not to go too off topic but even if Edo and Bea moved there part time it would have potentially caused headaches for the Counsellors of State system. It also shows why having people who aren't "official working members of the Royal Family" as CoS is tricky - if they are doing other things with their lives you can't expect them to do what suits for being a CoS if they aren't doing royal duties. Whilst I'm sure for example Beatrice would always do what was asked of her if she was available if she did want to move abroad - as her sister has done - it would be hard to ask her not to. This is where IMO there is greater harmony in being a working member of the RF and being a Counsellor of State.

These are vastly wealthy people. They don’t really move like normal people. Eugenie is in the UK an awful lot…supporting her charities and been seen at her paid job too. Don’t actually know hose much time she spends in Portugal and it’s only a few hours away.

 

[tommy100]

Richard Palmer is reporting that the first reading of the bill to make Anne and Edward counsellors of state was made this afternoon, It will be debated on Monday and all remaining stages dealt with on Wed 23rd Nov.

 

[Fijiro]

I wonder if Princess Eugenie gets also to be CoS when Prince William becomes King. I hope she get to be.

 

[miss whirley]

I wonder if Princess Eugenie gets also to be CoS when Prince William becomes King. I hope she get to be.

She will if Charles dies before George's 18th birthday. Personally I hope Charles lives until his 90s and Eugenie is never a CoS.

 

[yukari]

Lords to debate law to bar Princes Harry and Andrew from being Counsellors of State

Archive

(...)

The amendment to the Counsellors of State bill, which will be debated on Monday, would look to exclude royals who have “not in the immediately preceding 2 years undertaken royal duties on a regular basis”.*

(...)

A Cabinet source told The Telegraph that it was neither the Government, nor Buckingham Palace’s position, that the proposal would remove either of the princes from being Counsellors of State.

The prospect of the princes being called upon to sign documents or receive the credentials of new ambassadors at Buckingham Palace has been controversial for some time, with the issue first raised in Parliament last month.

Viscount Stansgate, Labour peer and son of party grandee Tony Benn, suggested in the House of Lords that it was the right moment to*discuss “a sensible amendment” with the King.

He asked whether the Government was “happy to continue with a situation where the counsels of state and regency powers may be exercised by the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, one of whom has left public life and the other of whom has left the country?”

(...)

So it seems they're trying to (legally? lawfully?) define "working royal". Not only "two years", but also "regular basis". Well, in that case it also makes (for now) the York princesses ineligible.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If they aren't suitable to be Counsellors of State because they aren't working royals they obviously have to be removed from the line of succession as then they won't be suitable to be the monarch. It makes no sense to say 'they aren't suitable to be CoSs because they haven't worked in the past two years' but if tragedy struck they would be suitable to be the monarch.

What happens when there aren't four adult working royals with at least two years of work in the past two years? Can happen. Currently there are only two working royals under 70 in the line of succession. Once over 70 a person can deteriorate in health very quickly so it is perfectly possible that with that amendment the monarch mightn't be able to leave the country or even be ill as there won't be two eligible CoSs.

 

[Biri]

If they aren't suitable to be Counsellors of State because they aren't working royals they obviously have to be removed from the line of succession as then they won't be suitable to be the monarch. It makes no sense to say 'they aren't suitable to be CoSs because they haven't worked in the past two years' but if tragedy struck they would be suitable to be the monarch.

What happens when there aren't four adult working royals with at least two years of work in the past two years? Can happen. Currently there are only two working royals under 70 in the line of succession. Once over 70 a person can deteriorate in health very quickly so it is perfectly possible that with that amendment the monarch mightn't be able to leave the country or even be ill as there won't be two eligible CoSs.

You mean the Prince of Wales and Earl of Wessex?

 

[Iluvbertie]

You mean the Prince of Wales and Earl of Wessex?

Yes.

All other working royals in the line of succession are over 70 with Anne, at 72 the youngest, then Charles at 74, Richard is 78, Alexandra will be 86 on Christmas Day and Edward has just turned 87 last month.

In the 1950s is the 'past two years' rule was in place the Queen wouldn't have had four CoS's as she only had three, in the line of succession who were working royals - Margaret, Henry and Mary. The Earl of Harewood, Mary's son, was the 4th CoS and he even said it was easier for him to do the duties than for his mother, uncle or cousin as they might have to cancel an official engagement while all he had to do was take a few hours away from work without disappointing anyone.

 

[yukari]

If they aren't suitable to be Counsellors of State because they aren't working royals they obviously have to be removed from the line of succession as then they won't be suitable to be the monarch. It makes no sense to say 'they aren't suitable to be CoSs because they haven't worked in the past two years' but if tragedy struck they would be suitable to be the monarch.

What happens when there aren't four adult working royals with at least two years of work in the past two years? Can happen. Currently there are only two working royals under 70 in the line of succession. Once over 70 a person can deteriorate in health very quickly so it is perfectly possible that with that amendment the monarch mightn't be able to leave the country or even be ill as there won't be two eligible CoSs.

Using the same argument, if tragedy strike and (God forbid) Charles and William were dead tomorrow, a 9-year-old George would automatically become monarch but why couldn't he be CoS?

 

[muriel]

If they aren't suitable to be Counsellors of State because they aren't working royals they obviously have to be removed from the line of succession as then they won't be suitable to be the monarch. It makes no sense to say 'they aren't suitable to be CoSs because they haven't worked in the past two years' but if tragedy struck they would be suitable to be the monarch.

The pool of CoS is a small one. In comparison, there are a few people ahead of Harry and Andrew in the line of succession, so the likelihood of either of them becoming monarch is pretty remote. FWIW, if either of them were to become monarch, I am not sure the monarchy would survive.

That said, I would not be averse to having Harry, his descendants, and Andrew being removed from the line of succession.

 

[FigTree]

Using the same argument, if tragedy strike and (God forbid) Charles and William were dead tomorrow, a 9-year-old George would automatically become monarch but why couldn't he be CoS?

No there would be a regency for him. In normal times that would include Harry but more likely to comprise of Kate, Anne and Edward.

Why are we even talking about this.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't understand the provision in the draft bill that "This Act comes into force on the day after it is passed". Shouldn't it come into force only on the day it receives royal assent? Or does "passed" also imply royal assent?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The pool of CoS is a small one. In comparison, there are a few people ahead of Harry and Andrew in the line of succession, so the likelihood of either of them becoming monarch is pretty remote. FWIW, if either of them were to become monarch, I am not sure the monarchy would survive.

That said, I would not be averse to having Harry, his descendants, and Andrew being removed from the line of succession.

As neither have committed treason and not even treason is a reason to remove someone from the line of succession it would seem a bit over the top - the Kaiser wasn't removed from the line of succession and his descendants are still in the LoS. He actually took his country to war with Britain. If that action doesn't get a person removed I don't see why making some disparaging remarks or having unsavoury friends should do so (if the latter than surely Charles himself should be removed as he was friends with Jimmy Saville).

Currently the list of working royals in the LoS is:

William, Edward, Anne, Richard, Edward and Alexandra and I can see that list being reduced to three within a year or two anyway with the older three retiring from public duties.

Charles' letter didn't ask parliament to remove anyone remember - only to add two. Parliament is therefore doing more than Charles asked.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't understand the provision in the draft bill that "This Act comes into force on the day after it is passed". Shouldn't it come into force only on the day it receives royal assent? Or does "passed" also imply royal assent?

No - passed doesn't mean 'royal assent'. What is does is basically force the King to give the assent immediately or basically accept that the King is no longer a necessary part of the passing of acts.

Normally a bill only comes into force when it is gazetted. The Succession to the Crown Act for instance was passed in the UK in 2013, given the royal assent in 2013 but not gazetted into law until 2015 - as it had to pass the other realms first.

This is a major power grab by parliament to sideline the King from the process it seems to me.

The King asked for parliament to add two people. Now parliament wants to remove people and to sideline the final two steps for a bill to become an act by removing the necessity for the King to give it the royal assent and then for that act to be gazetted.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Using the same argument, if tragedy strike and (God forbid) Charles and William were dead tomorrow, a 9-year-old George would automatically become monarch but why couldn't he be CoS?

George, as a 9 year old would need a Regent, who under the existing act would be Harry.

A CoS has to be 21 other than the heir apparent who can be 18.

If Charles dies before George turns 18 then George will be a CoS at 18. If Charles dies between George turning 18 and 21 then George will become a CoS immediately and if he has turned 21 before Charles dies then that is when he will become eligible under the existing act.

With the 'past two years' rule George mightn't become eligible for another 20 years as he surely will be given time to go to university, have a gap year and serve in the military before becoming a full-time royal aged about 30.

Given the way this legislation is worded there is the very real possibility that there will be no one eligible to serve at all.

 

[Mbruno]

A
Charles' letter didn't ask parliament to remove anyone remember - only to add two. Parliament is therefore doing more than Charles asked.

How is Parliament doing more than the King asked? My understanding is that the draft bill doesn't remove anyone from the list of potential Counsellors of State. It just adds the Earl of Wessex and Forfar and the Princess Royal, as the Queen Mother was also added early in Queen Elizabeth II's reign.


EDIT: I believe you already answered my question above (I hadn't seen it before, sorry), although I am not sure your interpretation is correct.

 

[wbenson]

No - passed doesn't mean 'royal assent'. What is does is basically force the King to give the assent immediately or basically accept that the King is no longer a necessary part of the passing of acts.

No, it's not doing any such thing. Every act of Parliament contains a routine statement of when it takes effect. A tax bill might take effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year, for example. Or (as in the case of the Succession to the Crown Act) it will allow the government to proclaim a date later on. Royal assent has not been secretly abolished.

Likewise, the stuff about removing non-working royals is merely an amendment proposed by a peer and not backed by the government. It has not been adopted, and even if it is adopted in the Lords, that does not mean it will be in the final legislation.

 

[Toledo]

The pool of CoS is a small one. In comparison, there are a few people ahead of Harry and Andrew in the line of succession, so the likelihood of either of them becoming monarch is pretty remote. FWIW, if either of them were to become monarch, I am not sure the monarchy would survive.

That said, I would not be averse to having Harry, his descendants, and Andrew being removed from the line of succession.

Agreed 100%. The monarchy under Charles III needs to adapt to times and rationale, starting with the line of succession considering aptitude over blood lines. As in within the working royals and considering who of the current family is more apt to be the potential regent, counselor of state for the CEO of The Firm.

If there was a suggestion box outside of Buckingham Palace, I would hope someone would recommend the following updates:

1. Sussex and Yorks removed from the succession line all the way to the bottom for reasons discussed in other threads.
2. Princess Anne and Essex with families moved up in order of birth, not gender.

From 1 and 2 adult members (Anne's children included) form the Counsellors team to assist a potential dowager Princess or Queen Katherine until the heir is of age, 18?, and also completes his education or military service.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Regency Act 1937 and amended 1944 covers these two roles (Counsellors of State and Regent).

1. To be a CoS a person has to be:

[...]

c) be domiciled in the UK - all five have homes in the UK - whether Harry actually meets the 'domiciled in the UK' when he now largely lives in the US is debateable and the parliament may need to look into defining that term a bit more [...]

The explanatory notes to the Counsellors of State Bill confirm that the accepted legal definition of "domicile" applies to the Regency Act 1937.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-03/066/5803066en04.htm

"2 ‘Domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom’ refers to a concept of domicile derived from common law. Everyone receives a domicile at birth; this is known as a ‘domicile of origin’. Every independent person can at any time change their domicile of origin and acquire a ‘domicile of choice’ by the fact of residing in a country other than that of their domicile of origin with the intention of continuing to reside there indefinitely. There is a strong presumption against a change from a domicile of origin to a domicile of choice."​

As a general reminder to readers as to what "strong presumption" entails:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...t_data/file/632058/domicile-guidance-v1.0.pdf

The degree of proof required to establish that a domicile of origin has been displaced in favour of a domicile of choice is high. The courts have said that "unless you are able to show with perfect clearness and satisfaction, that a new domicile has been acquired, the domicile of origin continues" (Bell -v- Kennedy LR 1 Se & W App 310). This can mean that, whilst a range of evidence will normally be needed to show that a change of domicile has occurred, a single piece of evidence may be enough to show that there has been no change of domicile (such as a statement by the person concerned that they had no intention of making the place in question their permanent home).​

So unless and until the Duke of Sussex himself makes a statement and/or someone provides "perfectly clear" proof that he has an intention to reside in another country permanently, the Duke remains domiciled in the UK.


ETA:

A transcript of today's debate on the bill in the House of Lords. There was much praise for the Earl of Wessex and especially the Princess Royal.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...9-8F09-EB624DF8980C/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)

 

[yukari]

From BBC
Calls to block Prince Andrew and Prince Harry as royal stand-ins

Transcript of the debate:
Counsellors of State Bill [HL]


It's a long read (or just read the opening by Lord True and scroll to the bottommost for his closing/summary).

(...)

Lord Janvrin:
(...)

I have three brief points to add. First, some might question whether in the age of Teams, Zoom and electronic signatures the business of the Head of State could be updated—as indeed some of it had to be during Covid—but I am not sure that this is the right way to go in normal times. Some of the activities performed by Counsellors of State, such as the receipt of credentials from ambassadors, are better done face to face, especially when a little ceremonial adds to the occasion. I am no expert on the legal technicalities of how, where and when electronic signatures are valid, but I would need to be persuaded that an electronic royal sign manual is either practical or historically desirable, especially when the alternative of Counsellors of State is on the statute book.

(...)

Lord Balfe
(...)

What the Bill is doing, I think, is trying to deal with an Act that was conceived and passed before the idea of a working member of the Royal Family was invented. That makes for part of the difficulty because it clearly does not remove either the Duke of Sussex or the Duke of York from the list. It does, however, still apply to Princess Beatrice, of course, who will disappear from the list when Prince George is 18 years of age. So*it is a bit of an odd Bill. I wonder: what would happen if the Duke of Sussex decided to jet in? What if he saw the King’s diary and saw that the King was going to be on a state visit going from X to Y in, let us say, Australia, so he got on a plane, got off at Heathrow and said, “Hi, I’m here. I’m on the succession list”?

(...)

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will put me right if I am wrong, but the 1840 Act appointed Albert as regent until Prince Edward came of age if Victoria died before he was 18 years old. A strong candidate for the role of Counsellor of State must be the present Princess of Wales. She will be a Counsellor of State when her husband eventually succeeds to the throne. Presumably, if the throne is vacated before Prince George is 18, the Princess of Wales will be designated as the regent-in-waiting. Therefore, it would be very sensible, and give her some practice in the job, if the Princess of Wales was added to this list.*(...)

Lord Pannick
(...)

My second question arises from the fact that some of the most important royal functions have been performed by the monarch when abroad. For example, in 1908, when Edward VII was unwilling to interrupt his holiday in Biarritz, Mr Asquith was summoned there to be appointed Prime Minister. In the very useful House of Commons Library paper,*Regency and Counsellors of State, written by Mr David Torrance and published in May this year, there is a reference to what happened when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was on a Caribbean tour in 1966. There was a request by the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, for a Dissolution of Parliament. The assent of Her Majesty was contained in a letter sent to Mr Wilson.

We now have the advantage of videoconferencing and documents can be sent as email attachments. We have all sorts of modern communications and, one would hope, the occasions on which His Majesty cannot personally perform royal functions because he is abroad would be reduced. (...) Can he answer the question of whether, in principle, His Majesty could signify his consent to legislation from abroad, sending his signature by email—a point raised by my noble friend? Equally, could His Majesty appear by videolink from abroad to preside over a Privy Council meeting? These important functions should be performed by the sovereign personally.

(...)

As pointed out by several lords, the debate seems to stray considering that the main topic is about adding Anne and Edward, no more.

But there are several interesting points, particularly which first raised by Lord Janvrin. With the availability of internet, phone, and planes, things are significantly different than few decades ago. And it seems like there's a possibility that Catherine is preferred to be George's regent than Harry.

 

[Toledo]

This is moving very fast and to a positive result to clarify the roles under King Charles III. It also feels they are trying to get this done before the situation with the royals via satellite escalates in the press in December.

From what I sense the idea is to protect the Monarchy during and after King Charles from any loose end royal bringing a negative image to the institution, either from conduct (the Duke of York) or from defamatory statements (Harry & wife). It also sends the message you can't be using the titles and honors to represent the UK and turn them into a private business that doesn't represent or benefits the UK or the Monarchy under King Charles.

This is what they call here a warning shot in the air.

 

[Hallo girl]

This is moving very fast and to a positive result to clarify the roles under King Charles III. It also feels they are trying to get this done before the situation with the royals via satellite escalates in the press in December.

From what I sense the idea is to protect the Monarchy during and after King Charles from any loose end royal bringing a negative image to the institution, either from conduct (the Duke of York) or from defamatory statements (Harry & wife). It also sends the message you can't be using the titles and honors to represent the UK and turn them into a private business that doesn't represent or benefits the UK or the Monarchy under King Charles.

This is what they call here a warning shot in the air.

Like you I sense more coming from this than just Anne and Edward added to the list. Pandoras box has been opened, I really do believe there is more to come.
Having said that probably no more than what happened in the past when the young Princess Elizabeth had small children who were her heirs, the public just didn't know about it or at least pay much attention.

 

[SLV]

In the Netherlands when abroad our King signs with a digital autograph, so that the bill can be put into action. When back at home he give the second 'official' autograph.
Works perfectly.

I enjoyed reading the HoL-speeches above. They are well thought over and I have the feeling they are trying to accomplish that what KC cannot do without people in the US crying out racism. By taking these matters in their own hand, they free KC's hand to try and reunite the RF.

 

[tommy100]

I don't see an issue - peers and MPs are always speaking beyond the specifics of the legislation in front of them. That is happening here - the most likely reality is that everyone will have their say and the bill will be passed as it was drafted - adding Anne and Edward to the existing pool.
Some of what has been said may be put into force in the future, who knows, but for now they will pass the bill to ensure Charles can make overseas visits.

 

[wbenson]

The House of Lords passed the bill without amendment yesterday.

 

[muriel]

The House of Lords passed the bill without amendment yesterday.

Do we know when the Bill will come to the Commons?

 

[Mbruno]

From BBC
Calls to block Prince Andrew and Prince Harry as royal stand-ins

Transcript of the debate:
Counsellors of State Bill [HL]


It's a long read (or just read the opening by Lord True and scroll to the bottommost for his closing/summary).



As pointed out by several lords, the debate seems to stray considering that the main topic is about adding Anne and Edward, no more.

But there are several interesting points, particularly which first raised by Lord Janvrin. With the availability of internet, phone, and planes, things are significantly different than few decades ago. And it seems like there's a possibility that Catherine is preferred to be George's regent than Harry.

Catherine becoming a possible regent for George is a separate issue from that of the Counsellors of State and would require separate legislation, just as when Philip was preferred over Princess Margaret as a possible regent for Charles.


Anyway, since George is not the heir apparent yet, that issue will be relevant only when William is King and, by then, it is very likely that George will be already over 18.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the transcript of the debate in the House of Lords.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...A-8771-FE084B12EE3F/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...1-80F5-8DC3C0F0E8C7/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)

The government's stated reasoning for refusing calls to remove the Dukes of York and Sussex were, in short, that there was no precedent for removing a Counsellor of State and that the King had not requested removal.

 

[Mbruno]

Here is the transcript of the debate in the House of Lords.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...A-8771-FE084B12EE3F/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...1-80F5-8DC3C0F0E8C7/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)

The government's stated reasoning for refusing calls to remove the Dukes of York and Sussex were, in short, that there was no precedent for removing a Counsellor of State and that the King had not requested removal.

Is there any particular reason why the King's request was addressed to the House of Lords and not the House of Commons?