Counsellors of State

[wbenson]

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

There were messages to both houses. I think the one to the Lords just got more attention because it was read there earlier in the day.

 

[tommy100]

In the Lords it was read by the Lord Chamberlain - the senior officer in the Royal Household himself which adds another dimension.

 

[yukari]

The Counsellors of State Bill: an elegant solution, but a temporary one

Couples of new information for me:

(...)

The 1943 Act also allowed for any potential Counsellor of State to be excluded if they are overseas during the period of appointment. This provision was introduced so that Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester, would be excepted while Governor-General of Australia to prevent any potential conflict between that role and his position as a Counsellor of State.

(...)

So this can be the answer for Harry's status while he's in the US?

(...)

Such concerns occupied the mind of Sir Alan (Tommy) Lascelles, who in 1951, wrote to then Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggesting that the ‘margin of safety [was] dangerously narrow’ when only two counsellors were in the country. In practice, having three active counsellors is a return to early proposals for what became the Regency Act 1937. In 1935, originally three Counsellors of State were to be appointed, with later versions of the bill increasing this to four and adding the spouse of the monarch.

(...)

Interesting that it's only proposed to be only three. But unlike in 1935, with the existence of internet and faster travel right now, three (+monarch spouse) should be fine.

(...)

If there are not enough working royals to provide the required number of Counsellors of State, then others may need to be drafted in, possibly alongside a member of the Royal Family. Possible candidates include Supreme Court judges, who share with the royal family that necessary character of political neutrality. Before the Regency Act 1937 was passed, Counsellors of State appointed under the royal prerogative included non-royals. For example, in 1911, in addition to Prince Arthur of Connaught, the Counsellors of State included the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor and Lord President of the Council. Another approach would be to allow the heir to the throne to act alone, at least for certain functions. There are partial precedents for this. For example, in 1909 and 1910, the Prince of Wales, (later George V) held Privy Council meetings under the authority of his father, Edward VII.

(...)

I think this could work.

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

Next Thursday.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So this can be the answer for Harry's status while he's in the US?

Yes, that clause was invoked for the State Opening of Parliament earlier this year. From the bill's explanatory notes:

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

12 When the Sovereign wishes to delegate Royal functions to Counsellors of State, the functions are required to be delegated to all Counsellors of State (unless any Counsellors of State are excepted for the period of any absence or intended absence from the United Kingdom during the whole or any part of the period of delegation). Section 6(3) provides that any delegated functions must be "exercised jointly by the Counsellors of State, or any such number of them as may be specified in the Letters Patent, and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed". In practice, therefore, a delegation of functions via Letters Patent creates a pool of Counsellors of State and then usually specifies that Counsellors of State are required to act in pairs. In the case of the recent State Opening of Parliament by Counsellors of State, the Letters Patent appointed three Counsellors of State (as the Duke of Sussex was excepted due to his absence from the United Kingdom) but then specified that the cause of summons (i.e. the Queen’s speech) be "declared by one Counsellor of State in the presence of another".

 

[Toledo]

Yes, that clause was invoked for the State Opening of Parliament earlier this year. From the bill's explanatory notes:

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

Interesting. About my opinion on Prince Harry's, his situation living abroad seems to me has the intention of being financially independent, wanting to step aside from royal duties and mainly, his inability to tough it up with the tabloids like Kate and William did during the many years before the marriage.

I don't think there should be any accommodations around his needs in regards of the Counselors of State participation. I see him more of a loose cannon. He reacts into the tabloid trappings rather than stand his ground and ignore their noise and nonsense like Catherine did years ago when she was the tabloids' bullseye.

Princess Anne and Prince Edward seem to be the best candidates to lead this team in the absence of King Charles III and Prince William. The world is full of crazy people looking for fame that could repeat the 1908 Lisbon Regicide, so the Counselors of State situation needs to be in place soon and not after if the need arrives.

If Prince Harry was to be regent to assist Queen Catherine and an under-age king George, or as a member of the Counselors of State, his lack of control and loose lips with the press would rock a future King George's monarchy like if it was 1848. Plus, how do you make a person work in a country he doesn't want to live in, nor even for family gatherings, for being so busy with pushing his family brand in the USA?

If I was his employer, I'll tell him good luck on your career in California and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Then proceed to the seriousness of the bigger picture for The Firm, organizing stability for a future King George.

 

[Hallo girl]

Interesting. About my opinion on Prince Harry's, his situation living abroad seems to me has the intention of being financially independent, wanting to step aside from royal duties and mainly, his inability to tough it up with the tabloids like Kate and William did during the many years before the marriage.

I don't think there should be any accommodations around his needs in regards of the Counselors of State participation. I see him more of a loose cannon. He reacts into the tabloid trappings rather than stand his ground and ignore their noise and nonsense like Catherine did years ago when she was the tabloids' bullseye.

Princess Anne and Prince Edward seem to be the best candidates to lead this team in the absence of King Charles III and Prince William. The world is full of crazy people looking for fame that could repeat the 1908 Lisbon Regicide, so the Counselors of State situation needs to be in place soon and not after if the need arrives.

If Prince Harry was to be regent to assist Queen Catherine and an under-age king George, or as a member of the Counselors of State, his lack of control and loose lips with the press would rock a future King George's monarchy like if it was 1848. Plus, how do you make a person work in a country he doesn't want to live in, nor even for family gatherings, for being so busy with pushing his family brand in the USA?

If I was his employer, I'll tell him good luck on your career in California and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Then proceed to the seriousness of the bigger picture for The Firm, organizing stability for a future King George.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of scenarios are being played out by the courtiers to decide the best steps for what we all hope are hypothetical situations.
Nothing will be left to chance.
There are certain things the British public will not accept. I will leave it at that.

 

[yukari]

MPs clear way for Anne and Edward to stand in for King

The Counsellors of State Bill passed all its Commons stages and is now set to become law.

(...)

Mr O'Hara also asked why more royal duties could not be carried out digitally.

"Is there any legal impediment to the monarch appearing via a video link to join a meeting of the Privy Council? I don't see why any of that should be controversial," he added.

But former Attorney General Michael Ellis said: "Not everything can or should be done via online media platforms. The functions of the monarch sometimes do require physical presence. Often, they do.

"Either for important legal reasons of state or for ceremonial reasons."

 

[Iluvbertie]

MPs clear way for Anne and Edward to stand in for King

"Is there any legal impediment to the monarch appearing via a video link to join a meeting of the Privy Council?"

If there is then most of the decisions approved at a Privy Council since 2020 wouldn't be approved as all of the late Queen's Privy Council meetings from March 2020 until her death were via video.

She had three face-to-face meetings with a PM in that time as well - and two of those were two days before she died.

What covid showed is that there is NO NEED for CoS's at all. Everything they have done over the years the late Queen managed to do via zoom for those two years and the only one that was done this year doesn't require a royal to even be in attendance as shown in 1959, 1963 and most of the years of Queen Victoria's reign.

 

[Hallo girl]

"Is there any legal impediment to the monarch appearing via a video link to join a meeting of the Privy Council?"

If there is then most of the decisions approved at a Privy Council since 2020 wouldn't be approved as all of the late Queen's Privy Council meetings from March 2020 until her death were via video.

She had three face-to-face meetings with a PM in that time as well - and two of those were two days before she died.

What covid showed is that there is NO NEED for CoS's at all. Everything they have done over the years the late Queen managed to do via zoom for those two years and the only one that was done this year doesn't require a royal to even be in attendance as shown in 1959, 1963 and most of the years of Queen Victoria's reign.

I take your points that you are making but it could be illness related and zoom calls not practical, but if we are all being totally honest here we all know what is going on.
The King was trying to diplomatically arrange for a big enough pool to call on if the situation should arise that then ensured that certain people will not be asked to fill the role.
Nobody is removed but they will not be asked.

 

[Spheno]

"Is there any legal impediment to the monarch appearing via a video link to join a meeting of the Privy Council?"

If there is then most of the decisions approved at a Privy Council since 2020 wouldn't be approved as all of the late Queen's Privy Council meetings from March 2020 until her death were via video.

She had three face-to-face meetings with a PM in that time as well - and two of those were two days before she died.

What covid showed is that there is NO NEED for CoS's at all. Everything they have done over the years the late Queen managed to do via zoom for those two years and the only one that was done this year doesn't require a royal to even be in attendance as shown in 1959, 1963 and most of the years of Queen Victoria's reign.

Do you know how to do zoom calls on an operating table?

Counsellors of State are senior members of the British royal family to whom the monarch can delegate and revoke royal functions through letters patent under the Great Seal, to prevent delay or difficulty in the dispatch of public business in the case of their illness (except total incapacity) or of their intended or actual absence from the United Kingdom.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The monarch wouldn't be on the operating table for days. As has been shown in the past when the late Queen had to have surgery she was able to plan that surgery around her engagements so that she didn't miss any essential engagements.

That is the point - CoS's is for a short term incapacity but planned as LPs have to be signed. The LPs can't be signed in an emergency so a planned surgery would be able to be planned to not be in the week that a Privy Council meeting is scheduled.

If the monarch becomes incapacitated in an unplanned manner i.e. an accident then a Regency comes into effect not CoS's.

 

[Spheno]

"unplanned manner" doesn't mean "permanent". regency is a permanent thing.
and there are situations when people spend days in artificial coma as part of their treatment.

 

[Iluvbertie]

"unplanned manner" doesn't mean "permanent". regency is a permanent thing.
and there are situations when people spend days in artificial coma as part of their treatment.

Regency is NOT permanent. George IV served at least two terms as Regent when his father was incapacitated. George III recovered at least once and so took back the reins as King.

In an 'unplanned' situation - such as an accident resulting in a temporary coma there would be no Letters Patent issued to create CoS's so while in that coma, if no temporary regency is possible then no business is possible - which is why a temporary regency is possible. CoSs can only serve when Letters Patent are issued and stating for what specific purpose/s so in March this year Charles and William were CoSs specifically to Open Parliament and for no other purpose.

Say Charles was travelling to Sandringham and was involved in a car accident that saw him in a coma for six months. As he didn't sign Letters Patent creating William and Anne as CoS for those six months no business of the monarchy could take place so no laws signed into law, no High Commissioners or Ambassadors able to take up their offices etc. Now establishing a Regency which can be done quite easily with the agreement of three of Camilla, The Lord Chancellor, Speaker of the House of Commons, Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls.

The Regency Act clearly says that a regency will be established if 'the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions or that they are satisfied by evidence that the Sovereign is for some definite cause not available for the performance of those functions'. i.e. it can be a temporary situation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In the House of Lords (the transcripts were posted earlier in the thread) as well as the House of Commons, representatives of the government and of the main opposition party laid stress on the Palace's confirmation that in the future, only working members of the Royal Family will be called upon as Counsellors of State. So, although the rule of only calling upon "working royals" has not been enacted into law as some here have suggested, it has been formalized as a promise made by the King to Parliament, which ought to be taken seriously. (Thus, I think we can safely assume that Princess Beatrice will never be called upon to act as a Counsellor of State.)

Transcript of the debates on the fast-tracked bill in the House of Commons on December 1:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...5EA-83A86027A18E/CounsellorsOfStateBill(Lords)
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...B70-98F121FE5916/CounsellorsOfStateBill(Lords)


From the Commons Second Reading:

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden): "Furthermore, the royal family has confirmed that in practice it will be working members of the royal family who are called on to act as Counsellors of State, and that their diaries will be arranged to ensure that that is the case."

The deputy leader of the opposition (Angela Rayner): "The Opposition do not oppose this practical measure. Although the Bill has a narrow focus, I know that hon. Members in this House and the other place have raised concerns about the wider issue of the Regency Act. I welcome assurances from Government Ministers in the other place that only working royals can act as Counsellors of State. That is an important assurance that will go alongside the Bill."


The enacted Counsellors of State Act 2022:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/47/contents/enacted

 

[Somebody]

This part sounds as if the MP (Micahel Ellis) is especially happy with the addition of the Princess Royal (whom I expect in practice to be Charles's preferred option next to William when he and Camilla are abroad):

His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex and Forfar, and Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal command the confidence of the King, and the approval and respect of the people of this country, and for good reason. Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal is well known and highly respected for her work ethic, her drive, and her pragmatic approach. As we know, she carries out hundreds of engagements annually, and quietly and assiduously undertakes her duties with enormous skill. Like the Princess, His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex has been a trusted Counsellor of State before, and he will likewise be a welcome addition to the pool of options available to the King.

 

[Frivo]

The Duke of Edinburgh and The Princess Royal have been removed from the list on https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state , isn’t that odd? They used to be on there back in march https://web.archive.org/web/20230320181444/https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Duke of Edinburgh and The Princess Royal have been removed from the list on https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state , isn’t that odd? They used to be on there back in march https://web.archive.org/web/20230320181444/https://www.royal.uk/counsellors-state

That is indeed extremely strange. It is unprofessional enough that many sections of the website are still not updated almost a year after Elizabeth II's death, but intentionally changing updated information from accurate to inaccurate?

 

[Durham]

Will CofS need to be appointed while The King is in hospital?

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Will CofS need to be appointed while The King is in hospital?

Not likely… QEII also did not appoint any when she had knee replacement surgery in 2003

 

[tommy100]

No. BP has clarified they won't be.

Its often made to sound like CoS are appointed whenever the sovereign is overseas or undergoes medical treatment. That is not the case. They are appointed to very specific times when the duties of the sovereign need to be carried out but can't be at that time. So when Charles is in hospital no CoS will be needed as to the best of their ability BP will ensure he isn't needed for anything.
When he travels overseas Charles will still be able to do much of the work himself - paperwork etc can still be done. CoS are not appointed on his departure and cease on his return, they would only be appointed if something came up that required it.

 

[Durham]

Thank you both! That's one less thing to have to worry about.?

 

[Iluvbertie]

CoS's have been appointed about three or four times in the 21st Century - a couple of times Andrew and Edward meet with some incoming/outgoing Ambassadors (and on at least one of those occasions the late Queen and Philip were undertaking duties elsewhere in the UK). The only other occasion I can find in the CC was in 2022 when Charles and William went to the State Opening of Parliament.

 

[Somebody]

CoS's have been appointed about three or four times in the 21st Century - a couple of times Andrew and Edward meet with some incoming/outgoing Ambassadors (and on at least one of those occasions the late Queen and Philip were undertaking duties elsewhere in the UK). The only other occasion I can find in the CC was in 2022 when Charles and William went to the State Opening of Parliament.

Sounds like an interesting case: appointing others to fulfill your constitutional duties (otherwise no CoC would be needed) while you are on a (constitutionally not required) visit yourself. Can you share more information about it?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sounds like an interesting case: appointing others to fulfill your constitutional duties (otherwise no CoC would be needed) while you are on a (constitutionally not required) visit yourself. Can you share more information about it?

No

It was listed in the CC as Andrew and Edward as CoS's met with a couple of Ambassadors. The same day the Queen and Philip were visiting somewhere else in the UK - again listed in the CC.

That is all the information available.

Neither activity is actually constitutionally required.

The Sovereign's only constitutional roles are to 'chair the privy council to approve legislation' 'to appoint the PM' and to open and close parliament. All these can be done by someone else - as shown by the use of CoSs or other people during the late Queen's reign

 

[Somebody]

No

It was listed in the CC as Andrew and Edward as CoS's met with a couple of Ambassadors. The same day the Queen and Philip were visiting somewhere else in the UK - again listed in the CC.

That is all the information available.

Neither activity is actually constitutionally required.

The Sovereign's only constitutional roles are to 'chair the privy council to approve legislation' 'to appoint the PM' and to open and close parliament. All these can be done by someone else - as shown by the use of CoSs or other people during the late Queen's reign

Constitutional duty is probably not the right term but apparently it is considered a duty that has to be carried out by the Sovereign (or an official substitute such as the regent of two CoSs)? Otherwise, why appoint a CoS if it is not necessary? If it is not necessary for the Sovereign (or substitute) to do so, why couldn't the ambassador be received by the two princes without them being made CoSs?

And if it is considered a task that needs to be performed by the Sovereign, it makes you wonder what visit could be so important that the queen would ditch her duty of receiving ambassadors and delegate it to her sons.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The 'visit' was simply the standard 'day away' visit that the late Queen and late Duke regularly underwent - they visited a number of sites.

Tradition is why the Sovereign greets incoming and outgoing Ambassadors/High Commissioners but it isn't necessary. It depended on the country whether the late Queen would greet them in person.

 

[wbenson]

Sounds like an interesting case: appointing others to fulfill your constitutional duties (otherwise no CoC would be needed) while you are on a (constitutionally not required) visit yourself. Can you share more information about it?

I think it was during the Golden Jubilee tour. She was elsewhere in the UK a lot more than usual that year.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think it was during the Golden Jubilee tour. She was elsewhere in the UK a lot more than usual that year.

It happened twice - once 2002 and again in 2003/4

 

[Mbruno]

No

It was listed in the CC as Andrew and Edward as CoS's met with a couple of Ambassadors. The same day the Queen and Philip were visiting somewhere else in the UK - again listed in the CC.

That is all the information available.

Neither activity is actually constitutionally required.

The Sovereign's only constitutional roles are to 'chair the privy council to approve legislation' 'to appoint the PM' and to open and close parliament. All these can be done by someone else - as shown by the use of CoSs or other people during the late Queen's reign

Receiving the credentials of foreign ambassadors is a constitutional role of the King in the UK in my opinion. I don't know, however, what "meeting some ambassadors" mean. And I would be surprised if that was the wording used in the CC.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not all ambassadors are met by the Sovereign - that is what I meant by 'meeting some ambassadors'. Depending on the relations between the two countries at the time when the new ambassadors come in some aren't welcomed and accepted by the Sovereign. Some are met and credentials accepted by other members of the King's household - not a royal - and that isn't in the CC.