Counsellors of State

[Hans-Rickard]

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

It also happened in 2015 when QEII, Philip, Charles and Camilla visited the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta.

It did not state wich Councellors was appointed but William, Harry and Andrew was the others ”available” by that time.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2434922

 

[shady lady]

Here's a Telegraph article from last night re: Counsellors of State. Not sure if there is anything new in it but I found it interesting.

https://archive.ph/oVfqR

 

[Hallo girl]

Here's a Telegraph article from last night re: Counsellors of State. Not sure if there is anything new in it but I found it interesting.

https://archive.ph/oVfqR

I hadn't appreciated that Anne and Edward were now for life. IMO the King handled the situation quite well, he recognised the public view , but as a father and brother did not want to pile humiliation on to his son and sibling by removing them. Most people recognise that they will not be chosen but they still have the title.

 

[tommy100]

Here's a Telegraph article from last night re: Counsellors of State. Not sure if there is anything new in it but I found it interesting.

https://archive.ph/oVfqR

I was a bit perplexed by how the Telegraph had this as an “exclusive” when it was just the facts as stated when the legislation to appoint Anne and Edward was passed. However for me the bigger point I’d missed from the initial news is Anne and Edward are appointed for life, so even when Beatrice slips off the list and then Andrew they will still be on place.

 

[Toledo]

I was a bit perplexed by how the Telegraph had this as an “exclusive” when it was just the facts as stated when the legislation to appoint Anne and Edward was passed. However for me the bigger point I’d missed from the initial news is Anne and Edward are appointed for life, so even when Beatrice slips off the list and then Andrew they will still be on place.

From the article:
Buckingham Palace has quietly made provision to prevent both the Duke of York and Duke of Sussex from acting as substitutes for the King...

And we all get relieved. My opinion: The counselor of state should not be a next-of-kin situation but to appoint a family member that has proven to the nation to have a sense of respect for his/her duties toward the crown.

Of the threesome in question, I would only take Beatrice apart from the antics her father and her first cousin do. She seems very responsible and mature, but nothing compares to the experience from Princess Anne and Prince Edward representing the crown in a dignified manner.

The possibility of having Andrew or Harry in a position of any power and influence would be a disaster for the monarchy. I hope we don't hear a word from neither of them about this decision, they can't be substitutes for the King on any level

 

[Hallo girl]

From the article:
Buckingham Palace has quietly made provision to prevent both the Duke of York and Duke of Sussex from acting as substitutes for the King...

And we all get relieved. My opinion: The counselor of state should not be a next-of-kin situation but to appoint a family member that has proven to the nation to have a sense of respect for his/her duties toward the crown.

Of the threesome in question, I would only take Beatrice apart from the antics her father and her first cousin do. She seems very responsible and mature, but nothing compares to the experience from Princess Anne and Prince Edward representing the crown in a dignified manner.

The possibility of having Andrew or Harry in a position of any power and influence would be a disaster for the monarchy. I hope we don't hear a word from neither of them about this decision, they can't be substitutes for the King on any level

There is nothing to complain about, they have not been removed, Harry mainly lives abroad, the King has added two experienced family members. A sensible move.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Indeed, as tommy100 pointed out, the Telegraph is simply reporting the legislation and statements from 2022(!) (and yes, the law states that the siblings' eligibility is for life). See here:

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

However, they seem to have missed the news from last year about the royal website removing Anne and Edward's names from the list of Counsellors of State on the website:

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

 

[tommy100]

Indeed, that was my point. This was all reported back when the legislation was passed and while it was being debated. It was made clear the intention was to only have working royals as CoS where ever possible. The Telegraph appears to have simply finally picked up on something already known (which tbf isn't the first time a newspaper has chosen to state something already known as "new")

 

[Somebody]

This article claims that Counsellors of State were appointed last year during a private holiday of king Charles to Romania. I don't recall reading that before; does anyone recall this or is CBC misinformed?

 

[Iluvbertie]

No evidence to suggest any such thing happened.

Counsellors of State are appointed for specific occasions e.g. to receive Ambassadors or for the State Opening of Parliament. They aren't appointed just because the Sovereign is out of the country or in hospital.

The appointment and the reason is in the CC as they then undertake specific activities.

 

[wbenson]

This article claims that Counsellors of State were appointed last year during a private holiday of king Charles to Romania. I don't recall reading that before; does anyone recall this or is CBC misinformed?

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4369834

THE KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 1 June 2023 to delegate certain of His Royal Functions to Counsellors of State during His Majesty's absence abroad for the purpose of visiting Romania.

They were also used for the visit to Germany, but apparently not the rescheduled visit to France or the visit to Kenya. (I say apparently because I've noticed at least one gap in what was published in the London Gazette. We know from the Court Circular that counsellors of state were used to receive ambassadors during the late Queen's domestic tour in 2002, but there was nothing gazetted for that, just for the two overseas trips that year.)

They aren't appointed just because the Sovereign is out of the country or in hospital.

During the previous reign, letters patent were issued for just about every foreign trip except for things like day trips to France to dedicate war memorials. From 1980-2015, there were at least 62 times.

 

[Somebody]

Thanks, wbenson, I wonder why it was needed to appoint Counsellors of State in June; and why no names were included of whom were appointed Counsellors of State in that period. Was there any special 'business' to be undertaken in that period?

Maybe the difference between the Kenia and the Romania trip is that the latter was a private trip, while he visited Kenia in his role as monarch - or was the Romania trip of considerable length?

Edit: The Romania rip cannot have been that long. The CC mentions an activity on June 6 in London, a visit to the Romanian president on June 2, and several activities in Buckingham Palace on June 1. And given that Anne was in Canada from June 3-5, it wouldn't have been her. And William was in Jordon on June 1st for the wedding of the crown prince, so depending on when they returned, he might have been (partially) unavailable as well.

I indeed also found the one for the planned visit to France and Germany in March last year.

 

[wbenson]

Thanks, wbenson, I wonder why it was needed to appoint Counsellors of State in June; and why no names were included of whom were appointed Counsellors of State in that period.

Not naming them in the Gazette is the norm. They'd be named in the actual letters patent, but since 1980 the London Gazette just prints a short notification rather than the full text.

You can see the full document for the Germany trip here, with the usual lack of any punctuation whatsoever, and circumlocutions like "Our most dearly beloved Niece Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi".

Was there any special 'business' to be undertaken in that period?

They'd normally just sign the various papers that the monarch has to deal with. I once saw a document signed by the Queen Mother and then-Prince Charles dealing with someone's fine for some kind of road traffic violation. It's mostly very minor stuff like that, I think.

 

[Somebody]

The LPs appointing the Counsellors of State to open parliament in May 2022 also included the names of Harry and Andrew but made clear that as long as Harry was abroad, he could not serve in that capacity. One Counsellor was supposed to 'declare the cause of summons' (which ended up to be Charles) and another needed to be present (William took that role).

 

[Somebody]

Not naming them in the Gazette is the norm. They'd be named in the actual letters patent, but since 1980 the London Gazette just prints a short notification rather than the full text.

You can see the full document for the Germany trip here, with the usual lack of any punctuation whatsoever, and circumlocutions like "Our most dearly beloved Niece Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi".

They'd normally just sign the various papers that the monarch has to deal with. I once saw a document signed by the Queen Mother and then-Prince Charles dealing with someone's fine for some kind of road traffic violation. It's mostly very minor stuff like that, I think.

So, could it be that the duration of a trip might be the deciding factor in deciding whether Counsellors are needed?

Having read two such LPs I now understand much better how it is carried out. For the duration of the king's absence ALL Counsellors of State -unless they are absent or intend to be absent during that period- are appointed and may exercise 'royal functions' jointly with at least two of them present/signing off. In practice, it is likely that the most senior royals present in the UK (not necessarily by order of succession; I guess, in practice the order will be: Camilla, William, Edward, Anne (the latter two might be interchangeable and more dependent on availability) - not sure whether they would call upon Beatrice of Andrew after that; Harry is unavailable given that he is abroad/absent from the UK himself as well).

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

so is prince regent still a thing that could happen if charles need to step back from the non ceremonial stuff?

 

[TLLK]

Not naming them in the Gazette is the norm. They'd be named in the actual letters patent, but since 1980 the London Gazette just prints a short notification rather than the full text.

You can see the full document for the Germany trip here, with the usual lack of any punctuation whatsoever, and circumlocutions like "Our most dearly beloved Niece Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi".



They'd normally just sign the various papers that the monarch has to deal with. I once saw a document signed by the Queen Mother and then-Prince Charles dealing with someone's fine for some kind of road traffic violation. It's mostly very minor stuff like that, I think.

Thank you for sharing the notification. I found it interesting reading.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

so is prince regent still a thing that could happen if charles need to step back from the non ceremonial stuff?

The Regency Act 1937 (which is still in place) stipulates:

[...]

2 Regency during total incapacity of the Sovereign.

(1) If the following persons or any three or more of them, that is to say, the wife or husband of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls, declare in writing that they are satisfied by evidence which shall include the evidence of physicians that 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, then, until it is declared in like manner that His Majesty has so far recovered His health as to warrant His resumption of the royal functions or has become available for the performance thereof, as the case may be, those functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent.

(2) A declaration under this section shall be made to the Privy Council and communicated to the Governments of His Majesty’s Dominions.


3 The Regent.

(1) If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown.

(2) A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom, or is a person who would, under section two of the Act of Settlement, be incapable of inheriting, possessing, and enjoying the Crown, or is a person disqualified from succeeding to the Crown by virtue of section 3(3) of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013; and section three of the Act of Settlement shall apply in the case of a Regent as it applies in the case of a Sovereign.

[...]

​

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16

 

[Durham]

so is prince regent still a thing that could happen if charles need to step back from the non ceremonial stuff?

Yes in that a prince would be the regent but no in the sense that I suspect the Prince of Wales would not be be known as, or have the title, The Prince Regent as happened between 1811-1820