Counsellors of State

[iowabelle]

It wouldn't be inappropriate for Camilla to take on this role, especially since her powers would be limited to those of the monarch... and the UK is a constitutional monarchy. I'm sure she would be very conscientious about carrying out her husband's wishes.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

Basically, it means that if the monarch is out of the country the Counsellors of State can take the monarch's place. However, two CoSs have to be present. They can do the red boxes, recieve ambassadors, attend privy council meets and pretty much anything else the monarch delegates to them. Before they leave the country, the monarch names the Counsellors who'll be doing her duty in the UK whilst they are absent. For example, when the Queen visited Malta in 2005 Charles, William and Harry were Counsellors of State. All this would mean is that if Charles went anywhere as King without Camilla, the Counsellors of State would be Camilla, William and Harry.

Thank you for the explanation. I understand now.

 

[BeatrixFan]

It wouldn't be inappropriate for Camilla to take on this role, especially since her powers would be limited to those of the monarch... and the UK is a constitutional monarchy. I'm sure she would be very conscientious about carrying out her husband's wishes.

Why is it inappropriate? Almost every other member of the Royal Family has done it, why not Camilla.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

Why is it inappropriate? Almost every other member of the Royal Family has done it, why not Camilla.

I think iowabelle said it would NOT be inappropriate for Camilla to take on that role.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Sorry iowabelle - blame the fact that I'm still waiting on new glasses!

 

[iowabelle]

Sorry iowabelle - blame the fact that I'm still waiting on new glasses!

No problem, Sam. It was a difficult sentence to read!

I have every confidence that Camilla wouldn't do something silly, like threaten to behead Gordon Brown, or decree that everybody should wear purple on Mondays.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As do I. But if worse came to worst, I think that the others--with wise counsel and dedication--would "step up to the plate."

As certainly Beatrice will serve, or be eligible to serve, as a Coucillor of State, she most certainly has been trained as to the role by her grandmother. How much training Eugenie has had isn't as clear as there is less possibility of her needing to but it is still certainly a strong possibility.

Councillors of State are the next four adults in line to the throne over 21 so until William and or Harry have children reach 21 Beatrice will be serving during the reigns of Charles and even possibly William. For her to never serve the Queen will have to be alive to see William or Harry's eldest child reach 21 and as neither of them are married that means at least another 22 years reaching 105 and Charles being older than his mother is now. If William becomes King in the mean time then both Beatrice and Eugenie would be serving (which is why I don't see them as minor royals - they can be called upon to do the job of the monarch when the monarch is out of the country, like their father, uncle and cousins can now.)

The other person eligible to be a Councillor of State is the spouse of the monarch e.g. Philip and the Queen Mother kept that right until her death so I would assume that if Philip outlived the Queen he would retain that right. I would also assume that Camilla would be able to serve once Charles is King and would keep that right until her death. Those last two points aren't a given of course but my assumptions.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This could be why they have full-time police protection as well. Thank you for the additional info re: Councillors of State.

 

[wbenson]

The other person eligible to be a Councillor of State is the spouse of the monarch e.g. Philip and the Queen Mother kept that right until her death so I would assume that if Philip outlived the Queen he would retain that right.

He wouldn't retain it automatically. The Queen Mother lost her right when her husband died, but it was restored by the Regency Act 1953. The provision only applied to her, though, so Philip (and Camilla) would have to be granted an exception (or a more general change would have to be made).

 

[Opal]

So hypothetically if Charles granted Camilla an exception just like the Queen Mum was granted (which I could see him doing), then Beatrice or Eugenie wouldn't be serving as Councillor of State even when Charles becomes King. The four people would be Camilla, Prince Andrew, William and Harry.
Either way it seems a far way off as I could see the Queen living into her 90's like her mother did.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So hypothetically if Charles granted Camilla an exception just like the Queen Mum was granted (which I could see him doing), then Beatrice or Eugenie wouldn't be serving as Councillor of State even when Charles becomes King. The four people would be Camilla, Prince Andrew, William and Harry.
Either way it seems a far way off as I could see the Queen living into her 90's like her mother did.

No - the four in line of succession are automatic.

The extras are just that - extras.

e.g. at the moment there are actually five eligible - Charles, William, Harry, Andrew and Philip. During much of the Queen's reign there were six - the next four in line plus Philip and the Queen Mother.

If Camilla is granted that status then she would be extra to William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice (assuming that neither William nor Harry have a child aged 21 or Andrew has a son aged 21).

Even if the Queen lived to the same age as her mother (101) which is 18 years away the fact that neither William nor Harry are yet married let alone fathers means that there is a very good chance that Beatrice will have to serve for some years.

Say William announced his engagement on these alleged June dates and the marriage did take place in November (as per the latest rumour). The earliest a child would be born would be August 2011 (assuming of course that Kate doesn't walk down the aisle pregnant and the baby goes to term). That child wouldn't be 21 until August 2032. The Queen would need to be 106 for that child to be 21 in the current reign, Charles will be 83 and even Andrew 72. Given those ages, and the very real possibility that William won't be marrying this year, Beatrice will serve as a Councillor of State at some stage. The longer it takes for either William or Harry to marry and have a child the greater the chance that not only will Beatrice serve but even the possibility that Eugenie might have to as well. Say William waits until he leaves the military in 2013 to marry and then the child isn't born until 2014 meaning 2035 so the Queen then needs to be 109 to stop Beatrice from serving and by then Charles will be 83 - the age his mother is now.

 

[Opal]

So according to what you're saying, if the Queen passed away (say next year) and Prince Philip outlived her then Beatrice would still take precedence over her grandfather because he is considered an "extra" even if he's granted an exception?

 

[Iluvbertie]

So according to what you're saying, if the Queen passed away (say next year) and Prince Philip outlived her then Beatrice would still take precedence over her grandfather because he is considered an "extra" even if he's granted an exception?

Yes because she is automatically a counsellor of state whereas he wouldn't be.

She would get precedence for this role not necessarily in other areas.

NB Although Philip has been eligible throughout the Queen's reign he has never served because they have only been appointed when the Queen has been out of the country and Philip has always accompanied her.

Usually only one or two need to be appointed each time.

If the Queen passed away next year then Beatrice would immediately be eligible even if Philip was allowed to remain on the list as she would then be 4th in line to the throne whereas Philip would only be the father of the King and about 600th in line in his own right (I am sure that someone will tell be exactly where he is now).

 

[Opal]

Yes because she is automatically a counsellor of state whereas he wouldn't be.

She would get precedence for this role not necessarily in other areas.

Hm, I understand what you're saying, however I'm not sure it would be a good idea. If the Queen passed away (God forbid) it seems more appropriate for Prince Philip to be a Counsellor of State given his experience with the monarchy, knowledge and wisdom. I think Beatrice would be way too young and inexperienced for such a position. Perhaps later yes, but not now. But well, we don't decide these sorts of things and hopefully it won't be an issue anytime soon.

 

[Sereta]

What exactly does a Counsellor of State do? I mean, what are all there responsibilities?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Counsellors of State carry out the duties of the monarch when the monarch is out of the country meaning that they can sign legislation and do other things that the monarch has to do.

One of the things that the Queen has done is ensure that her children and relevant grandchildren are fully trained to do that duty if called upon to do so.

What training she ever gave to Philip is unknown as he has never been called upon to serve.

 

[Opal]

The Counsellors of State carry out the duties of the monarch when the monarch is out of the country meaning that they can sign legislation and do other things that the monarch has to do.

One of the things that the Queen has done is ensure that her children and relevant grandchildren are fully trained to do that duty if called upon to do so.

What training she ever gave to Philip is unknown as he has never been called upon to serve.

I'm not so sure this has been done already with Beatrice. I could see it with William but not Beatrice.
I think Philip has been around it all for so long, that he could probably replace the Queen if need be.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm not so sure this has been done already with Beatrice. I could see it with William but not Beatrice.
I think Philip has been around it all for so long, that he could probably replace the Queen if need be.

Are you suggesting that the Queen has been negligent in one of her duties - making sure that those that need to know how to operate as a Councillor of State do know how to do so?

I don't think she would neglect that side of her job.

I think, and in fact am fairly sure, that she has trained all her children (who have all served) and her grandchildren as needed because that is part of her job - to make sure that those that need to be able to do something can do so.

Philip has never been called to do so and has never seen a state paper but I her children have as they have operated as Councillors of State at different times. William and Harry have both been trained and I see no reason to assume that Beatrice hasn't been as well with a dedicated Queen like we currently have. She knows that Beatrice will have to serve at some point so would have made sure that she is aware of what is required.

 

[Tyger]

I don't think there are any plans for them to visit any, with HM and Prince Philip away (hate bringing that up) Charles and Camilla going away would only leave the minor royals at home.

Now this is an interesting point - does the Monarch and the Heir never leave the country at the same time? Like something similar with the President and Vice President of the US? A fail safe?

But those minor royals - are we afraid they will get up to no good - like 'take over' - if both the monarch and heir are not around to oversee the situation?

 

[Osipi]

Now this is an interesting point - does the Monarch and the Heir never leave the country at the same time? Like something similar with the President and Vice President of the US? A fail safe?

But those minor royals - are we afraid they will get up to no good - like 'take over' - if both the monarch and heir are not around to oversee the situation?

If I'm not mistaken, that's what they have 4 Councilors of State. Perhaps Lumutqueen or someone that in more knowledgeable is this respect can fill us in?

 

[wbenson]

Now this is an interesting point - does the Monarch and the Heir never leave the country at the same time?

They both traveled (separately) to Uganda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2007. They also both went (again traveling separately) to Montreal in 1976 for the Olympics, along with the Queen's other three children. It looks like they were both out of the UK on separate trips in 1997, too. The Queen was in Canada, and the Prince of Wales was in Hong Kong.

There are five members of the royal family eligible to serve as counsellors of state during the Queen's absence. The Duke of Edinburgh obviously rarely gets to do so since he almost always travels with the Queen, but even if the Prince of Wales was absent, that would still leave the Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry, and the Duke of York. (A repeat of the 1976 trip might not have been possible without legislation from 1985 until 2005, when the absence of the Duke of Edinburgh and all four of his and the Queen's children wouldn't have left the necessary two counsellors of state.)

 

[Tyger]

There are five members of the royal family eligible to serve as counsellors of state during the Queen's absence. The Duke of Edinburgh obviously rarely gets to do so since he almost always travels with the Queen, but even if the Prince of Wales was absent, that would still leave the Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry, and the Duke of York. (A repeat of the 1976 trip might not have been possible without legislation from 1985 until 2005, when the absence of the Duke of Edinburgh and all four of his and the Queen's children wouldn't have left the necessary two counsellors of state.)

Poor Edward! He's left out. Isn't it always the way with the youngest born! Or maybe its just that the number is five and when the DoE passes, Edward will then be part of the number 5, sort of move into it?

I don't understand what you're saying about the legislation from 1985 until 2005. What legislation was that and what did it do?

 

[Elly C]

Poor Edward! He's left out. Isn't it always the way with the youngest born!

What about the Princess Royal? The sooner the UK abandons this ridiculous attitude to women the better (sorry I know I'm straying from the thread but I just had to say it)

 

[Lumutqueen]

Now this is an interesting point - does the Monarch and the Heir never leave the country at the same time? Like something similar with the President and Vice President of the US? A fail safe?

But those minor royals - are we afraid they will get up to no good - like 'take over' - if both the monarch and heir are not around to oversee the situation?

When I was writing, I kind of had in mind that it was more a ceremonial thing to have either HM and Philip in the country and Charles and Camilla. Neither did I have in mind that the minor royals would take over. Just that it would leave Anne, Andrew, Edward, Alexandra, Richard, Edward and possibly William wholly representing a country who barely hears about them. William being the exception.

What about the Princess Royal? The sooner the UK abandons this ridiculous attitude to women the better (sorry I know I'm straying from the thread but I just had to say it)

Abandoning that 'ridiculous' attitude to woman will do nothing for Anne. If any legislation were to change either for the line of succession or for any other reason it would not change Anne's position behind her brothers. As for the the 'UK' having this attitude, I think you should change the use of UK to royalty. I have no problem with women in power, not just because I am a women myself. I also know a lot of other people who think highly of Anne, and that the laws currently in place should be altered. You're anger should be directed to the people who can change the law.

 

[NGalitzine]

Counsellors of State do not have to be the Queens children. They can be any adult in line of succession, so even if the Queen and all her children were away you would still have William, Henry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter,Zara, The Gloucesters and the Kents should the need arise. There is no need for a Counsellor to be an HRH as the late Earl of Harewood fulfilled the role in the late 40's and early 50's.

 

[wbenson]

Poor Edward! He's left out. Isn't it always the way with the youngest born! Or maybe its just that the number is five and when the DoE passes, Edward will then be part of the number 5, sort of move into it?

The number is 4 plus the monarch's consort (plus the Queen Mother when she was alive; that was a provision made by name, however, so it doesn't apply prospectively to any future former consorts). If the Duke of Edinburgh dies before the Queen, his spot won't be taken by anybody.

I don't understand what you're saying about the legislation from 1985 until 2005. What legislation was that and what did it do?

There was no legislation. What I mean is that in the hypothetical event of a repeat of the 1976 trip, legislation would have been necessary, as there wouldn't have been enough Counsellors of State remaining in the country. Legislation would have been needed to allow other people to be appointed. [ETA: Maybe or maybe not. See the next paragraph.] (From 1985 to 2002 and 2003 to 2005 there only would only have been one. From 2002 to 2003 there would have been none, as the Queen Mother had died and Prince William hadn't yet turned 21.)

Counsellors of State do not have to be the Queens children. They can be any adult in line of succession, so even if the Queen and all her children were away you would still have William, Henry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter,Zara, The Gloucesters and the Kents should the need arise. There is no need for a Counsellor to be an HRH as the late Earl of Harewood fulfilled the role in the late 40's and early 50's.

I was going to say that only the first four in the line of succession who meet the qualifications were eligible, but the Regency Acts are actually perhaps a little unclear on that. It says that the Counsellors of State include "the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, are next in the line of succession to the Crown." The same section of the Act also says that "Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person" who is or will be absent from the country, but it doesn't explicitly state if that is or isn't a "disqualification" for the purposes of moving on to another person in the line of succession.

 

[Elly C]

Just glancing back through this interesting thread which my earlier post was moved to. If I have understood earlier postings correctly, the Queen could, if she chose to, make her eldest daughter a counsellor of state without really causing a major upheaval about hereditary succession- call me naive but would it really "upset the apple cart"?

 

[Zonk]

Poor Edward! He's left out. Isn't it always the way with the youngest born! Or maybe its just that the number is five and when the DoE passes, Edward will then be part of the number 5, sort of move into it?

I don't understand what you're saying about the legislation from 1985 until 2005. What legislation was that and what did it do?

At one Edward was in fact a Counsellor of State but when heirs are higher in the succession reach the age of majority, than his time comes to end. So Edward was a Counsellor from 1985 to 2005, which I believe was the time Prince Harry came of Age. Princess Margaret was a Counsellor until Prince Edward came of age. Princess Anne was a counsellor until 2003, which I think (not checking my math) was the time William came of age.

You should check out this page Counsellor of State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Its wikipedia but it does give a listing of Counsellors.

What is interesting (to me at least) is that a lot of so called "minor royals" at one time or another served...you can see the late Prince Maud, Prince William of Gloucester, the Earl of Harewood, as well as the Kents.

 

[NGalitzine]

Yes, it is just a requirement that the persons in the line of succession be in the country at the time so if there was a period of heavy travel for the senior royals it is within the realm of possibility that William and Harry along with Beatrice and Eugenie or even Peter Phillips could be called upon. Unlikely but still possible. Lord Harewood was at university when he was first called on to serve along with the late Duke of Gloucester. He found it quite an enjoyable break from school.

 

[Tyger]

[...] could be called upon. Unlikely but still possible. Lord Harewood was at university when he was first called on to serve along with the late Duke of Gloucester. He found it quite an enjoyable break from school.

A break? So they really do something? Its not ceremonial? There's enough to do to have a break from school?

Perhaps I should read the thread (I am here because my posts got moved here, too) or the Wikipedia article.