The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Mbruno]

There is some speculation in the press about Andrew and Harry being potentially removed from the Counsellor of State roles

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Andrew-Harry-two-four-Counsellors-State.html

Not surprising at all. I am not sure how it would be done legally, but I can't imagine Andrew or Harry serving as Counsellors of State under present circumstances.

Interestingly, with Harry and Andrew excluded, if the current maximum number of possible Counsellors of State is maintained, that means Beatrice and Eugenie get a spot too until William's children come of age. I wonder how that will be handled.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Courtiers are entitled to speculate to the press, but as they acknowledge in the article, amending the current legislation could only be accomplished by Parliament.

It would seem to be an academic issue at the moment, as neither of them are likely to be actually called upon in the near future.

Not surprising at all. I am not sure how it would be done legally, but I can't imagine Andrew or Harry serving as Counsellors of State under present circumstances.

But can you imagine them serving as King? Both dukes remain fully entitled to that role.

 

[Mbruno]

Courtiers are entitled to speculate to the press, but as they acknowledge in the article, amending the current legislation could only be accomplished by Parliament.

It would seem to be an academic issue at the moment, as neither of them are likely to be actually called upon in the near future.



But can you imagine them serving as King? Both dukes remain fully entitled to that role.

Serving as King would require that they outlive several people above them. Serving as Counsellor of State requires only that the Queen be out of the country/ unavailable and that either Charles or William, or both, be temporarily unavailable too. It is not a very likely scenario either, but more likely than becoming King.

A better question would have been if I can see them, especially Harry, serving as Regent. Under current legislation, there seems to be some overlap between eligibility to serve as Regent and as Counsellor of State. In fact, a Counsellor of State is in a way similar to what in other monarchies like Sweden would be called a Regent ad interim or pro tempore. I assume that, if Parliament reopens the criteria for eligibility to become Counsellor of State, it will deal with regencies too as actually both categories are specified in the same act of Parliament.

 

[muriel]

Courtiers are entitled to speculate to the press, but as they acknowledge in the article, amending the current legislation could only be accomplished by Parliament.

It would seem to be an academic issue at the moment, as neither of them are likely to be actually called upon in the near future.

Academic as it may be, but I do not see the government not supporting HM's will in this regard, if that was indeed the case. This is not a divisive issue, and should receive support across the Commons and Lords.

 

[muriel]

A better question would have been if I can see them, especially Harry, serving as Regent. Under current legislation, there seems to be some overlap between eligibility to serve as Regent and as Counsellor of State. In fact, a Counsellor of State is in a way similar to what in other monarchies like Sweden would be called a Regent ad interim or pro tempore. I assume that, if Parliament reopens the criteria for eligibility to become Counsellor of State, it will deal with regencies too as actually both categories are specified in the same act of Parliament.

Trickier issue. Removing them from the ability to act as Regent will need to be reconciled with their position in the position in line to the throne. Not sure BP is willing to go quite that far just yet.

 

[Mbruno]

Trickier issue. Removing them from the ability to act as Regent will need to be reconciled with their position in the position in line to the throne. Not sure BP is willing to go quite that far just yet.

But serving as Counsellor of State is currently also attached to either being the monarch's spouse or being one of the first four people in the line of succession who is of age, domiciled in the UK and a British subject (the latter in the original wording of the act; nowadays I assume "British subject" could be interpreted as usual as meaning a citizen of any Commonwealth realm). Hence my remark that, by removing Harry and Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would currently take their spots under present law.

 

[muriel]

But serving as Counsellor of State is currently also attached to either being the monarch's spouse or being one of the first four people in the line of succession who is of age, domiciled in the UK and a British subject (the latter in the original wording of the act; nowadays I assume "British subject" could be interpreted as usual as meaning a citizen of any Commonwealth realm). Hence my remark that, by removing Harry and Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie would currently take their spots under present law.

I should clarify. I think the part of the legislation that lays out who can be a Counsellor of State ("CoS") needs to be amended. IMO, the propsoed changes should clearly lay out that the following can serve as CoS:

(A) The heir and their spouse
(B) The heir of the heir and their spouse
(C) At the discretion of the monarch and with the approval of the Prime Minister, other children of the monarch resident (and not domiciled) in the UK or their spouses.

(A) and (B) should be "hard wired" in the legislation, whilst (C) provides the monarch some discretion in the matter, subject to the PM's consent.

This should result in only the senior most royals and their spouses being allowed to serve as CoS. I have nothing against Betrice & Eugenie, but I just do not believe it is right that they should be serving as CoS. They are far too remote from the throne, and do not represent the Crown.

 

[lucien]

Considering that Charles' coronation is a definite thing that *is* going to happen while Charles deciding if and when to invest his eldest son as The Prince of Wales is totally something that is known only to Charles at this time, I'd wager right now that the *only* given event sure to happen would be Charles' coronation.

I'm pretty sure that as most people alive on the planet today cannot remember the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 (I was a year old), a British coronation is going to be something *huge* for everybody. I expect all the pomp and circumstance and the banners and street parties but also elements implemented to reflect the 21st century we're living in.

More like the Dutch form in 2013,it was lavish yet not overdone,stylish and in keeping with the 21st century.

 

[muriel]

There is a specific thread for the topic of Counsellors of State which may be useful.

Counsellors of State

Might I request the Mods to move the conversation re Counsellors of State to the correct thread, thank you.

 

[BriarRose]

It would make sense to remove them but not sure about all the implications of doing so. For Harry, they could argue that he is no longer domiciled in the UK, for Andrew that argument wouldn't work. And I don't think the fact that a foreign civil case is ongoing would be a valid argument (legally).

They wouldn't need a legal argument. It's a law that can be changed by another law.

The law itself isn't very old either. (less than a hundred years). A change wouldn't be disrupting some long-standing tradition or anything.

 

[muriel]

They wouldn't need a legal argument. It's a law that can be changed by another law.

The law itself isn't very old either. (less than a hundred years). A change wouldn't be disrupting some long-standing tradition or anything.

I agree. The government, working in consultation with BP, should move swiftly and address this matter.

 

[BriarRose]

Funnily enough, they should probably just pass a law rescinding the 1937 Act completely as it pertains to the Counselors of State.

Then go back to the old system: Each monarch to pass their own rules for regency. The Queen can pass an act naming four people, and then Charles can do the same when he is King.

I can understand why a more permanent solution was created, but it ignores the modern truth that not all adults in line for the throne can easily step in, even under the best of circumstances. (I doubt Harry will be the last sibling of a future King to not work as a full-time royal).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Being a full-time royal is irrelevant and there have been non-royals who have served as well e.g. the late Earl of Harewood served for a number of years at the start of the Queen's reign.

The system works so long as they clarify what 'domiciled' means.

The last time CoS's were actually used was 2002 by the way.

 

[muriel]

Being a full-time royal is irrelevant and there have been non-royals who have served as well e.g. the late Earl of Harewood served for a number of years at the start of the Queen's reign.

The system works so long as they clarify what 'domiciled' means.

The last time CoS's were actually used was 2002 by the way.

Whilst clarification of the term "domiciled" may potentially solve the Harry problem, it does not deal with the current issue of Andrew. Also, as a British subject, I would much rather see Camilla and Catherine serve as CoS than Beatrice, Eugenie, Andrew or Harry. Hence my suggested solution upthread in post 1777.

 

[yukari]

Since the plan seems to be heading to slimming down royal, even without Andrew and Harry's problem I think it makes sense if the CoS being reevaluated in general.

Unlike 50 years ago, foreign tour is no longer last for months (What's the longest tour done by the queen or any royal in the last decade? 2 weeks?) and also communication is more advance now (email, video link, etc).

Is it necessary to be six, why not less? I mean, wouldn't it be strange if half of CoS end up consist of private citizens (non-working royals) because CoS required 5 people in the LoS while the active working royals only consist of monarch, heir, heir's heir, and their spouses?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Currently the CoS are the first four in the line of succession over 21, other than the heir apparent who is 18. The spouse of the monarch is the fifth. They haven't been used since 2002 which means that although William and Harry have been eligible to serve neither has as there has been no need for them.

Over the years a non-working royal has served and there is no reason why the CoS has to be a working royal. The Duke of Gloucester's first period as a CoS he wasn't a working royal and his older brother was largely a non-working royal his entire life, including his period as CoS (so for a couple of years at least 50% of the CoS's were non-working royals and a third was to a large extent non-functioning i.e. The Duke of Gloucester himself after his stroke until his death).

 

[Claire]

Question - what do you think about the removal of HRH from all royals except the direct heir and his eldest child? So essentially only the monarchy and their spouse and the heir - and their spouse will have honorifics.

 

[BriarRose]

Personally, I have been a believer in this for a while.

However, I think the Queen and Prince Charles may consider it too drastic of a change. I don't think my opinion would matter much to them.

 

[Durham]

Question - what do you think about the removal of HRH from all royals except the direct heir and his eldest child? So essentially only the monarchy and their spouse and the heir - and their spouse will have honorifics.

I've argued something similar previously. It's a radical solution but unfortunately (despite the good ones) we have irresponsible, arrogant & entitled individuals who have caused a lot of damage & brought the monarchy into disrepute.

The monarch is always the Duke of Lancaster so younger children are already Lord & Lady so & so. They don't have to be princes & princesses as well. Keep that status for the heir. As private individuals these younger children would probably have happier lives anyway. They would certainly be spared the nonsensical idea that they're something special just by virtue of their birth.

Spouses should be given a choice about whether they want a public life.

 

[Mbruno]

Question - what do you think about the removal of HRH from all royals except the direct heir and his eldest child? So essentially only the monarchy and their spouse and the heir - and their spouse will have honorifics.

That is what they do in Norway today (only Haakon Magnus, Mette-Marit and Ingrid Alexandra are HRHs). I find it an exaggeration. I am fine with all children of the monarch and all children of the heir being HRHs. For the spouses, however, I favor restricting the HRH only to the spouses of the heir and of the heir's eldest child.

 

[Sionevar]

How about - HRH for the children of the monarch, HH for the children of the heir apparent, Lord and Lady for everyone else?

At the very least, they need to restrict the HRH to the direct line only. Stop creating collateral HRH branches like the Yorks, the Gloucesters and the Kents.

 

[Sionevar]

That is what they do in Norway today (only Haakon Magnus, Mette-Marit and Ingrid Alexandra are HRHs). I find it an exaggeration. I am fine with all children of the monarch and all children of the heir being HRHs. For the spouses, however, I favor restricting the HRH only to the spouses of the heir and of the heir's eldest child.

I agree about the spouse thing. Especially as it would tackle the gender equality issue in one stroke. In this day and age, there really isn't any good reason why Louis' wife can become a Princess, but Charlotte's husband cannot become a Prince. Your idea would eliminate the problem completely.

 

[Mbruno]

How about - HRH for the children of the monarch, HH for the children of the heir apparent, Lord and Lady for everyone else?

At the very least, they need to restrict the HRH to the direct line only. Stop creating collateral HRH branches like the Yorks, the Gloucesters and the Kents.

The HRH style dies out automatically in the collateral branches. None of the children of the current Dukes of Gloucester or Kent are HRHs for example, and none of the grandchildren of the current Duke of York are or will be HRHs either.

I would be more concerned with the habit of giving hereditary peerages to princes as those may stay with a collateral branch for centuries (unlike the HRH style) and still carry some associated rights and privileges in the UK.

I agree about the spouse thing. Especially as it would tackle the gender equality issue in one stroke. In this day and age, there really isn't any good reason why Louis' wife can become a Princess, but Charlotte's husband cannot become a Prince. Your idea would eliminate the problem completely.

Actually I was inspired by the current Spanish model where only the spouse of the heir (male or female) is an HRH, but the spouses of the Infantes/Infantas (the other HRHs who are not the heir) are not. That also excludes BTW the heir's eldest child's spouse, but I find that last restriction excessive.

To compensate for that, the King of Spain now normally awards the equivalent to life peerages to Infantes/Infantas upon marriage, so that their spouses can also use them as courtesy titles, e.g. the wife of an Infante or Infanta would normally be a courtesy Duchess or Duke.

 

[wartenberg7]

How about - HRH for the children of the monarch, HH for the children of the heir apparent, Lord and Lady for everyone else?

At the very least, they need to restrict the HRH to the direct line only. Stop creating collateral HRH branches like the Yorks, the Gloucesters and the Kents.

Why?! I cannot see how this would change anything for the better.
Would these kind of ideas would have come up without that Andrew scandal?
And what have the Gloucesters and the Kents to do with it?!
I am a traditionalist, and tradition is the very essence of the monarchy. Without it, it is just any other institution.
Princes Richard and Edward are both royal Dukes and Princes of the blood Royal, sons of Princes of the blood Royal, grandsons of a monarch. By that, they and their spouses are HRHs. It´s been that way for hundreds of years and should not be changed because of an illfitted, scandalous Prince!

 

[Sionevar]

The HRH style dies out automatically in the collateral branches. None of the children of the current Dukes of Gloucester or Kent are HRHs for example, and none of the grandchildren of the current Duke of York are or will be HRHs either.

I would be more concerned with the habit of giving hereditary peerages to princes as those may stay with a collateral branch for centuries (unlike the HRH style) and still carry some associated rights and privileges in the UK.

I agree. Maybe give a peerage title to the immediate heirs who would otherwise be just Prince or Princess, but that's it.

Either that, or grant the peerages for life only, similar to Sweden.

Gloucester *may* come back to the royal fold, as there are only two male heirs after Richard, but I suspect Kent is lost for good.

 

[Durham]

Why?! I cannot see how this would change anything for the better.
Would these kind of ideas would have come up without that Andrew scandal?
And what have the Gloucesters and the Kents to do with it?!
I am a traditionalist, and tradition is the very essence of the monarchy. Without it, it is just any other institution.
Princes Richard and Edward are both royal Dukes and Princes of the blood Royal, sons of Princes of the blood Royal, grandsons of a monarch. By that, they and their spouses are HRHs. It´s been that way for hundreds of years and should not be changed because of an illfitted, scandalous Prince!

The status of the monarch's relatives is in the gift of the sovereign. I'd argue that the very essence of the English/Scottish monarchy is really just the monarch. Everybody else is superfluous. Even the heir has no constitutional status.

I can see what you're saying but at one time great grandsons in the male line were HH princes. But that was ended.

And there are after all more ancient English ways of describing the family of the sovereign that predate the Hanoverians. Old English traditions if you like.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why?! I cannot see how this would change anything for the better.
Would these kind of ideas would have come up without that Andrew scandal?
And what have the Gloucesters and the Kents to do with it?!
I am a traditionalist, and tradition is the very essence of the monarchy. Without it, it is just any other institution.
Princes Richard and Edward are both royal Dukes and Princes of the blood Royal, sons of Princes of the blood Royal, grandsons of a monarch. By that, they and their spouses are HRHs. It´s been that way for hundreds of years and should not be changed because of an illfitted, scandalous Prince!

The rules that made the Gloucesters and Kents HRH are only 104 years old - the 1917 Letters Patent. Queen Victoria changed the rules herself a number of times in her lifetime and earlier monarchs had done the same thing. Even Elizabeth II changed the rules in 2012.

A good example are the changes in the past 123 years for the children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales:

When Edward VIII, George VI and Princess Mary were born they were born HH as the children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

In 1898 Queen Victoria gave them all HRH status.

In 1917 George V limited HRH to only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

In 2012 Elizabeth II returned the status to the one Queen Victoria had set in 1898.

At some point in the future that will need to be changed again as when the eldest child of the Prince of Wales is female and thus heir apparent in their generation their children will be 'Lord' or 'Lady' assuming that her husband has been made a Peer of the Realm or Miss/Mr is no such title is forthcoming.

 

[Stefan]

I find that much to radical. I would say children of the Monarch HRH Prince/Princess and those of younger sons HH Prince/Princess.

 

[Stefan]

Actually I was inspired by the current Spanish model where only the spouse of the heir (male or female) is an HRH, but the spouses of the Infantes/Infantas (the other HRHs who are not the heir) are not. That also excludes BTW the heir's eldest child's spouse, but I find that last restriction excessive.

We don't know hoe the wife of a potential younger son os a spanish King would be styled as there hasn't been a younger son in the last generations and there is no one in the next generation. Could well have been that she would be made Infanta de gracias.

 

[Mbruno]

We don't know hoe the wife of a potential younger son os a spanish King would be styled as there hasn't been a younger son in the last generations and there is no one in the next generation. Could well have been that she would be made Infanta de gracias.

I replied in the Titles of the Spanish RF forum.