Counsellors of State

[AC21091968]

As far as checking the Court Circular, the Privy Council meetings happened virtually ever since the pandemic. And so far (between 1st January 2020 and 24th February 2021), The Queen is the only Royal Family member attending the meeting.

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular...te]=01/01/2020&date[max][date]=24/02/2021&id=

 

[SLV]

Why was it gathered in 2002?
I've tried googling it, but I just get loads of info about the Dutch equivalent.

There is a difference between a royal being abroad to represent the monarch, even if it means living there to do that duty, and living abroad out of choice. The Duke of Gloucester was the former while Harry is the latter.

Andrew's position is clear - in the UK until there is even a criminal charge laid he is free to do the same things as any other citizen. The UK has a simple legal principle - innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. No charges have been laid against him and until there are and then he is tried and found guilty he is eligible to serve in any and all capacities as is every other person in the same situation. Even when he stepped down the palace confirmed that he was still eligible to serve as a CoS.

I doubt that the government will bother with doing anything about the CoS situation while the Queen is alive as they won't be needed. She is able to discharge all her duties, as we have seen, via technology. If she becomes incapacitated then Charles will be Regent and he is also capable of discharging all the official, constitutional duties of the monarch. The last time a CoS was even called upon was in 2002 - so even though William and Harry are eligible to serve neither have been called upon since becoming eligible (in 2003 and 2005) according to the CC.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As far as checking the Court Circular, the Privy Council meetings happened virtually ever since the pandemic. And so far (between 1st January 2020 and 24th February 2021), The Queen is the only Royal Family member attending the meeting.

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular...te]=01/01/2020&date[max][date]=24/02/2021&id=

Other than the odd occasion when two CoSs chaired a Privy Council or when a royal was being added to the Privy Council e.g. William and Camilla a few years ago, The Queen is the only royal who does attend PC meetings. She and three or four members of the PC are all that are there.

 

[Osipi]

Other than the odd occasion when two CoSs chaired a Privy Council or when a royal was being added to the Privy Council e.g. William and Camilla a few years ago, The Queen is the only royal who does attend PC meetings. She and three or four members of the PC are all that are there.

Aren't there something like 40+ people on the Privy Council at any given time? I think I read that it's a rather large number. Perhaps the Council uses specific people that are best for the issues being discussed at the time and they advise the Queen hence why she sits in on it?

Just wondering.

 

[AC21091968]

Aren't there something like 40+ people on the Privy Council at any given time? I think I read that it's a rather large number. Perhaps the Council uses specific people that are best for the issues being discussed at the time and they advise the Queen hence why she sits in on it?

Just wondering.

Here is a list of Privy Council members which includes partisan (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Commonwealth, Other) and non-partisan (Royal Family/Household, Civil Service, Clergy, HM judiciary, Commonwealth judiciary) people. There are now more than 100 members. The reason for the large number of people is that unless they are being expelled or choose to resign, they keep their position in the Privy Council for life. It's quite rare for resignation and expulsion to happen, the only time it happened was during British parliamentary expenses scandal and members with criminal charges.

https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/

From looking at the Court Circular, for a general Privy Council meeting with no new appointments, they are around 5 members attending. On most occasions, The Lord President and Clerk of the Council attends every meeting. You are right that the Privy Council use specific people that are best for issues being discussed. Depending on what is going to be discussed, the Secretary of State for that departments will attend the meeting.

10 February 2021
Windsor Castle
The Queen held a Council via video link at 2.30 p.m..

There were present: the Rt. Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Lord President), the Rt. Hon. Dr. Thérèse Coffey MP (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions), the Rt. Hon. Dominic Raab MP (Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State) and the Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps MP (Secretary of State for Transport).

Mr. Richard Tilbrook was in attendance as Clerk of the Council.
(...)

16 December 2020
Windsor Castle
(...)
The Queen held a Council via video link at 2.30 p.m..

There were present: the Rt. Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Lord President), the Rt. Hon. Oliver Dowden MP (Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport), the Rt. Hon. Brandon Lewis MP (Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) and the Rt. Hon. Gavin Williamson MP (Secretary of State for Education).

Mr. Richard Tilbrook was in attendance as Clerk of the Council.
(...)

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular...te]=24/02/2020&date[max][date]=24/02/2021&id=

 

[Iluvbertie]

Aren't there something like 40+ people on the Privy Council at any given time? I think I read that it's a rather large number. Perhaps the Council uses specific people that are best for the issues being discussed at the time and they advise the Queen hence why she sits in on it?

Just wondering.

There are over 600 members of the PC but only 4 - 5 attend the meetings - all members of the government, and rarely the PM who will often have his weekly audience with The Queen after the PC meeting.

e.g. On the 10th February 2021

The Queen held a Council via video link at 2.30 p.m..

There were present: the Rt. Hon. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP (Lord President), the Rt. Hon. Dr. Thérèse Coffey MP (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions), the Rt. Hon. Dominic Raab MP (Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State) and the Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps MP (Secretary of State for Transport).

Mr. Richard Tilbrook was in attendance as Clerk of the Council.

So 4 MPs and the Clerk of the Council and The Queen.

The only time there are more present is when a number have to take the oath after a change in government e.g. when Boris became PM and formed his first government in 2019 (25th July) and 14 members attended while an additional 5 were sworn in as members of the PC.

 

[Eskimo]

I guess Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be eligible to serve as counselors of State sooner rather than later replacing The Duke of Edinburg and Prince Charles

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Duke of Edinburgh isn't replaced when he dies as he is a CoS due to being the consort of the monarch.

Beatrice will replace Charles when Charles becomes King - assuming that George isn't 21 by then i.e. that the Queen doesn't live for another 14+ years.

There are four CoS's based on line of succession and one based on being the spouse of the monarch. The Queen Mother was an additional CoS as the spouse of the previous monarch. When she died, in 2002, she wasn't replaced at all.

 

[Mbruno]

The Duke of Edinburgh isn't replaced when he dies as he is a CoS due to being the consort of the monarch.

Beatrice will replace Charles when Charles becomes King - assuming that George isn't 21 by then i.e. that the Queen doesn't live for another 14+ years.

There are four CoS's based on line of succession and one based on being the spouse of the monarch. The Queen Mother was an additional CoS as the spouse of the previous monarch. When she died, in 2002, she wasn't replaced at all.

Won't Camilla be a CoS too when Charles is king though? That way, there will still be five possible CoS's in the next reign.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Won't Camilla be a CoS too when Charles is king though? That way, there will still be five possible CoS's in the next reign.

Yes she will be but not until Charles is King so not a direct replacement for Philip.

Philip could leave us this year and the Queen live for another 10 years during which time there would only be four CoSs.

If The Queen were to leave us this year then Camilla would automatically become a CoS and Philip stop being one, unless the law was passed to allow him to continue in that role.

 

[Durham]

Various reports about CofS brought on by concerns over who's available when in the event of HM contracting covid.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...covid-prince-of-wales-edinburgh-b2012531.html

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/queens-covid-scare-sparks-debate-26209506

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-covid-scare-exposes-glaring-26210065

 

[Iluvbertie]

Even if the Queen contracted covid there is no reason why she couldn't still carry out her essential duties - via phone or video. She has had most of the essential events that way now for about two years - i.e. she has had about 4 actual audiences with the PM while the rest have been via telephone and the Privy Council meetings have been via video for the most part over the past two years as well.

No CoSs have been needed for about 20 years now and whether Harry even meets the requirements now is debateable as he has to be 'domiciled in the UK'. If he isn't domiciled in the UK anymore the only question is about Andrew.

 

[Durham]

Even if the Queen contracted covid there is no reason why she couldn't still carry out her essential duties - via phone or video. She has had most of the essential events that way now for about two years - i.e. she has had about 4 actual audiences with the PM while the rest have been via telephone and the Privy Council meetings have been via video for the most part over the past two years as well.

No CoSs have been needed for about 20 years now and whether Harry even meets the requirements now is debateable as he has to be 'domiciled in the UK'. If he isn't domiciled in the UK anymore the only question is about Andrew.

I think the bigger issue is more about whether the present system remains appropriate for the UK. Reform is overdue. I'm not convinced that any relative of the monarch, other than those in direct line of succession, have any business in the governance of the country. That thinking belongs to a different age.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The last time Counsellors of State were used was in 2002 and hardly at all before that anyway. They really are simply an instrument for the monarch's duties to be completed when the monarch is unavailable and having those in the line of succession makes sense, unless you are going to limit the line of succession to the heir apparent in each generation and not have any line longer than that so everyone from Charlotte down would be remoed from the line of succession.

 

[Durham]

The last time Counsellors of State were used was in 2002 and hardly at all before that anyway. They really are simply an instrument for the monarch's duties to be completed when the monarch is unavailable and having those in the line of succession makes sense, unless you are going to limit the line of succession to the heir apparent in each generation and not have any line longer than that so everyone from Charlotte down would be remoed from the line of succession.

Not removed from the line of succession just not eligible for this role. There are possible candidates. Speakers of the various parliaments/assemblies for instance. There will be others. Where there's a will & all that.

It just feels peculiar that an individual would be tasked with such a role solely by virtue of their relationship to the monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The problem with politicians etc is that they have a political view and doing the necessary official duties - i.e. meeting with the PM and chairing the Privy Council means a person has to be apolitical. The only people who aren't allowed to have a political opinion are the members of the BRF.

As the job of Counsellor of State is the duties of the monarch is makes perfect sense that the role is done by someone who is related to the monarch and is in line to be the monarch more than someone who can never have that role.

 

[muriel]

This is what I think the part of the legislation that lays out who can be a Counsellor of State ("CoS") needs to be amended to. IMO, the proposed changes should clearly lay out that the following can serve as CoS:
(A) The spouse of the monarch
(B) The heir and their spouse
(C) The heir of the heir and their spouse
(D) At the discretion of the monarch and with the approval of the Prime Minister, other children of the monarch resident (and not just domiciled) in the UK.

(A), (B) and (C) should be "hard wired" in the legislation, whilst (D) 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 Beatrice & 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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The problem with politicians etc is that they have a political view and doing the necessary official duties - i.e. meeting with the PM and chairing the Privy Council means a person has to be apolitical. The only people who aren't allowed to have a political opinion are the members of the BRF.

As the job of Counsellor of State is the duties of the monarch is makes perfect sense that the role is done by someone who is related to the monarch and is in line to be the monarch more than someone who can never have that role.

Agreed. As someone pointed out in a recent discussion here, the name of Counsellor of State is somewhat misleading. The role is in truth a Regent ad interim for the apolitical monarch, not a counsellor on political affairs of state.

Other than the possible inclusion of consort(s), I don't see a reason for the line of succession to the role of regent ad interim to diverge from the line of succession to the crown. The Government has determined that it would be acceptable for the Duke of York, the Duke of Sussex, and the King of Norway to carry out the duties of the UK monarch on a permanent basis, as proven by the Government's choice not to remove any of them from the line of succession to the British Crown. And if these individuals are acceptable as monarchs, why should they not be acceptable as temporary regents?

 

[Durham]

Some interesting posts on here.

Speakers & their deputies are not political figures once they assume office. I could easily see them being tasked as CofS. The same with eminent members of the judiciary or retired senior military officers. The realms choose distinguished citizens for their GG's after all.

 

[Durham]

And if these individuals are acceptable as monarchs, why should they not be acceptable as temporary regents?

I think part of the answer is that such individuals would not become monarch unless there was some sort of tragedy. They are not expected to have anything whatsoever to do with the governance of the UK.

Moreover in the event of some sort of tragedy the UK is probably more likely to become a republic I would think. The line of succession is a bit of a polite fiction in that sense.

 

[Osipi]

As has been stated, the role of Counsellors of State have been etched in stone for such a long time, we're now seeing how archaic the role is and how it needs to be amended and brought into the 21st century.

It made sense (say 100 years ago) that the ones closest to the top of the line of succession (and the monarch's consort) were the ones to step in when needed. These were the people that most likely were closest to the monarch and had the king's/queen's ear on things day to day. They *could*, when needed,, determine best what the monarch would do or say in any situation that arose while they acted as a Counsellor (or regent).

With today's technology and the world shrunken to where a burp can be heard around the world within seconds of it happening, even with the monarch out of the country, with secured phone lines and secure Zoom calls, the monarch can "take care of business" no matter where he/she is in the world today. Even through a global pandemic, the Queen was able to fulfill her daily tasks as Queen without interruption. She still met with her PM albeit virtually and the red boxes continued without fail.

Today, in the present climate, instead of worrying about Counsellors of State and who they are, as it is more in line with keeping up a tradition that has been around for a very long time, I believe another option would be taken. Should Queen Elizabeth become unavailable and/or incapacitated and unable to fulfill her duties, the best move would be to actually name Charles as regent and have him step into the role of monarch in her stead.

If the roles of Counsellors of State do remain, I do believe it should be a requirement that those that are among the ones eligible should *at least* be active working members of the "Firm". In this case, both Andrew and Harry would be ineligible solely because they aren't in any way associated with the working mechanisms of the "Firm" and the monarchy itself. One can't decide on how a monarch would act on matters of state if they're not even included in the day to day activities of it at all.

JMO as always.

 

[Iluvbertie]

All the CoS receive a daily briefing while those who aren't don't receive that information so Harry and Andrew are 'in the loop' while other 'working royals' aren't.

CoS's don't meet with the PM each week.

All the CoSs do is chair the Privy Council meeting where official approval to legislation is given and new members are sworn in. This is not an advisory body as such any more.

The other thing they do is receive incoming and outgoing High Commissioners and Ambassadors - again a very set set of words said.

 

[Roslyn]

Even if the Queen contracted covid there is no reason why she couldn't still carry out her essential duties - via phone or video. She has had most of the essential events that way now for about two years - i.e. she has had about 4 actual audiences with the PM while the rest have been via telephone and the Privy Council meetings have been via video for the most part over the past two years as well.

No CoSs have been needed for about 20 years now and whether Harry even meets the requirements now is debateable as he has to be 'domiciled in the UK'. If he isn't domiciled in the UK anymore the only question is about Andrew.

If Counsellors of State were needed in the very near future, I would think the Letters Patent delegating the relevant duties to them would exclude Harry, at least while he is outside the UK. The issue of 'domicile' doesn't have to be determined in order to exclude him, merely the fact that he is absent from the UK and would be likely to be so absent during the period of the appointment. I doubt he would propose to rush back to become a Counsellor of State, but as things currently stand he is entitled to be one if he is within the jurisdiction.

What I am not sure of though is whether without Harry there would only be three counsellors appointed or whether Beatrice would be added to make up four.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If Counsellors of State were needed in the very near future, I would think the Letters Patent delegating the relevant duties to them would exclude Harry, at least while he is outside the UK. The issue of 'domicile' doesn't have to be determined in order to exclude him, merely the fact that he is absent from the UK and would be likely to be so absent during the period of the appointment. I doubt he would propose to rush back to become a Counsellor of State, but as things currently stand he is entitled to be one if he is within the jurisdiction.

What I am not sure of though is whether without Harry there would only be three counsellors appointed or whether Beatrice would be added to make up four.

The law is clear - to be eligible to be a CoS a person must be 'domiciled' in the UK. Once not so domiciled a person is ineligible. The question then is whether having the lease on Frogmore Cottage makes Harry 'domiciled' in the UK, despite having only been in the country for about a week or two in the past two years.

If Harry is ineligible than Beatrice automatically becomes the 4th eligible person.

When CoS's are appointed they are appointed in pairs for a specific purpose.

 

[Roslyn]

The law is clear - to be eligible to be a CoS a person must be 'domiciled' in the UK. Once not so domiciled a person is ineligible. The question then is whether having the lease on Frogmore Cottage makes Harry 'domiciled' in the UK, despite having only been in the country for about a week or two in the past two years.

If Harry is ineligible than Beatrice automatically becomes the 4th eligible person.

When CoS's are appointed they are appointed in pairs for a specific purpose.

Yes, if he is disqualified from being a regent by reason of not being domiciled in the UK, he is not eligible to be a counsellor of state, regardless of the absence issue. Absence would only be relevant if he was still domiciled in the UK. The question is has he acquired a new domicile of choice? You can live outside your home country for many years and still be domiciled there. Does he intend to make the USA his permanent home, or does he still regard the UK as his permanent home? With which country does he have the closest ties? Interesting questions; I wonder if Harry knows the answers.

 

[Durham]

It's appropriateness of character that matters. And as we know being related to the monarch is no guarantor of that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is some legal guidance on domicile.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis/rdrm20010

[...] The Government has determined that it would be acceptable for the Duke of York, the Duke of Sussex, and the King of Norway to carry out the duties of the UK monarch on a permanent basis, as proven by the Government's choice not to remove any of them from the line of succession to the British Crown. And if these individuals are acceptable as monarchs, why should they not be acceptable as temporary regents?

I think part of the answer is that such individuals would not become monarch unless there was some sort of tragedy. They are not expected to have anything whatsoever to do with the governance of the UK.

I see your point, but isn't it likewise with the position of Counsellor of State (regent ad interim)? The chances that Elizabeth, Charles, and William will all simultaneously become so seriously incapacitated that none of them can carry out even a few essential duties via teleconferencing, and that all three will remain so seriously incapacitated for such a lengthy period that those essential duties can no longer be postponed until one of them recovers, seems extremely slim to me. Perhaps even slimmer than all three of them dying outright in a tragedy.

 

[Durham]

Here is some legal guidance on domicile.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis/rdrm20010






I see your point, but isn't it likewise with the position of Counsellor of State (regent ad interim)? The chances that Elizabeth, Charles, and William will all simultaneously become so seriously incapacitated that none of them can carry out even a few essential duties via teleconferencing, and that all three will remain so seriously incapacitated for such a lengthy period that those essential duties can no longer be postponed until one of them recovers, seems extremely slim to me. Perhaps even slimmer than all three of them dying outright in a tragedy.

In normal times yes I wouldn't disagree. But the last two years have shown how medical emergencies can surprise us. Life & health have become even more unpredictable than they always were.

 

[JoanHarry]

Here is an interesting and more technical legal discussion of the Counsellor of State issue:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/202...ors-of-state-and-a-slimmed-down-royal-family/

It was written over a year ago, but clearly outlines what happens in different scenarios. An excerpt:

“Under a Regency or the reign of King Charles III, the Counsellors appointed will be the Duchess of Cornwall (as wife of the Regent or the monarch) and the next four in line to the throne, which will be Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, and Princess Beatrice. Those last three will be replaced as the children of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge reach 21, meaning that Prince George will be appointed as a Counsellor of State from 2034, Princess Charlotte from 2036, and Prince Louis from 2039. Should William accede to the throne or act as Regent before 2031, Princess Eugenie will become a Counsellor of State, to replaced by Prince George when he becomes 18, because as the heir apparent, he becomes a Counsellor of State from the age of 18 instead of 21.

“The problem is that under a Regency or the reign of Prince Charles, the only full working member of the Royal Family who will be appointed as a Counsellor of State will be Prince William, at least until his children reach 21 in the 2030s. Whether as regent or monarch, Charles will usually be accompanied by the Duchess of Cornwall on visits abroad, meaning that she will be unable to act.”

 

[Iluvbertie]

No being a working royal has never been a requirement - in fact a person hasn't had even to be a royal e.g. the late Earl of Harewood served in the 1950s when he was the fourth adult over 21 and in the 1940s, during the war an even more distant relative was the fourth adult.

Being a non-working royal could almost be an advantage as no official engagements would have to be cancelled or rescheduled to allow a CoS to do the necessary job.