Counsellors of State

[Somebody]

I think the wording still gives a lot of wiggle room for different ways to achieve that result. A one-off law similar to how the 1953 act re-added the Queen Mother, or something like adding all children of a monarch or all previously-eligible people regardless of their place in line.

Great point: there are indeed various options to achieve this result.

Adding all children of a monarch would only add Anne and Edward at this point; and will ensure in the future that those who are more likely to be involved in 'royal business' will also be the ones eligible for this role.

Adding everyone who was at some point eligible would not only add Anne and Edward but also the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra (given that all of them are active as a senior royal - that shouldn't raise issues in terms of suitability - but they might want to keep the numbers down a bit).

 

[FigTree]

If William becomes king once Louis is of age, there wouldn't be a problem as in that case his wife and his three children would be available (as well as his brother). He only needs 2 at a time, so that would give some wiggle room.

If William would become king before his children are of age; he could just leave Anne and Edward as CoS (depending on how it will be arranged) - as Catherine would also automatically be included (as well as Eugenie).

He would have his spouse, three children and presumably Bea and Eug too. As well as possibly Anne and Edward.

 

[Somebody]

He would have his spouse, three children and presumably Bea and Eug too. As well as possibly Anne and Edward.

Which scenario are you exactly discussing? Because I cannot think of a scenario in which both his three children as well as Beatrice and Eugenie are eligible to serve as CoS... (under the current rules - and assuming the new rules will not just include everyone until Edward in the future).

If William would become king before George's 18th birthday (July 2031), the following people would be eligible (under the current rules):
- Catherine
- Harry
- Andrew
- Beatrice
- Eugenie

If he would become king after Louis' 21st birthday (April 2039), the following people would be eligible (under the current rules):
- Catherine
- George
- Charlotte
- Louis
- Harry

If it is somewhere in between, George would replace Eugenie (in July 2031) and Charlotte would replace Beatrice (in May 2036) and Louis would replace Andrew (in April 2039) - so there is no scenario in which all of them (both York sisters and the three Wales siblings) would be eligible as CoS at the same time.

 

[Erin9]

Wise and diplomatic. Ensuring the smooth continuity of representation without the sticky mess of removing either Andrew or Harry entirely.

Indeed. I think this was a good way of dealing with the issue.

 

[tommy100]

Great point: there are indeed various options to achieve this result.

Adding all children of a monarch would only add Anne and Edward at this point; and will ensure in the future that those who are more likely to be involved in 'royal business' will also be the ones eligible for this role.

Adding everyone who was at some point eligible would not only add Anne and Edward but also the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra (given that all of them are active as a senior royal - that shouldn't raise issues in terms of suitability - but they might want to keep the numbers down a bit).

I assume that Charles could simply add his sister and youngest brother specifically in the same way the late Queen added her mother without any binding effect on other Dowager Queens for the future. A total reform of the system may be seen as too complicated and involve too many people. That said I think a long term reform would be no bad thing for the future, maybe to be put into action when William is King. For now adding Anne and Edward would give plenty of flex:

Camilla (when not with Charles, she didn't always go with him on every overseas tour as heir so may not do so now)

William (unlikely from a PR point of view they would have Charles and William out the country at the same time, I can only really think of events like D-Day where that has happened)

Anne

Edward

Beatrice (not the best option and does have her own work commitments but a possibility if needed)

Andrew (not a desirable option)

Harry (not an option)

 

[FigTree]

Which scenario are you exactly discussing? Because I cannot think of a scenario in which both his three children as well as Beatrice and Eugenie are eligible to serve as CoS... (under the current rules - and assuming the new rules will not just include everyone until Edward in the future).

If William would become king before George's 18th birthday (July 2031), the following people would be eligible (under the current rules):
- Catherine
- Harry
- Andrew
- Beatrice
- Eugenie

If he would become king after Louis' 21st birthday (April 2039), the following people would be eligible (under the current rules):
- Catherine
- George
- Charlotte
- Louis
- Harry

If it is somewhere in between, George would replace Eugenie (in July 2031) and Charlotte would replace Beatrice (in May 2036) and Louis would replace Andrew (in April 2039) - so there is no scenario in which all of them (both York sisters and the three Wales siblings) would be eligible as CoS at the same time.

I was just thinking out loud.

 

[Durham]

Wise and diplomatic. Ensuring the smooth continuity of representation without the sticky mess of removing either Andrew or Harry entirely.

Yes indeed. Clever old king's advisors.

No need for drama.?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The full message, for the record:

“To ensure continued efficiency of public business when I am unavailable, such as while I am undertaking official duties overseas, I confirm that I would be most content, should Parliament see fit, for the number of people who may be called upon to act as Counsellors of State under the terms of the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953 to be increased to include my sister and brother, The Princess Royal and The Earl of Wessex & Forfar, both of whom have previously undertaken this role.”

Apparently no discussion of the message took place in the Lords at this time. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...EE8-41F6-9BE5-CE5D620211BB/CounsellorsOfState

Interesting how he named the Princess Royal ahead of her younger brother, unlike the usual practice in the British Royal Family.

 

[Durham]

Yes it is. Maybe it's because she held the position before her younger brother ever did.

I suspect there are ongoing conversations around any future regency as well. The link between position in the line of succession & eligibility to carry out constitutional duties is obviously up for discussion.

 

[tommy100]

BBC article has a bit more depth to it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63626113

The King's requested change was read to the House of Lords on Monday.

It's expected that the Lords will reply on Tuesday - and the same day could see the government introducing legislation in the House of Commons, with a Counsellors of State Bill paving the way for the King's proposal for two extra working substitutes.

This rapid move in Parliament is intended to resolve an awkward constitutional problem about who could deputise for the King if he was overseas or unwell and could not carry out his duties as head of state.


***

The message was also delivered to the House of Commons, with leader of the house Penny Mordaunt telling MPs there would be legislation to follow.

This will mean amending the Regency Act, which at present stipulates that counsellors are the spouse of the monarch plus the next four royals in succession to the throne, who are over the age of 21.

 

[Toledo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1592186000960552960

"Breaking: The King has written to House of Lords saying he’d be "most content" if number of Counsellors of State "be increased to include my brother and sister, the Princess Royal, and Earl of Wessex"

Statement was read out in the House of Lords this afternoon"

A sign of reality, as I predicted as a wish some days ago on this subject about a regency, if Charles and William were not around, that the best choices are the Princess Royal and Earl of Wessex over Harry.

 

[yukari]

Interesting: he is presenting it as a 'one-off' (specifically including his (other) brother and sister) and not proposing a new general rule.

I think it's a good idea to present this as a one-off since (hopefully) this case of Harry-Andrew is a one-off and won't happen again in the future. And by one-off, what I mean to say is to specifically add Anne and Edward, not as "(late) Monarch's children" or "(current) Monarch's sibling", which will make them still eligible to serve as CoS during William's (and maybe George's if they're still alive) reign.

 

[Somebody]

I think it's a good idea to present this as a one-off since (hopefully) this case of Harry-Andrew is a one-off and won't happen again in the future. And by one-off, what I mean to say is to specifically add Anne and Edward, not as "(late) Monarch's children" or "(current) Monarch's sibling", which will make them still eligible to serve as CoS during William's (and maybe George's if they're still alive) reign.

Would it be a problem if they remain eligible? William doesn't have to appoint those who are eligible but will just have the option. Especially given the age difference between Charles and Edward, Edward might be around well into William's reign - and would most likely be a better CoS than William's own brother at that point.

If they would specify 'siblings of the monarch' - they would not necessarily remain eligible. As Anne and Edward aren't William's siblings... Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see which way they will go.

 

[yukari]

Didn't they do something similar with the Queen Mother, just added her to be eligible to be CoS during Elizabeth II's reign? Surely they can do the same for Anne and Edward, making them eligible for life irregardless of their relation to the monarch (whether sibling or aunt/uncle), so they could still be appointed as CoS during William's reign (if they're still alive).

 

[Toledo]

I wish King Charles III went one step further and revoked the old line current of succession by having it according to birth order as is the current version. Like making it retroactive to have Princess Anne and family be after the Prince of Wales and family and have the Duke of York take a step back behind her.

Is there a suggestion box outside of the palace someone can drop off a note about it?

 

[yukari]

I wish King Charles III went one step further and revoked the old line current of succession by having it according to birth order as is the current version. Like making it retroactive to have Princess Anne and family be after the Prince of Wales and family and have the Duke of York take a step back behind her.

Is there a suggestion box outside of the palace someone can drop off a note about it?

What for? What is the chance of Anne ever becoming queen? Would it worth the fuss to make the parliament of 15 countries changing their legislation just for a mere reason of making Anne ahead of Andrew on the royal website considering he's unlikely to make appearance in official royal occasion?

 

[Iluvbertie]

A sign of reality, as I predicted as a wish some days ago on this subject about a regency, if Charles and William were not around, that the best choices are the Princess Royal and Earl of Wessex over Harry.

Obviously if that is the case then Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie have to be removed from the line of succession.

If they aren't suitable to be Regent or a CoS then they also aren't suitable to be the monarch.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Yes indeed. Clever old king's advisors.

No need for drama.?

Exactly my thoughts too!

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wish King Charles III went one step further and revoked the old line current of succession by having it according to birth order as is the current version. Like making it retroactive to have Princess Anne and family be after the Prince of Wales and family and have the Duke of York take a step back behind her.

Is there a suggestion box outside of the palace someone can drop off a note about it?

That would be a MASSIVE undertaking and not worth it.

It wouldn't just be Anne for instance but Louise, Alexandra, Lady Helen Taylor etc.

How far back does it go e.g. to put the Harewoods ahead of the Gloucesters (why not ... why should they be lower because they descend from a girl and not a boy). What about the descendants of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter - should they actually be the royal family as Vicky was the eldest child?

Once you start trying for retroactivity you have to ask 'how far back' and 'why stop there'. What makes Anne more deserving than Mary or Vicky or whomever?

Here is Australia our parliaments have a lot more important things to be dealing with anyway so it could be years before all of the states even bothered with it (it took the last state two years to bother last time - and under the way our states are constituted that have to all pass it first before it can go to the Federal government).

Fortunately this isn't a decision for The King but for the parliaments of the 15 realms (and the six Aussie states).

 

[wbenson]

We have a bill. The King's siblings are added individually, as the Queen Mother was in 1953:

Section 6 of the Regency Act 1937 (power to delegate royal functions to
Counsellors of State) has effect as if the persons required by subsection (2) of
that section to be the Counsellors of State for the purposes of any delegation of
5
royal functions under that section included—

(a)His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex, during his lifetime, and

(b)Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal, during her lifetime.

 

[Heavs]

It is a diplomatic way of forestalling most complains from various quarters.

Given that in the last few weeks we've had a number of senior and working royals out of the country simultaneously, it's not out of the question that the King and the POW might find themselves out of the country at the same time in the future. So it is a practical necessity.

 

[Claire]

I understand that this needed to be done soonest as plans are currently been drawn up for the Commonwealth tour and it will involve the King and Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales been outside the country at the same time.
So it looks like if this is the case - Anne and Edward have to remain in England. Personally I would have include the Duke of Gloucester and Kent even . Make it all happy. ?

 

[Countessmeout]

Obviously if that is the case then Harry, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie have to be removed from the line of succession.

If they aren't suitable to be Regent or a CoS then they also aren't suitable to be the monarch.

I dont see what either York girl has done to be unsuitable for the throne.

They are simply private citizens with actual careers. It makes sense working royals like Anne and Edward would be COS.

Eugenie and Harry also don't live in UK (well Eugenie part time). If something wiped out those ahead of them they'd move back.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So the Duke of Gloucester will be the odd man out, as the only working royal of the blood (the Kent siblings seem to be in the process of retirement) who is not eligible to serve as a Counsellor of State. I wonder why the King did not request to add him as well.

I dont see what either York girl has done to be unsuitable for the throne.

Iluvbertie wasn't expressing her own views on any royal's suitability or unsuitability for the throne. Her argument is that if a person is considered unsuitable to serve as Counsellor of State, then they should also be considered unsuitable to serve as King or Queen.

I agree with her. Being the actual head of state involves much greater responsibilities and has heavier consequences for the nation than being a temporary substitute for the head of state, and the bar ought to be higher, not lower (as it is now).

ETA: I've replied to comments about hypothetical changes to the order of succession to the crown, moving to the appropriate thread: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...he-crown-act-2013-a-34108-58.html#post2507448

 

[Prinsara]

So the Duke of Gloucester will be the odd man out, as the only working royal of the blood (the Kent siblings seem to be in the process of retirement) who is not eligible to serve as a Counsellor of State. I wonder why the King did not request to add him as well.

Possibly because the Duke is older than he is and may choose to retire relatively soon. Or maybe he sounded Richard out about the possibility and the Duke said no. It's not necessarily overlooking his cousin.

 

[Somebody]

I don't think anyone is claiming that Beatrice is unsuited for the role of CoS. She still remains on the list of eligible CoS's - however, given that unlike Charles's siblings she does not carry out royal duties on a day-to-day basis it makes some sense to ask those who are also in line to the throne AND have performed royal duties for decades to step in (while not excluding the possibility that they will ask Beatrice if needed (over Andrew and Harry imho)).

For Harry and Andrew, it would be a different story... They are considered unsuitable themselves (by their own actions).

 

[Somebody]

We have a bill. The King's siblings are added individually, as the Queen Mother was in 1953:

And for their lifetime, so it is not linked to Charles's reign. They will remain when William becomes king (and they survive Charles).

 

[tommy100]

Re Princess Beatrice. I've read in a few places that Edo is working on a development on Australia's Goldcoast and there are rumours (probably only idle speculation) that the family could move out there. I guess given Eugenie has moved overseas they can't discount the possibility Beatrice may decided to do the same.

Good move IMO to make Anne and Edward Counsellors for "their lifetime" - there is a possibility for Edward in particular to be able to serve beyond Charles' reign.

 

[yukari]

So the Duke of Gloucester will be the odd man out, as the only working royal of the blood (the Kent siblings seem to be in the process of retirement) who is not eligible to serve as a Counsellor of State. I wonder why the King did not request to add him as well.

(...)

Maybe because both Dukes and Princess are older than the king and they are in their 80s (78 for DoG), unlike the Queen Mother who was in her 50s when she was added in 1953. I'm sure they understand and won't feel slighted for not being included.

 

[FigTree]

Re Princess Beatrice. I've read in a few places that Edo is working on a development on Australia's Goldcoast and there are rumours (probably only idle speculation) that the family could move out there. I guess given Eugenie has moved overseas they can't discount the possibility Beatrice may decided to do the same.

Good move IMO to make Anne and Edward Counsellors for "their lifetime" - there is a possibility for Edward in particular to be able to serve beyond Charles' reign.

Eco has his son to think about and I’m sure his mother wouldn’t want to move him.