Counsellors of State


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Denville said:
why would Andrew expect that his daughter would usurp her cousin who was the future kings son???
Click to expand...

For the reasons I gave in the post. He certainly seems to have had disagreements about the future roles and status of his daughters. I didn’t say I thought it a realistic hope if he had, but he’s certainly a different character from Edward who has never clamoured for anything and accepted his and his childrens’ positions; even choosing a low-key wedding and for them not to use the titles they were entitled to.
 
Meee said:
For the reasons I gave in the post. He certainly seems to have had disagreements about the future roles and status of his daughters. I didn’t say I thought it a realistic hope if he had, but he’s certainly a different character from Edward who has never clamoured for anything and accepted his and his childrens’ positions; even choosing a low-key wedding and for them not to use the titles they were entitled to.
Click to expand...

To be fair, when Edward was getting married the family had still not recovered from the negative publicity (and I hate to use that word, but that's what it was) surrounding Diana's death. "Diana's boys" were seen as the only thing saving the monarchy in some quarters, and the rest of the family were merely bit players. Charles and Camilla were seen as the villains, The Queen and Philip as cold and unfeeling etc. etc. etc. I believe it was that as much as anything that had Edward and Sophie decide the way they did. His older brothers had children who would outrank his own and be much older as well and they could do the official stuff. The whole "slimming down" ideas began to circulate at the same time. Again, IMO not a coincidence.
 
Came across this from the 1943 amendment to the Regency Act:

Amendment as to 1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6.
For subsection (2) of section six of the Regency Act 1937, (which makes provision as to the persons who are to be the
Counsellors of State to whom royal functions may be delegated in accordance with the provisions of that section) there shall
be substituted the following subsections:-
"(2)
Subject as hereinafter provided, the Counsellors of State shall be the wife or husband of the Sovereign (if the
Sovereign is married), and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, are next
in the line of succession to the Crown, or if the number of such persons next in the line of succession is less than
four, then all such persons:
Provided that, if it appears to the Sovereign that any person who, in accordance with the foregoing provisions of
this subsection, would be required to be included among the Counselors of State to whom royal functions are to
be delegated, is absent from the United Kingdom or intends to be so absent during the whole or any part of the
period of such delegation, the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the
number of Counselors of State during the period of such absence.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Charles could appoint Edward without having to have the Regency Act amended? (Assuming of course that Eugenie who would first take Harry’s place on the list was in Portugal at the relevant time.)
 
Only if he can' get two from Camilla, William, Andrew and Beatrice ... he has to use those that qualify under the act and it is highly unlikely that all four would be unavailable at the same time.
 
LauraS3514 said:
To be fair, when Edward was getting married the family had still not recovered from the negative publicity (and I hate to use that word, but that's what it was) surrounding Diana's death. "Diana's boys" were seen as the only thing saving the monarchy in some quarters, and the rest of the family were merely bit players. Charles and Camilla were seen as the villains, The Queen and Philip as cold and unfeeling etc. etc. etc. I believe it was that as much as anything that had Edward and Sophie decide the way they did. His older brothers had children who would outrank his own and be much older as well and they could do the official stuff. The whole "slimming down" ideas began to circulate at the same time. Again, IMO not a coincidence.
Click to expand...

I don’t know I think in general Edward and Sophie are more sensible about these things. The way they approached even getting married. I think being the youngest and always being so far removed from the throne can give you some perspective.

Sophie said they want their kids to understand they are more likely than not going to have to work for a living.

It’s maybe harder to be the spare?

Anne also was very sensible with her kids too.
 
They dont have much choice but to be sensible. They are the 4th child and his wife.. and when they got married it was during a really low period in the RF's popularity, soon after Di's death. They had to opt for a more modest way of doing things, not a big wedding, a wedding at Windsor rather than London, and it was a good idea for the children not to be styled as Princes.
 
I quote below from my post of a few months ago on the subject.

******

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 siblings 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.
 
muriel said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% and nothing personal against the York Princesses.
 
I think the priority should be amending the Regency Act. Under its current provisions, The Duke of Sussex is Regent, followed by The Duke of York, as the next adults in line should George become King as a minor. Adjustments to the COS can be made at that time.
 
Meee said:
The Express also reporting that changes may be made by Charles III: https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...r-prince-harry-andrew-princess-beatrice-Queen.
Click to expand...

The Express article simply states that the Telegraph reported that Charles III is interested in changes, etc., so it cannot be treated as confirmation of the Telegraph story.


Mbruno said:
Not really. A Counsellor of State is not a minister who makes government policy decisions, but rather the rough equivalent in the UK to a regent ad interim in other monarchies.
Click to expand...

I would second Hans-Rickard's suggestion that, as part of hypothetical reform of the Regency Act, the name of the position be altered to Regent (I don't see the need to have different job titles to distinguish between long-term and short-term regents), or something in the vein of Deputy. The label of Counsellor of State is potentially misleading to people unfamiliar with the system.


LauraS3514 said:
I think the priority should be amending the Regency Act. Under its current provisions, The Duke of Sussex is Regent, followed by The Duke of York, as the next adults in line should George become King as a minor. Adjustments to the COS can be made at that time.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the Counsellor of State system is part of the (1937) Regency Act.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
The label of Counsellor of State is potentially misleading to people unfamiliar with the system.
Click to expand...

I do not think clarifying these matters for those unfamiliar with the system is a key motivation for the legislation. Those that need to know already know. ?
 
Sionevar said:
Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but according to The Telegraph, Charles wishes to amend the law regulating who can be a Counsellor of State, to include only working royals.

https://archive.ph/HwZMr

The article suggests he will remove Harry, Andrew and Beatrice, potentially to be replaced by Edward and Anne, and perhaps even Catherine as well.
Click to expand...

Yesterday, responding to questions in the House of Lords, the government refused to confirm if they have plans to amend the Regency Act 1937 (which regulates the arrangements for Regents and Counsellors of State), or to discuss private conversations with the King or Royal Household, but related that "in the past we have seen that the point of accession has proved a useful opportunity to consider the arrangements in place" and "any consideration would also have to take place in close consultation with the Royal Household".

The exchange can be read in its entirety at this link:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords...91B6-6A61D1C793E0/RegencyAct1937#main-content

From the government's response, I have the impression that reform of the Regency Act 1937 is at least under serious consideration between the government and the royal household, if not actively underway. If the government had no plans to reform the Act, I think they would have simply said as much (as is their response whenever questions are asked concerning, for example, Lords reform).
 
Last edited:
Very interesting & significant I think. Talk of the need "to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements" is very telling.

Off topic I didn't know Stansgate had been chosen as one of the 92 elected hereditary peers. His late father wouldn't be happy!
 
Last edited:
It certainly makes sense and the system needs some "cleaning up" in my opinion - it seems very much that Charles is focussed on the notion of "working royals" and wants to be much clearer in the diving line - the current system doesn't allow for that.
 
I agree. And eligibility to be a CofS could serve as a definition of what is meant by the term "working royal".

The next step might be for members of the rf to not use any royal styles or titles such as prince in any capacity if the individual is not "working". A bit like Lady Louise who is legally HRH etc.

Retired "working" members could possibly use Emeritus HRH Prince(ss)/Duke although that's really a discussion for the thread about titles.
 
Last edited:
It was only a matter of time and really they are redundant anyway as the monarch is not ever away like they were in the past. Only time they were needed was towards end of Queens life when Charles and William opened parliament.
 
What I have taken from it is that rather than specifically excluding individuals it would expand the pool . Providing the king with more options if and when the situation required. Which is a smart tactful way of positioning things.
 
It does seem the best way - then they are not excluding people and just giving more options for the sovereign to pick from. Give Charles' focus on "working royals" this means he will be able to pick from those.
 
He's rather precise in the changes he wants - Harry and Andrew are the problem:

Otherwise, are the Government happy to continue with a situation where the counsels of state and regency powers may be exercised by the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, one of whom has left public life and the other of whom has left the country?
Click to expand...

And another:
My Lords, can the Government indicate that they will at least consider that the person they go to in the first consideration will be somebody who actually undertakes royal duties, or at least some part of them, at present?
Click to expand...
 
tommy100 said:
the DM has picked up on it...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...vealed-Palace-plan-sideline-Harry-Andrew.html

I find myself worrying that I agree with it ... for once!
Click to expand...

They point out that it needs to be arranged soon as the king and queen are bound to be out of the country together at some point in the not too distant future, so in that case, as things stand now, Charles would need to appoint both William and Beatrice - and it makes sense that they would prefer either Anne or Edward to support William in this role than his cousin who does not regularly undertake royal duties.
 
Last edited:
It does seem the best way - it future proofs the system effectively allowing the sovereign to pick who they appoint as CoS (and subtly excluding anyone as well)
 
tommy100 said:
the DM has picked up on it...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...vealed-Palace-plan-sideline-Harry-Andrew.html

I find myself worrying that I agree with it ... for once!
Click to expand...

Interesting. So, if Robert Hardman's source is correct, the reform has already been in the planning for months, beginning under Queen Elizabeth II.

Mr. Hardman also seems to be implying that Elizabeth opposed removing the Dukes of York or Sussex from their eligibility to be Counsellors of State.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Interesting. So, if Robert Hardman's source is correct, the reform has already been in the planning for months, beginning under Queen Elizabeth II.

Mr. Hardman also seems to be implying that Elizabeth opposed removing the Dukes of York or Sussex from their eligibility to be Counsellors of State.
Click to expand...

Which makee sense as the remain in the line of succession. So, to keep them in the line of succession, meaming they could be the monatch, but excluding them from the lesser duty of CoS would be inconsistent (although the latter is much likely to occur than the first).
 
Somebody said:
Which makee sense as the remain in the line of succession. So, to keep them in the line of succession, meaming they could be the monatch, but excluding them from the lesser duty of CoS would be inconsistent (although the latter is much likely to occur than the first).
Click to expand...

I agree. But by the same token, keeping them (and many other people) eligible to be monarchs while excluding them from lesser day-to-day royal duties is even more inconsistent (though that's a discussion for the royal succession threads).
 
How quickly do we think the changes to the Counsellors of State will take?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
I agree. But by the same token, keeping them (and many other people) eligible to be monarchs while excluding them from lesser day-to-day royal duties is even more inconsistent (though that's a discussion for the royal succession threads).
Click to expand...

Which is why the solution to formally keep them as CoS (while in practice not using them by adding more family members that are eligible and choosing them when the need arises over those that are no longer on 'active duty') makes more sense than removing them from the roster.
 
Somebody said:
Which is why the solution to formally keep them as CoS (while in practice not using them by adding more family members that are eligible and choosing them when the need arises over those that are no longer on 'active duty') makes more sense than removing them from the roster.
Click to expand...

My point was that it is inconsistent either way: Keeping them eligible to be chosen as Counsellors of State is consistent with keeping them eligible to be Kings and Queens, but is inconsistent with their being ineligible (in the case of the Duke of York, Princess Beatrice, etc.) to be chosen for everyday royal engagements. Only removing the non-working royals from the line of succession to the throne could resolve the inconsistency.
 
The suggestion now seems to be adding Anne and Edward, but not removing anyone. The argument is that Harry isn't physically here in the UK any more, and therefore can't sign documents, receive ambassadors etc, and Andrew is no longer a working royal, but Beatrice and Eugenie aren't working royals either. The real issue is that Andrew has disgraced himself, but there's no official definition of that, so it'd be quite hard to remove someone on those grounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Prince William of Gloucester
Replies
3
Views
1K
RabbitRabbit
R
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
T
LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
4K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
M
Orders and Decorations of the Prince and Princess of Wales
Replies
8
Views
571
Somebody
Somebody
iceflower
The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall: Royal Tour to Canada, May 2022
Replies
22
Views
2K
Mbruno
M

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom