Counsellors of State

[Somebody]

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.

I think I see where you are coming from but the role of Counsellor of State is to temporarily carry out the duties of the monarch - not to be their 'support cast' in visiting charities etc.. So, in this case, they are/remain in the line of succession and therefore also remain eligible to temporarily take on those roles. However, the king will in practice decide to choose those that -next to being in the line of succession- are also carrying out royal duties on a day-to-day basis.

 

[Durham]

There's also the possibility that the position could be opened up to other people. There must be plenty of eminent Britons who could be called upon by The King to be a CofS.

After all in the realms they have no difficulty in finding distinguished individuals to be governors & GG's

 

[Somebody]

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.

It will be interesting to see how they intend to formulate it:
- The monarch's spouse
- The heir (and probably also add the spouse; as said spouse will be eligible any way in the next reign)
- The other children of the monarch
- The siblings of the monarch

And will they also include, 'and any other person who is among the first 4 adults in the line of succession'? As that would be a way to keep Beatrice for the time being (assuming the idea is to include more and not cut off) without adding other grandchildren of the previous monarch.

 

[muriel]

It will be interesting to see how they intend to formulate it:
- The monarch's spouse
- The heir (and probably also add the spouse; as said spouse will be eligible any way in the next reign)
- The other children of the monarch
- The siblings of the monarch

And will they also include, 'and any other person who is among the first 4 adults in the line of succession'? As that would be a way to keep Beatrice for the time being (assuming the idea is to include more and not cut off) without adding other grandchildren of the previous monarch.

My suggestions, which is a slight variation on what you have suggested:
- The monarch's spouse
- The heir
_ The spouse of the heir
- The other children of the monarch
- The siblings of the monarch
- Anybody else the monarch so chooses to delegate to

 

[Somebody]

My suggestions, which is a slight variation on what you have suggested:
- The monarch's spouse
- The heir
_ The spouse of the heir
- The other children of the monarch
- The siblings of the monarch
- Anybody else the monarch so chooses to delegate to

With the latter, there is no reason to have an official list of Counsellors of State at all. Because in that case you could just go by: 'Anybody who the monarch wishes to appoint'.

I personally would not be in favour of that as there would be no parliamentary control over this decision in any form.

I'd be fine with the first 5 of your list; however, if they truly intend not to remove anybody, that list wouldn't work - as this would mean the removal of Beatrice.

 

[Durham]

My suggestions, which is a slight variation on what you have suggested:
- The monarch's spouse
- The heir
_ The spouse of the heir
- The other children of the monarch
- The siblings of the monarch
- Anybody else the monarch so chooses to delegate to

And the last one could include anyone appropriate. It needn't be a relative of the monarch at all. After all the direction of travel seems to be having less "working" members of the rf. Why pick a relative of the monarch who knows nothing about the constitution over a member of the Privy Council or a former leader of one of the devolved administrations?

 

[muriel]

With the latter, there is no reason to have an official list of Counsellors of State at all. Because in that case you could just go by: 'Anybody who the monarch wishes to appoint'.

I personally would not be in favour of that as there would be no parliamentary control over this decision in any form.

I'd be fine with the first 5 of your list; however, if they truly intend not to remove anybody, that list wouldn't work - as this would mean the removal of Beatrice.

There really is no real role for Beatrice. Sometimes neatening out these things mean people at the fringes do get eliminated.

 

[Durham]

I personally would not be in favour of that as there would be no parliamentary control over this decision in any form.

Parliament could come up with an approved list. Privy Counsellors, Law Lords etc.

 

[tommy100]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63391630

The BBC is now reporting on it to, also suggesting no one will be removed but more people will be added. Its fair to say the BBC tends to only report on such things with much more confirmation than the likes of the DM.

 

[Somebody]

Parliament could come up with an approved list. Privy Counsellors, Law Lords etc.

I see. In that case it wouldn't just be 'anybody the king so chooses'. However, I am still not sure about the reason to add this category if there are plenty of options already with those who officially also are eligible to fulfill the role of monarch if they were to be called upon.

 

[Somebody]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63391630

The BBC is now reporting on it to, also suggesting no one will be removed but more people will be added. Its fair to say the BBC tends to only report on such things with much more confirmation than the likes of the DM.

There is no mention of Beatrice not being removed. The only mention is that Harry and Andrew would not be removed. So, including the monarch's spouse, his children and siblings would fit that description but would still exclude Beatrice.

 

[Durham]

I see. In that case it wouldn't just be 'anybody the king so chooses'. However, I am still not sure about the reason to add this category if there are plenty of options already with those who officially also are eligible to fulfill the role of monarch if they were to be called upon.

No you're right it wouldn't be just anyone but those with some sort of experience or some other appropriateness for the role.

I take your point about those in the line of succession. If they're eligible to be the monarch then why shouldn't they serve as CofS.

I think it's to do with the reality that they won't ever be monarch baring some catastrophe. I suppose the rational way to think about them is as a sort of insurance policy. They exist just in case. So I think it can make sense not to employ them in this role because the overwhelming likelihood is that they will lead entirely normal (albeit very comfortable) lives & they don't really have any place in the governance of the UK.

 

[muriel]

With the latter, there is no reason to have an official list of Counsellors of State at all. Because in that case you could just go by: 'Anybody who the monarch wishes to appoint'.

I personally would not be in favour of that as there would be no parliamentary control over this decision in any form.

I'd be fine with the first 5 of your list; however, if they truly intend not to remove anybody, that list wouldn't work - as this would mean the removal of Beatrice.

Whilst I do not believe Parliamentary control is necessary to query who the monarch chooses to delegate authority to, I believe as broader pool can be defined from who the CoS may be drawn from. For example, this could be members of the Privy Counsel or a Judge.

 

[yukari]

I'm thinking more than based on line of succession, it could be based on proximity to the monarch:
- the consort
- the heir (and perhaps their spouse)
- the children
- the siblings
Thus it will remove cousins and nieces/nephews which means no Beatrice and Eugenie (who are above Edward in the LoS) and also Louise and James (who are above Anne in the LoS).

In this case, Charles would have Camilla, William (and maybe Catherine), Edward, and Anne if he doesn't want to pick Harry and Andrew.
And then (in around 20+ years from now) William would have Catherine, Harry (IF he's back to BRF), George (and maybe her spouse), Charlotte, and Louise.

 

[miss whirley]

I'm thinking more than based on line of succession, it could be based on proximity to the monarch:
- the consort
- the heir (and perhaps their spouse)
- the children
- the siblings
Thus it will remove cousins and nieces/nephews which means no Beatrice and Eugenie (who are above Edward in the LoS) and also Louise and James (who are above Anne in the LoS).

In this case, Charles would have Camilla, William (and maybe Catherine), Edward, and Anne if he doesn't want to pick Harry and Andrew.
And then (in around 20+ years from now) William would have Catherine, Harry (IF he's back to BRF), George (and maybe her spouse), Charlotte, and Louise.

But let's say Charles dies next year. King William would only have Catherine as a CoS. The kids would be too young and Harry lives overseas. All the other working royals wouldn't fall into those categories for William.

 

[Hallo girl]

But let's say Charles dies next year. King William would only have Catherine as a CoS. The kids would be too young and Harry lives overseas. All the other working royals wouldn't fall into those categories for William.

Then it will be raised in the Lords as it is at the moment and amendments made. I do not think they can cover for every eventually going forward.

Let us be honest ' working royals' as a definition , and really emphasised, only really came in to play in the last few years to enable a work around a particular set of circumstances.

 

[miss whirley]

Then it will be raised in the Lords as it is at the moment and amendments made. I do not think they can cover for every eventually going forward.

Let us be honest ' working royals' as a definition , and really emphasised, only really came in to play in the last few years to enable a work around a particular set of circumstances.

I don't see the point of doing something that you would know might be amended again in the very near future. It would be like musical chairs.

Just make it working royals. Consort and any Dowager consort are automatic. For those in the line of succession they must be at least 18, living primary in the UK (over 6 months a year), and they must be preforming regular duties on behalf of the Monarch as shown by routine Court Circular appearances.

That way regardless of how long Charles lives, the CoS are stable and still usable for William. The only one that would get upgraded for King William is Catherine.

 

[Hallo girl]

I don't see the point of doing something that you would know might be amended again in the very near future. It would be like musical chairs.

Just make it working royals. Consort and any Dowager consort are automatic. For those in the line of succession they must be at least 18, living primary in the UK (over 6 months a year), and they must be preforming regular duties on behalf of the Monarch as shown by routine Court Circular appearances.

That way regardless of how long Charles lives, the CoS are stable and still usable for William. The only one that would get upgraded for King William is Catherine.

What they appear to be looking for is a bigger pool so by adding Anne and Edward they will have it. Nobody is removed, possibly not used, but still on the list. If and when circumstances change it could be reviewed again. I think at times we over think things.
The late Queen reigned for 70 years I am sure there were changes over the years, and everybody just got on with it.
It would be interesting to know how often they were actually used.

 

[yukari]

(...)

Just make it working royals. Consort and any Dowager consort are automatic. For those in the line of succession they must be at least 18, living primary in the UK (over 6 months a year), and they must be preforming regular duties on behalf of the Monarch as shown by routine Court Circular appearances.

(...).

Then they need to legally/constitutionally define "working royal", if not then they may as well as putting "whoever the monarch wishes" because as of now, it's the monarch who decides who is one and who isn't. We've seen that several names of non-working royals being mentioned in Court Circular.

So in that case let's say for some reason Charles wants to appoint Eugenie as CoS then he could simply announce that she's working royal and appoint her as CoS, bypassing Beatrice whom he doesn't acknowledge as "working royal".

 

[miss whirley]

Then they need to legally/constitutionally define "working royal", if not then they may as well as putting "whoever the monarch wishes" because as of now, it's the monarch who decides who is one and who isn't. We've seen that several names of non-working royals being mentioned in Court Circular.

So in that case let's say for some reason Charles wants to appoint Eugenie as CoS then he could simply announce that she's working royal and appoint her as CoS, bypassing Beatrice whom he doesn't acknowledge as "working royal".

That wouldn't be a problem. He has every right to decide who should be a working royal and who shouldn't. Prince Michael was bypassed as a working royal but his sister Alexandra was 'appointed' even though he's higher in the LoS than her. Just like Anne and Edward have every right to continue as working royals even though "higher up" Andrew has retired.

If your not representing Charles on a regular basis should you be allowed to represent him in a CoS situation? I don't believe so. I wouldn't trust those who aren't regularly involved in the BRF to act on good faith on it's behalf.

 

[Durham]

The idea of defining "working" royals is a good one. Then everyone is clear about who is who.

Maybe the funding of an office/staff from the Sovereign Grant could determine this. That can be audited. Also mention in the Court Circular or something similar. Anyone else attending a public function can be listed under the catch all of "other members of the rf".

And there could be two lists of CofS drawn up & publicised. One of relatives of the monarch who are "working" & a top up list of distinguished citizens. Then the monarch can appoint from either or both as they see fit.

 

[Hallo girl]

What exactly does a Councellor of State do? Is it like the Scandinavian Crown Princes begin Regent while their father/mother is out of the country?

I am not sure of all of their duties but the newspaper provided an example the other day. In the 70's the British government of the day wished to declare a state of emergency. This required the Queens signature but she was abroad, possibly Australia I think, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret stood in to sign as they were counsellors of state.

As I say there could be other duties, but that is an example.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

What they appear to be looking for is a bigger pool so by adding Anne and Edward they will have it. Nobody is removed, possibly not used, but still on the list. If and when circumstances change it could be reviewed again. I think at times we over think things.
The late Queen reigned for 70 years I am sure there were changes over the years, and everybody just got on with it.
It would be interesting to know how often they were actually used.

I like this way as I find it more pragmatic and less messy/ controversial than actually removing Royals already in the LoS as potential Counselors of State.

 

[wbenson]

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"

 

[Somebody]

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

 

[kimebear]

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

 

[muriel]

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"

Very sensible way of dealing with the matter.

 

[wbenson]

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.

 

[FigTree]

I mean it makes sense. If Charles is away it is likely Camilla will be too which leaves William and Beatrice (who isn't always likely to be available). It makes sense to have four, and in reality 3 who could step in.

I think also it is a nice way of stepping up and having this reign as Charles and his two siblings, as well as son. Question is what will William do when it is his turn. George too has siblings to support.

 

[Somebody]

I mean it makes sense. If Charles is away it is likely Camilla will be too which leaves William and Beatrice (who isn't always likely to be available). It makes sense to have four, and in reality 3 who could step in.

I think also it is a nice way of stepping up and having this reign as Charles and his two siblings, as well as son. Question is what will William do when it is his turn. George too has siblings to support.

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).