Parliament discuss counsellors of state (Harry & Andrew)

[TheTantrumoftheToddlerIsThere]

Parliament are discussing whether Harry and Andrew should remain as ‘Counsellors of State’ (who can act as stand ins for the King) when they are no longer working royals.

Viscount Stangate brought up the issue in the House of Lords, questioning whether an amendment was needed due to Andrew having left ‘public life’ and Harry having ‘left the country’.

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/10/25/duke-sussex-duke-yorks-role-counsellors-state-questioned-parliament/

[Title edited at OP's request]

The example of the Wessexes - no HRH for the DC (though they do have aristocratic styles) and expectation that they will work for a living - seems to be the most popular template for monarch's nieces and nephews

I think it should always be clear though that the Wessex children have the HRH and princely titles. They don’t use them and whilst they aren’t expected to use them as adults they do have the choice (as made very clear by Sophie when discussing Louise turning 18).

Sorry @JustLyra - took it as read that regulars on the thread know that it was Wessex parental choice not to use royal styles

And of course the Sussexes chose that version too and even extended it - HRH and Prince/ss not available at that point (they are now, but they do not appear to have chosen to use them) but aristocratic titles were and theu decided against them

The thing is, they won’t ever chuck Harry out of the line of succession

I didn't think anyone has been suggesting that.

Right now, it's just whether he should continue as CoS whilst domiciled overseas (something there is existing provision for in current Act, but something they seem disinclined to do whilst leaving Andrew as a CoS). That does not remove him from the succession, it just suspends his role to enact certain types of monarchical function at times when monarch cannot.

It was suggested on here a few weeks ago that he (his children and Andrew also) should be removed from the line completely so that he could never be King if the worst ever happened.

I don’t think the royal family would ever want anyone removed from the line of succession as it would set a dangerous precedent.

King Charles has asked the House of Lords for his siblings, Princess Anne and Prince Edward, to become Counsellors of State.

news.sky.com/story/king-charles-asks-parliament-to-appoint-new-deputies-in-place-of-andrew-and-harry-12747646

In place of Andrew and Harry.

I don't think it's specifically instead of @DeeofDenmark but in addition to. It didn't read like there was a specific order of calling people to do it, but I assume it will be instead of as it gives him additional people to use before he'd need Harry or Andrew.

I saw that - the "just bung on another two" option seems to have prevailed.

Presumably ad hominem and setting no precedent? I think it's the most sensible solution, as it means that the "Magnificent 7" surrounding the Queen carry on as the core with the new monarch

According to the BBC it's in addition to the Dukes of Sussex and York (who won't be called on to act, as it's unthinkable that they would ever be asked to carry out any duties, let alone monarchical functions)

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

Removing them would mean fiddling with the Regency Act, and I don't think anyone has the time or inclination to do that.

First of all all the lols at 'working royals '

They love to push that like hard and so many fall for it

Andrew remains a councillor of state . That's the bottom line .

This is pathetic fudge because the royals and their establishment supporters don't want their subjects aware that people can be bumped off the line of succession . It's god given right ? Lol

The line of succession is not related to role of Counsellor of State in that way.

The Regency Act (which is what would have to be amended to remove CoS role) does not define the line of succession

It takes far less parliamentary action to supplement than to amend, and it seems the sensible choice to go for the most straightforward option.

No it doesn't .

This choice leaves Andrew as a councillor of state

Parliamentary action lol!
It's perfectly possible for Andrew to be removed but the royals dare not .

They won't remove Andrew because no doubt more skeletons in cupboards to come - even if you are a monarchist and happy to ignore Charles' links with Saville , Peter Ball , bags of cash , the Mountbatten inquiry etc

Where would it end ?
Best just shut the serfs up with a little shuffle around

It also leaves Harry who - for different reasons- is a pretty awful character.

not working royals ?

He can only be removed by parliamentary action and that would entail amendments to the Regency Act

See post at 25/10/2022 22:16 which describes various courses of action via that route.

Just adding on the extra two is simpler administratively and gets what I think is a better result

You might not like him, which is fine, but he's never been accused of anything illegal as far as I'm aware.

The whole bloody point of the monarchy is that we have no say in who gets the top job, or in who is in the line of succession.

Given the seriousness of the allegations around Andrew that's a different scenario. But we don't get to chuck them out just because they're unpopular. How would we choose who to keep, and the criteria to do so?

A vote you say? Now you're talking...

@JenniferBarkley
Yes lol

@EdithWeston
No no no . Simpler for the royals if you just look away , yes!

Adding two more on is a fudge to avoid removing Andrew . Simple as that .

And when did the royals give a flying fuck about wasting time or money !!
Next year's imposed coronation is completely unnecessary. He was king when his mother took her last breath . That will be a waste of money .

No its not.

Removing Harry is already provided for under the existing Act as he is not currently domiciled in UK, but that provision has not been activated. No provision under the current laws on this subject to remove Andrew, and it would look terrible to remove Harry and leave Andrew.

There appears to be no appetite to amend the Regency Act. Why do you think that should be done and what amendment do you propose?

Appetite ?
How on earth are you measuring that ??

What has Harry got to do with it ? This repeated attempt to twin Harry with Andrew is failing and will continue to fail

@JenniferBarkley has an idea. Why not elected councillors of state ?
There is nothing , absolutely nothing to recommend the current lot . Not in terms of intellect education or achievement.

Oh but they were born 'royal'
Pathetic and increasingly ridiculous in the modern world . A world where the UK is struggling to maintain a foothold .
The dress up gilt of monarchy is papering over rot at the heart of the establishment.
Root it out .
Start with the role of 'royals' in our so called democracy.
They can ride up and down the Mall in their gilt and those who want can gawp

@Novella4 but how can we justify picking and choosing the counsellors of state but still having a monarch. We either throw the lot out or follow the rules (with the possibility of the odd tweak).

Obviously throw the lot out asap .

But in the meantime at least correct a situation with Andrew as a councillor of state .
Andrew ...

Of course it's entirely possible that there is even worse than Andrew's behaviour hidden away .
The current situation and fudged attempt to 'fix' it makes a mockery of the UK and of the people .

A world where the UK is struggling to maintain a foothold

What's the evidence for this?

Removing Harry is already provided for under the existing Act as he is not currently domiciled in UK, but that provision has not been activated.

How is the concept of domicile defined in the UK and for the purposes of the Act? I'm asking because in the US, it's possible to claim domicile fairly easily for purposes of voting (or taxation) in a state you don't presently "reside" in, as residence and domicile are not the same legal concepts. Domicile is determined in some part by intent.