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]

I assume that by your username Maul you are in the UK?
Look around you .
Read any of the news over the last
few years .

I think some older people ( not exclusively but mainly older people ) cling to the idea of monarchy because they think it makes the UK 'special '
I love history too but I don't want to live in a society headed by a king who says god appointed him , in 2022
The history remains

www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/10/uk-economy-disaster-degrowth-brexit/671847/

These are economic cycles, The Atlantic has a particular axe to grind, many of us are not 'older people' and none of these explain how the UK is struggling to maintain a foothold in the modern world. Which nations are not struggling to maintain a foothold in the modern world?

I prefer a royal family to President Cameron or Blair. Whoever you have will cost us £ and not be nice people, I prefer non political and the continuity figures. Cut ribbon, give out medals, condolences to those who suffered, quit the hypocrisy and lecturing us on political issues please.

I think Anne and Edward are just fine and competent enough to do the job, I personally don't like either. I remember Edward and It's a knockout, I remember Sophie and the NOTW sting when she ran a PR company and Anne say's horrible things about vulnerable people like "she doesn't suffer fools gladly".

I wonder if Anne spends much time with her family or if she is talking about Service users from her charities?🤔

I don't want to live in a society headed by a king who says god appointed him, in 2022

In that case, you may also have to restrict religion for everyone else (there goes the US)...Which modern state should we model ourselves on?

Nonsense to repeatedly claim that only older people support the Monarchy when I bet you are older than me. It is more about people raising their children with a sense of tradition, appreciation of their nation's history and appreciation of service personnel. The young men serving at HMQ's funeral were mainly under 25. Stupid anti-intellectual generalizations don't convince anybody. Our Monarchy is one of the few special things we have left.

Well KC has appoint 2 additional members so has neatly sidelined Harry and Andrew without need of parliament The RF have a lot of smart advisors.

It doesn’t bypass Parliament. He has written to then to formally request it. He can’t appoint them without an addition/amendment being made to the Regency Act.

Not completely clear - it does look as if it means present in and living in the UK

And of course would need to be physically present for the sort of stuff that CoS would do (eg diplomatic duties)

Divine Right was abolished in 1688

Yes, but on a day-to-day basis, it makes zero difference to anyone where the Head of State's rights come from. It's all the same structure, just under a different label.

@EdithWeston

I'm amazed it lasted as long as that .
People are gullible

The Church of England is tied to the monarchy. Charles will be appointing bishops . Unction ceremony still included in the coronation claptrap - it's all theatre . Mountbatten Windsors are the only monarchy in Europe to continue with this expensive rigmarole. He's already ( self declared) king. As soon as his mother died (another ruse to prevent questioning of the status quo - don't give anyone time to think).
Why can't he turn up in parliament in a suit ?
Because coronation is another hugely expensive PR exercise solely designed to ram home the idea that there is no alternative .

The country can't afford it .
But since when was that a consideration for the royals ?

To whoever said presidents cost as much the royals! Utter nonsense .
And frankly we little idea how much the royals do cost as they keep their true finances very murky

@EdithWeston and I meant they ( the royals) believe they are god appointed .

Re this thread , Andrew remains as a stand in king.
That's royals for you.

Mountbatten Windsors are the only monarchy

The name of the reigning House is Windsor, not Mountbatten Windsor.

One last thing- whether Charles thinks he has divine right or not doesn't change the fact that he is literally above the law .

That alone is disgraceful.

No doubt a complication from pre 1688 that has never been addressed . Like so many other issues to do with 'royals '

You'd think their name would be straightforward wouldn't you ?
Not so
And what about Saxe Coburg??

In 1917, George V decided that all descendants in the male line of Queen Victoria would take 'Windsor' as their surname, after the name of the Royal 'House'. When The Queen acceded to the throne in 1952, she confirmed 'Windsor' to be the official Royal Family name.
However, eight years later in 1960, The Queen and her husband decided that they would like their own direct descendants to have a different surname to distinguish them from other descendants of George V. Therefore, all The Queen's descendants now carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

I recall reading that 'Mountbatten-Windsor' was one of the times that Philip put his foot down.

I'm pretty sure that Charles knows he does not "have divine right." I don't know his religious beliefs, but it is possible that people who have strong religious beliefs might think that God put them where they are "by the grace of God, etc."
That is definitely not the same thing as the concept of the divine right of kings, which was a set of principles that at their core meant that a ruler was accountable only to God and thus had absolute authority.

@SenecaFallsRedux
No one can get away with claiming divine rights nowadays

Why are the uk royals getting away with being above the law is my question .

What happened to the police investigation re the bags of cash.?
Nothing to see here ?

Don't you have anything better to do @Novella4 ?

The charity who the money was for did their checks, and were happy to accept it. Nomatter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't make it true that Charles was handed bags of cash - with the implication you make that it was for his own piggy bank! If you ever give a significant sum to charity, you'll find that they are extremely thorough in making sure that the money is from sound origin.

@ajandjjmum - are you keeping f tabs on who posts and when??
Hmm

Nothing better to do ?

Are you saying wasn't given bags of cash?? Because you are wrong . He was. Stuffed into bags apparently .

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/25/prince-charles-is-said-to-have-been-given-3m-in-qatari-cash

Now you mention a charity - that charity was several of his homes.

And you are the royals expert so you'll know better than me , but the two men who have been arrested - is that a different 'issue' or the same one ?
But it's all fine you say !

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/16/prince-charles-could-be-called-as-witness-in-cash-for-honours-investigation

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/23/two-men-questioned-cash-for-honours-inquiry-linked-king-charles-charity-princes-foundation

@ajandjjmum - are you keeping f tabs on who posts and when??
Hmm

8 of the last 15 posts are yours @Novella4 - it'd be hard not to notice.

Are you saying wasn't given bags of cash?? Because you are wrong . He was. Stuffed into bags apparently .

No I am not. I am saying that the source of the funds was checked by the charity and approved. Cash is still legal tender in the UK.

I am saying that the source of the funds was checked by the charity and approved

It was his own charity.

Unsurprisingly the Charity Commission has decided there's nothing to investigate in much the same way the transfers of charitable donations originating in the defunct Royal Foundation to Harry's financially obscured private initiative Travalyst were deemed to be in order.

I have more faith and respect for the Charity Commission in the UK, although obviously mistakes are made. I doubt there would be any error in the evaluation of such a high profile donation.