Will Prince Charles & the Queen deal with the ‘counsellors of state’ issue soon?

During any given British monarch’s reign, the monarch has four counsellors of state, people who can step in and do the work of the Crown in case the monarch is incapacitated or out of the country. Currently, Queen Elizabeth’s counsellors of state are Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Andrew and Prince Harry. See the problem? It’s not a new problem either, there have been calls for the Queen to change her counsellors of state since 2020, when Andrew initially “stepped back” from public duties and when Harry sussexited out of there. Since the Queen’s health has declined so rapidly over the past eight months, there’s been a renewed conversation about how Harry needs to be removed immediately, or Harry and Andrew need to be gone forever. Nothing has happened. Even as the Queen cancels her biggest and most important duties as head of state, nothing has happened.

Now, I suspect that no movement has been made to remove Harry and Andrew as counsellors of state because the Queen is doing so poorly. It’s weird, right? But I’m starting to think that Charles simply knows he’s around to do almost everything and why kick the hornet’s nest right now when he could simply wait until he takes over and then appoint his own counsellors of state. When Charles does appoint his own, his counsellors will likely be Prince William, Princess Anne, Camilla and… maybe Prince Edward, but I doubt it. It would be bold if Charles kept Harry on as a counsellor of state. But I also suspect that’s one of the reasons why Harry has retained the Sussexes’ lease on Frogmore Cottage, to maintain a residence in the UK so technically he qualifies as a counsellor of state.

I also wonder if some of this will be dealt with during the Fakakta Jubbly. Harry will be in town, Andrew will be itching to make appearances, I wonder if Charles is going to deal with some of this sh-t in person.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

92 Responses to “Will Prince Charles & the Queen deal with the ‘counsellors of state’ issue soon?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eleonor says:

    It would be bold.
    Personally I count more on Charles pettyness than on his good sense.

    • Liz Version 700 says:

      Eleanor this. Pettiness wins with Charles all the damn time!

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Charles is too much of a coward to address Harry in private. All he wants to do is polish some of the gold that has fallen off of this turd of his. His way of thinking is just ignore his awful behaviour and Harry will accept him with loving arms. No apology, no begging for forgiveness. Just a blitz of the same stories will circulate, “sources close to Charles says he’s upset that Harry pushes away his olive branches”, “Charles’s friends are telling us that he is racked with guilt that Harry won’t come to him”. Anything but what he ISN’T doing right.

      • Miranda says:

        @BothSidesNow – THAT is what makes me so angry about Charles. As someone who also lost my mom at a young age and was raised by a single dad, I’ve been cautiously rooting for a reconciliation between Harry and his father. When you’ve only got one parent, maintaining that relationship can (not “must”, but CAN) take on a special importance. But Charles wants all this to happen without acknowledging his own mistakes, and that’s unacceptable. I’m really very proud of Harry, who seems soft-hearted enough to leave the door open for forgiveness and reconciliation, but strong-minded enough to make that forgiveness dependent on Charles doing the right thing and apologizing and owning up to the role he played in tearing apart his own family. I really, really hope he has a “come to Jesus” moment someday. Harry deserves a father who loves and genuinely respects him. Archie and Lili deserve to have a relationship with their grandfather. But none of this can or should happen without Charles changing his self-pitying tune.

      • CocofromCanada says:

        100%! What a family ugh.

      • Deering24 says:

        Miranda–yep. Respect and acknowledging when one is wrong _have_ to be a two-way street, else the entire notion of family and “having loving relationships” is a hollow lie. And when you are dealing with narcissists, it’s impossible to make them see that.

  2. Amy Bee says:

    If the UK had an elected Head of State, the issues of Counsellors wouldn’t arise.

  3. AJ says:

    Every time I see that photo of William in that suit I wonder why he just can’t go out and purchase a decent suit

    • Julia K says:

      Or go to a tailor and have a suit made for him that fits in the crotch area. This isn’t a one time thing. He has been photographed often with ill fitting trousers.

      • Jan90067 says:

        Maybe when the Tower was closed to visitors due to covid he felt the Royal Jewels needed to be seen somehow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        Never knew a Moose knuckle counted as the Royal Jewels though!

        Or more likely, it became his own “personal ad” trolling for a sidepiece amongst the “Yummy Mummy” set that he exercises with after school drop off.

      • Awesome Beloved says:

        Perhaps he is advertising his sceptre…

    • notasugarhere says:

      William is gaining weight, getting soft, and pretending it isn’t happening. He needs to get new suits made for his new weight.

  4. Wiglet Watcher says:

    I don’t think anything will be done by choice until the jubbly.

    Oh, I want so badly for Charles to name William, Anne, Camilla and Harry!
    I’m betting hard he names Harry. He hates His brothers and they deserve that.

    • Tessa says:

      Only two I would want to be counselors other than Charles would be anne and Harry

    • Gabby says:

      This “honor” would be nothing but an albatross around Harry’s neck, chaining him to the UK like a slave. I hope he does not include Harry. Chuckles wanted to slim down the monarchy, so let him make due with just 3 CoS – Camilla, Anne and William.

    • TeamMeg says:

      Harry will also bump up to 5th in line when King Charles the 3rd is crowned, right?

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Yup! And if William passed I think Harry would be regent until George came of age. Is that right?

        Idk… I’m getting the sense the tides are turning on William. And if th roles reversed Harry would be accepted as the golden boy for the sake of the monarchy and William would be treated as a spare that nearly ruined everything that his dull, lazy wife.

    • anotherlily says:

      Charles cannot simply choose who he wants. Under current law the Counsellors of State are the Monarch’s spouse and the next four adults in the line of succession. When Charles is King the next adult in line is Beatrice. Camilla will also be a Counsellor of State.

      Two Counsellors are needed to act together in any legislative function on behalf of the monarch and currently the only two immediately available are Charles and William. This is why William had to attend the state opening of Parliament with his father. Andrew would have been unacceptable and Harry unavailable at short notice.

      When Charles is King there will be three, Camilla, William and Beatrice , who are available and the current problem will have been solved without any changes to the law. The fact that no changes have been proposed so far suggests the Queen may abdicate or agree to a regency very soon. Either way, Beatrice steps up as next adult in line. I’m not sure whether Camilla would automatically be a Counsellor of State but it could be arranged.

      • JaneBee says:

        @ANOTHERLILY Thank you for this detailed breakdown! Especially explaining why William needed to be present at opening address to Parliament.

        So basically, a lot more pressure for TOB to be online and present in UK to be available in his Counsellor role, as TQ further retreats from public life. Going to make it a lot more difficult for him to disappear out of sight for two weeks to chill in Mustique/ski/go on safari whenever he feels like it.

        Actual responsibility. He must HATE it. He probably yells incandescently and curses about Harry every time he thinks about it. You reap what you sow, bro.

      • Tessa says:

        I do not think Charles would want Beatrice she and Eugenie were never allowed royal work I also do not think he would select Louise when she comes of age

      • anotherlily says:

        @TESSA Charles does not choose the Counsellors of State. It is an established legal process. They are the spouse of the reigning monarch plus the first four in the line of succession who are at least 21. When Charles is King that will mean the Counsellors of State will be Camilla plus William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice.

  5. Chloe says:

    I don’t see what is the issue. If Charles isn’t available, the queen has william as an second option. And he seems to be in perfect health. Aren’t royal reporters always talking about how committed he is to his “duty” aka jail sentence?

  6. Louise177 says:

    Harry kept Frogmore so that they would have a place to stay when in England. Even if something happened to the Queen, Charles and William would take over. The Counsellors of State is just a title. Andrew would try to do something but It’s unrealistic for Harry to drop everything and move back to England.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Yeah, I don’t believe Harry keeping the lease for Frogmore has anything to do with the Counsellorr of State. That idea was floated by the Telegraph. I think the real reason is he’s put a lot of money into that place and doesn’t want to give it up.

  7. Southern Fried says:

    Look at those azz-faces weighted down with their dollar store medals and ropes! The brocade shorty jacket is perfect for small town theater productions.

  8. Snuffles says:

    I don’t think Harry wants to remain a counselor of state. It’s probably lazy inertia on The Firm’s part. One last string that keeps Harry connected to the institution that they hope they pull him back into. And maybe Harry hasn’t forced the issue out of respect to the Queen. But I think Harry will make it quite clear, once she goes, take his name off the list.

    • Amy Bee says:

      @Snuffles: The Royal Family still believe that Harry will return some day. That’s why he’s not being removed.

      • Tessa says:

        Problem is they would want harry to commute and leave his family in the US I would not put it past the establishment to think that way

    • Liz Version 700 says:

      Agreed. Why would he want to drop everything and serve to help the King who pulled his security and threatened the safety of his family? “Thanks but nope, happy to come to family events, but I don’t work here anymore.”

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Liz Version, yes. Harry isn’t part of The Firm anymore. Charles has an incompetent son due to his refusal to work and create a consistent work ethic for the last 20 years. Plus he never never takes initiative to force Baldemort to behave as a decent person, he is an ass all of the time. The only person I would trust would be Anne. Everyone else is just useless.

    • Green girl says:

      Agreed. Harry’s going to be that coworker who refuses to cover any shifts!

    • Eurydice says:

      Does Harry have a choice about this? There doesn’t seem to be a provision for turning it down. I suppose he could give up an address in the UK and make himself ineligible.

      • Charm says:

        Theres nothing stopping Harry (or any other member of the RF, for tht matter – except the monarch) from exercising his rights over his own life as a free man.

        He literally has no obligations to the monarchy, except those he chooses to place on himself.

      • Eurydice says:

        @Charm – My point was that the various Regency Acts don’t seem to consider the desires of those in the line of succession, only the desire of the monarch. And it kind of looks like the monarch is the only one who can take him or herself out of the line by abdicating, which we have already seen happen in history. So, it looks like as long as Harry fits the criteria, they can keep him on as counselor, even if he has no intention of fulfilling the duty – which is pretty much the situation as it stands now.

  9. windyriver says:

    My understanding is, the counsellors of state are defined as the monarch’s spouse, and the next four people in the line of succession over age 21 (and “domiciled” in the UK?)

    That’s currently Charles, Will, Harry and Andrew. For Charles, it will be Camilla, Will, Harry, Andrew and I believe Beatrice. Eugenie would come after Beatrice and before Edward, and he would come before Anne (and when Louise turns 21, she’d also come before Anne). Someone correct me if this sounds wrong…

    • Snuffles says:

      Technical question, would Harry (and Andrew) have to be removed from the line of succession in order to be removed as a counselor of state?

      It will be fascinating to see what decisions Harry will make in regards to his position in the monarchy once the Queen passes.

      • windyriver says:

        No, I wouldn’t think so. What I don’t know is what flexibility the monarch has re: the counsellors. On the RF website, it says if TQ can’t undertake her regular duties due to illness or absence, two or more counsellors are apponted by Letters Patent to take her place. So could issuing LP remove Harry and Andrew as counsellors? I don’t know enough. Plus, is Harry considered domiciled in the UK because of Frogmore? I thought I once read that meant being in the UK for at least six months. If he’s not considered domiciled, that removes him?

      • windyriver says:

        ETA: the RF website says nothing about having to be domiciled in the UK (I do see it mentioned on Wikipedia), so don’t know if this is truly a requirement.

    • Margaret says:

      The requirements for a counsellor of state are set out in the Regency Act 1937. The Act provides that a person who is disqualified from being a regent is also disqualified from being a counsellor of state, and a person who is not domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom is disqualified from being a regent. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/section/6 So if Harry is no longer domiciled in the UK, he is not entitled to be a counsellor of state.

      • Snuffles says:

        I’m googling the legal definition of domiciled in the UK and got:

        “Under UK domestic law, someone born in the UK will be domiciled in either England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. All are viewed in the same way for UK tax purposes, and individuals are therefore UK domiciled.”

        So, it looks like Harry doesn’t even need to maintain a UK residence. I’d imagine as long as he’s still a UK citizen, he’s still legally able to be a counselor of state.

      • windyriver says:

        Thank you @Margaret for checking this out and providing the link. In previous discussions here, the question arose about the definition of “domiciled” as it pertains to Harry. Some people thought since he had a UK residence, that was enough. As mentioned, I thought I’d read having to actually be physically present in the UK for 6 months or more. Still don’t know, but maybe it’s defined elsewhere in the act.

        But, just above the section @Margaret mentioned about being disqualified as counsellor if you’re disqualified to be regent, there’s a section that seems to state that royal functions can’t be delegated to any counsellor who “is absent from the United Kingdom or intends to be so absent during the whole or any part of the period of such delegation”, further, “the Letters Patent may make provision for excepting that person from among the number of Counsellors of State during the period of such absence.” So, whether or not he’s considered domiciled, it appears as a minimum unless Harry comes back and stays during a period when he’s specifically needed, it looks like he can be excluded. Interesting.

        ETA: Thank you @Snuffles – it’s still confusing! I think it may mean he can technically be a counsellor of state, but he can be excluded from being appointed to perform the function of fulfilling duties for TQ unless he’s physically present during the time he’s needed.

      • notasugarhere says:

        In 8-10 hours, Harry could be physically present in the UK. Given modern communication and travel, there’s no reason to require Counsellors to be in the UK 365 days a year.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Notasugar- while I agree that there’s no reason for counsellors to be in the UK 365 days a year, Montecito is a lot more than 8-10 hours away from the UK. A flight from LA is a minimum 10.5 hrs, not including travel time to the airport. Just saying.

      • windyriver says:

        @nota, I agree, and as discussed, the question is whether counsellors are currently required to be physically in the UK for ANY amount of time in order to hold the position of counsellor, i.e., if domiciled is a condition, what exactly that means. It sounds like this is quite complex, and according to this (below) Harry might meet the qualification, especially if he’s still considering spending time in the UK in future.


        But, as per the act linked by @Margaret, in the event a counsellor, by means of LP, is delegated/activated to take on functions of TQ if she is out of the UK, or ill, that person has to be in the UK during the entire time that delegation of powers is active. Otherwise sounds like being a counsellor is a basically passive role.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LOL, as if an hour or two either way makes any difference in a modern world, or private flight time vs. commercial. If he was called on as the third one on the list if others were not available? He’d easily be able to fly in, stay at Frogmore Cottage or an apartment at BP or Windsor, and perform the duties for X amount of time. If it is a question of having to be engaged in royal duties to be in the know for things, well that takes away Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, eventually Louise, etc. They’d run out of people to use as Counsellors at that rate.

        It was clearly written for a time when you were months away by boat if something went awry. Counsellors are less for stepping in for the monarch and more for being *counsellors* to the monarch. Being available for regular meetings via video or phone, being able to fly in when/if needed? All of these are things that are possible now that weren’t possible then. IF Charles decides to change things, he’d be mocked if he didn’t take technology and travel in to consideration in 2022 vs. 1937.

      • anotherlily says:

        It is not necessary to be permanently living in the UK to be domiciled here. Harry has retained a home in the UK and is a UK citizen. However, at present he is not likely to be easily available if needed.

        The Counsellors of State are the Monarch’s spouse and the next four adults in the line of succession. They do not have to be officially ‘working royals’ . There are no legal grounds to bar either Andrew or Harry. However, in Harry’s case there is the fact that he is living in the US and in Andrew’s case his reputation is a barrier to any public role.

        The next two in line are Beatrice and Eugenie and my guess is that they could deputise for Andrew and Harry. Beatrice deputised for her father at Privy Council meetings after his disastrous interview. Both the York Princesses are close to the Queen and familiar with royal duties even though they have no official role.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Beatrice and Eugenie are nearly as disliked by the public as Andrew. That isn’t what this is about in the end. Counsellors are there to provide counsel to the monarch, that’s the main role. Does Charles want Andrew as a counsellor? No. Does he want Beatrice and Eugenie? Also no. If he can figure out how to include Harry and Anne/Edward, he’d do it.

    • Tessa says:

      I do not think Charles would want any of the York’s as counselors

  10. Tessa says:

    Charles does not let the York princesses work I doubt he would choose Beatrice

    • Julia K says:

      I feel bad for the York girls that they are paying for the sins of their parents.

      • Lucy says:

        They’ll just have to make do with the huge privileges they’ve always enjoyed because of who they were born to. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        I felt bad for the York girls. Still do a bit for Eugenie. Beatrice is her parents daughter.

    • anotherlily says:

      I don’t think it would be entirely his choice to make.

  11. Green girl says:

    Honest question: Could Charles ask Kate to step in for this role when he is king, such as through Letters Patent? I saw Camilla’s name suggested above, which made me wonder if Kate could be a possibility, too. If that is possible, then I could see him begging Harry to come back!

    • Jan90067 says:

      William, in terms of worthlessness, is only a few steps ahead of Camilla and MILES above Kate. The only thing she can step into is another pair of £800 court pumps or a “bespoke” dress. Those are her *only* “talents” (and even those she is sorely bad at choosing).

      *Would YOU* trust her to make *any* decisions regarding state affairs if the others weren’t available???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (deep breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Eurydice says:

        Lol, but from what I can tell, the monarch doesn’t make any actual decisions about state affairs, just performs the ceremonial duties associated with decisions – like showing up at Parliament and making a speech that’s been written by the Prime Minister. Although, now I’m imagining Kate garbling her way through a speech to Parliament – yikes.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @Eurydice-Yikes is spot on. Okay, from what I’ve read/discerned from the UK Constitutional blog, the Counsellor of State (same acronym as the Church of Scientology-just realized that) stuff is more a ceremonial thing rather than a an actual decision making thing like you said. The members of the BRF really are just signing off on something their advisers/grey men are advising them too that goes along with what the government might want that doesn’t impede on the desires of the monarchy. It really isn’t a step down or up to be one. It seems like anyone here who might be the power of attorney for someone actually has a higher degree of decision making.

        I’m not seeing how Harry not being a Counsellor of State is any real kind of loss for him if he’s removed. It’s one less thing to think about and he wouldn’t be put in a position to agree with courtiers or the current UK government. Which, with Harry’s values, do not coincide. Also, one less thing to be a scapegoat from.

    • windyriver says:

      Camilla isn’t just a suggestion – as things are currently defined, as Charles’ spouse, she WILL be a counselor of state once he’s monarch, just as Prince Philip was for TQ. If Kate is still married to Will when he becomes monarch, as his spouse she would also be a counsellor. As the immediate heir to Will, so would George, if he’s over 18. I think Charlotte and Louis would have to be 21.

      Otherwise, Kate isn’t in the line of succession, so no, she’s not any kind of possibility once Charles is in charge.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        That’s what the UK Constitutional blog said. Camilla isn’t a suggestion. She’s a given once Charles ascends like you said.

        I don’t understand completely. It seems like Charles would have to issue a LoP for Kate to be a Counsellor of State? when he ascends. Technically, Archie would be ahead of Kate for Counsellor of State at the moment.right? Logically, Archie probably has more intellectual skills than Kate to fill the role. I’m being an @sshole because I don’t believe Harry/Meghan want their children in that position and I don’t think Kate is smart. Smell test.

      • windyriver says:

        At the moment, EVERYBODY is ahead of Kate, because counsellors are defined as people in the line of succession (who are at least 21, except for the direct heir), and Kate is NOT in the line of succession.

        The same is true for Camilla. She will become a counsellor of state when Charles becomes monarch, because she’s his spouse, and spouse of the monarch is the other qualification for counsellor. Likewise, if Kate is still married to Will when he ascends, she will too. Other than as spouses, it would be nada for both of them. Archie and Lili are out of it until they’re at least 21.

        I don’t know enough about the act/process/LP to know if Charles has any room to maneuver about who’s named counsellor, but it’s unlikely he’d be able to name someone outside the line of succession, like Kate (ugh). A big question is, can he skip someone, especially for cause (e.g., Andrew)?

        As far as Harry goes, his role as counsellor is basically as a potential advisor. If he were somehow called upon to fulfill a temporary role in place of the monarch – and Camilla and Will would be called upon first – he’d apparently have to be physically present in the UK. It looks like, if he chose not to come, he would be disqualified from holding that position.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @windyriver, I think we’re kind of saying the same thing maybe. I left out/forgot the age 21 rule. Mentioned the Kate stuff because there are irrational factions that seem to think she’s an automatic except she’s not until/if Will becomes the monarch. Still a yikes moment. Is there any discrepancy, from what Eurydice said and what is kind of implied in all the things discussing the Counsellor of State sitch, that being a Counsellor of State, is at best, a ceremonial/performative role? It really isn’t some great position. Just another title? I’m saying that as someone who has laughed out loud that Kate (and the others) have private secretaries, assistants to private secretaries with assistants to the assistants of private secretaries all to a lot people that don’t really work 40 hours a week. It just seems like this whole Counsellor of State thing is an imagined importance title. It’s more a perceived position of action,

      • windyriver says:

        @Agreatreckoning – “Factions” can think what they like, but my guess is hell would freeze over before Charles, or Will, would be in any possible way in favor of having Kate as counsellor one second before it can’t be avoided (e.g., if she’s still married to Will), even if it’s technically possible to do it (and I don’t think it is).

        As far as what being a counsellor entails, I’d go by what others here like @Eurydice, @nota, @anotherlily, etc. have said, as it they’re likely more knowledgeable than I am. In theory, it seems like it should serve a purpose, but practically…?

        I agree the layers of bureaucracy within much of the Firm seem a little ridiculous, certainly for someplace like KP, which appears to do pretty much nothing except arrange intermittent photo ops. Charles though, probably has enough going on to keep everyone at CH busy…

    • Tessa says:

      I hope Kate never is chosen. It would be about her wardrobe and hair and how her stans say she’s the most beautiful woman who ever existed. LOL.

      • Deering24 says:

        Tessa–now, now–let us not forget all that “top CEO,” “she has brilliant peacemaking skills,” and “she’s really very intelligent, truly” blathering the BM tried to pull on us. Amplify that by twenty if she was appointed COS. 🙄🙄🙄

      • Katie Beanstalk says:

        It’s not a crime to be beautiful.

    • anotherlily says:

      In a word no. Kate is not in the line of succession. She can be a Counsellor of State only when, and if she is the spouse of the reigning monarch.

    • seaflower says:

      She’d be running to Coach CarolE for advice and then CarolE and Uncle Gary would have their very wishes realised.

  12. Coconut says:

    If nothing else, swap in Anne for Andrew asap! Yikes!

    • notasugarhere says:

      It is (supposed to be) based on position in the line of succession. Of the adults over 21 in the succession? Anne is last of QEII’s children. She’s behind Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, then Anne. Lady Louise won’t qualify for another three years, as you’re supposed to be 21 before becoming a Counsellor. But then? Louise outranks Anne and is already higher in the line of succession.

      This is why there are so many elder royals still working. At the start of her reign, those were the cousins who were QEII’s Counsellors of State and helping her do the royal ‘work’. She doesn’t want to retire them because they’ve ‘served’ her for 70 years.

      • windyriver says:

        @nota, great point about the cousins. I’ve been mildly puzzled about why they’ve been around as long time working royals; this explains it.

    • CC says:

      Has a woman not married to the monarch ever been named one before?

      • windyriver says:

        More than you’d think. Take a look at the info in Wikipedia. The most obvious ones are TQ herself and Princess Margaret. As the direct heir, Liz became a counsellor for her father when she turned 18. Margaret, not the heir, did when she turned 21, but that was less than a year before her father died. Once Liz became monarch, Margaret became a counsellor for her, next after Philip. I believe Anne would also have been a counsellor for TQ at one point, at least until the next generation (Will, Harry) turned 21.

  13. Maeve says:

    It’s not a matter of choice. By law (The Regency Act of 1937, which was required because the heir was a child) Counsellors of State include the Sovereign’s spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21 who are domiciled in the UK. Harry keeping his place at Frogmore means he’s still eligible. When Charles becomes king Camilla will become a Counsellor, along with William, Harry, Andrew and Beatrice. Those four will be Counsellors if there’s a regency, Andrew won’t drop out of the line until George and Charlotte are of age.

  14. Concern Fae says:

    This is another case of the monarchy not keeping up with modern life. Four counselors was probably a good number in 1937, when travel was by boat and it could take weeks or months to travel around the empire. So having four people meant that each of them could travel fairly freely, making sure that at least one remained in the UK.

    With modern travel meaning that anyone can return to the UK within 24 hours, there is probably a need for only two counselors. It would go with Charles’ streamlining.

    • Christine says:

      Yeah, let’s be honest, QEII has zero responsibilities that are so crucial they couldn’t wait a week. The media needs something to gripe about Harry they haven’t used in a while.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It isn’t about covering for the monarch’s duties. It is more about other voices there to advise the monarch what they are missing about X, Y, Z. Voices other than courtiers who want to control the monarch. To that end, the best person Charles could have as a Counsellor is Harry.

      • anotherlily says:

        It is principally about covering for the monarch’s duties.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LOL, what ‘duties’? There’s nothing QEII does that matters ultimately. With so many working royals, it hasn’t been the CoS who have been subbing for the monarch. ALL of them have been doing work that supports the monarchy. It isn’t like CoS is like a Regent or Regency.

        What they’re getting down to now is, Charles doesn’t want Andrew as one of his Counsellors, not as a substitute for doing monarch duties, but because he doesn’t want to have to listen to a word Andrew says. Nor does he want to listen to what Beatrice/Eugenie have to say and he’s NEVER going to let them sub for him as a monarch. These days, it is an advising role, not substituting for the monarch’s duties. IMO he’d like to keep Harry as one of his Counsellors and find a way to jump Edward or Anne over all the Yorks. He wants to stop Andrew from ever subbing one of his girls in for any event again.

      • JaneBee says:

        The most obvious formal ‘duty’ is likely signing legislation approved by Parliament into law. If there is a crisis and emergency legislation is enacted, the head of state needs to approve it in order for it to have effect.

        @AnotherLily noted earlier that in the case of Counsellors of State, legislative functions require not one but two of them to give assent – so four/five seems like a necessary number.

      • JaneBee says:

        The other major official duty is the appointment of the prime minister and cabinet ministers.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Again LOL. The govt does not stop moving if the monarch is ill. There is nothing that is so urgent it cannot wait for a 10 hour plane trip. Adding for emphasis, in a modern world this is more about being an advisor to the monarch not about signing pieces of paper.

      • JaneBee says:

        @Nota I get where you are coming from, but the constitutional duties and signing the bits of paper are the foundation of a functioning democracy. Not disagreeing that Harry could not do/perform Counsellor role while based in LA, but rather that TQ does have some key duties as head of state.

    • windyriver says:

      Interestingly, the RF website says, “In the event that TQ cannot undertake her official duties…on a temporary basis…TWO OR MORE [caps mine] Counsellors of State are appointed…to act in her place.” So as things currently stand, the protocol would to appoint more than one, if required by the situation, and you’d want to have more than two designated possibilities. Also, do they have to be appointed in the order of their place in the succession (assuming everyone is available)?

  15. blunt talker says:

    A little tidbit I read from the daily telegraph on Saturday-one of Prince William’s charities shut down this past Thursday due to a lack of Funds was given as the reason-this charity provides overseas trips during gap years of education-most of these kids had raised money for this and was told this issue will be discussed with lawyers-one student had walked to raise 3,800 dollars his parents are upset they may not get this money back-some parents took to social media to complain about it-the parents said they had no warning that something was wrong after paying their money to this charity-nobody said nothing-the prince of cambridge needs to get on the ball and make a statement about this-I noticed only the telegraph carried this story yesterday-I saw no mention in any other media tabloid or otherwise-invisible contract indeed.

    • Julia K says:

      Interesting. If it had been a different Prince it would have made the front page. What a shame if kids lose their trip money. Perhaps William can offer ” the odd smile”. Thank you for posting this.

    • BeanieBean says:

      I googled that, it’s Raleigh International! The one both W & K did, each going to Chile. That’s a shame for these kids.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      This is awful. And what a waste William is. And Kate. They raise funds in the names of these charities and hold that wealth in their foundation. It rarely reaches the charities and never the full amount.

  16. Katie Beanstalk says:

    I like Charles. He’s dignified and he seems to have a vision for all sorts of charities.