When the Sussexit happened in 2020, suddenly there was a very melodramatic conversation happening about Prince Harry’s role as “counsellor of state.” Both Prince Harry and Prince Andrew were Counsellors of State for Queen Elizabeth II, meaning that in a time of crisis or a time when the monarch is out of the country, the counsellors could step in and make decisions on behalf of the monarch. Except Andrew is a nonce and Harry lives in America, which is why there was so much melodrama about whether Harry and Andrew should be “thrown out” as counsellors. At the end of the day, QEII didn’t do anything about the situation because – I believe – she knew that Charles would have to deal with the issue when he became king. And here we are – King Charles was handed the issue, and now the House of Lords is trying to solve it.

Amid all this week’s frantic number-crunching and furtive haggling for the Conservative leadership, few were paying much attention to the House of Lords order paper on a quiet Monday afternoon. Yet in one brief exchange between the Leader of the Lords and a Labour backbencher we caught a glimpse of what may be the first constitutional reform of the reign of King Charles III.

Ministers and senior Palace officials are now finalising plans to avoid any future prospect of the Dukes of Sussex or York being involved in affairs of state in the absence of the King. Under proposals expected to come before Parliament, possibly within weeks, the King will be able to draw on a wider pool of royal substitutes — not least the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex — to conduct routine constitutional duties when he is out of the country.

The Mail has learned that these proposals were already being considered some months ago, with the approval of the late Queen. Monday’s parliamentary reply from the Leader of the Lords, Lord True, suggests that reform may be imminent.

At present, when the monarch is absent for whatever reason, state business — such as approvals for most appointments and legislation — can be conducted by two Counsellors of State. Under the terms of the Regency Acts of 1937 and 1953, these can be appointed from the four most senior adults in the line of succession, plus the consort of a monarch. Today, that means the Queen Consort, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Sussex, the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice. Under the proposals in hand, the King would be able to extend that list at his discretion, with the option to include his two other siblings, Anne and Edward.

Reform is not without some sense of urgency, given that the King and the Queen Consort are likely to be heading overseas soon, the first time that the monarch has been out of the country in seven years. Palace officials are conscious that, at a time of great national, international and economic turbulence, it would be highly embarrassing if the smooth and immediate running of government were suddenly dependent on either of the two errant dukes.

In theory, state business could still be conducted by the Prince of Wales and Princess Beatrice, though she is a private citizen who might not be available at the click of a constitutional finger. She also does not carry the imprimatur of a working member of the Royal Family.

Rather than amend legislation to exclude any specific individuals, so the thinking goes, it makes much more sense simply to expand the options available to the King.

[From The Daily Mail]

“The two errant dukes” – one duke was credibly accused of rape and human trafficking. The other duke married a Black woman and left Salt Island to protect his family. Both “errant,” I guess. Equally “errant.” Yeah, they’ve been trying to do this for years, somehow equate Harry and Andrew. It’s always been gross, but it is what it is. It’s how these dumbasses think. As for the issue of counsellors of state… sure, whatever. They’ve needed to make some changes for years, as I said. Of course Charles would prefer Anne and Edward in those positions.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.