Talk:Counsellor of State/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is Prince Edward still a Counsellor of State or not? Couldn't find anything in Prince Harry's article.

Is Prince Edward still a Counsellor of State or not? Couldn't find anything in Prince Harry's article. --Voyager 17:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why the list ends in 1978?

Is there any particular reason why the list ends in 1978? I mean, yes, improved communications and transport makes arrangements like this less needed; but it would be good to get something explicitly saying that. Morwen - Talk 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Prince Harry's official style is "HRH Prince Henry of Wales". I would propose that the references to "HRH Prince Harry of Wales" should be fixed accordingly. Richwales 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason the chart format disappeared? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.22.97 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Future

The speculative 'counsellor of state', under a King Charles, should be removed. It's crystal balling. GoodDay 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the 'Future' section, it was pure crystal-balling. GoodDay 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Princess Alexandra

Was Princess Alexandra really a Counsellor of State? She doesn't appear in the list of occurances. Astrotrain 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Duke of Connaught

The list of Counsellors of State previously had Lady Southesk listed as a Counsellor from 1942 to 1944. This is incorrect. After the death of the Duke of Kent on 25 August 1942 the fourth person in the line of succession who was over 21 (twelfth in line overall, if I've worked it out correctly) was the Duke of Connaught. Only after his death on 26 April 1943 would Lady Southesk have become a Counsellor, holding the position until Lord Lascelles came of age on 7 February 1944. I know this is all academic anyway as there was no Council of State between August 1942 and April 1943, and even if there had been the Duke would not have served as he was absent in Canada, but I thought it would be inaccurate to omit him. Opera hat (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Princess Arthur of Connaught

The image file itself calls her that! Is there any reason why we should use a name form ("Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife") that was never used after her marriage? john k (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Duke of Edinburgh

Is there evidence the Duke of Edinburgh gave up being a Counsellor of State when he retired? Is there a source or is speculative? Legally he is still eligible as the spouse of the reigning Sovereign. The point is moot since the Queen doesn't really travel abroad long enough anymore to require the Counsellors to take over. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Royal Family's website still lists him - 213.123.75.36 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Prince Andrew August 2014 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this thing still accurate?

It lists the following people as counsellors of state:

1. Prince Phillip, who has been retired for several years and hasn't been seen in public in almost a year
2. Prince Andrew, who got the boot from the Royal Family because of Epstein-gate
3. Prince Harry, who left the country.

pbp 21:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Since no law has been passed to remove them, yes, it's still accurate. But here is something that could be worked into the article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to summarize the current situation with this edit pbp 04:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not accurate. Prince Harry is no longer domiciled in the UK, which means that he's no longer eligible to be a counsellor of state. This doesn't require a change in the law, as Surtsicna said; its how the law stands now. Under the Regency Act 1937, section 6(2A), a person who is disqualified from being Regent is also disqualified from being a counsellor, and section 3(2) says the regent has to be someone who is domiciled in the UK: [1]. The reference given in the article is out of date. Also, counsellors of state are only appointed from time to time when they're needed, it's not a permanent position, so a section called "Current counsellors of state" isn't accurate if there currently aren't any. Richard75 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the article in accordance with the UK Constitutional Law Association source (which was there already but hadn't been used to fully update the article). I've also replaced the "Period" column with a "Since" column, since it is unnecessary to have "— present" in every entry in a list which is described as a list of people currently eligible. Richard75 (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Domiziled" is different from "currently living in". There is a legal definition of when is someone domiziled in the UK and as long as there is no source proofing that he either is no longer domiziled or that he can't be anymore domiziled in the UK by this legal definition, this change is not appropriate. Currently he is still eligible. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Domiciled means permanently living in the country. Harry has permanently left and gone to live in Canada. I literally included a source for this; here it is again in case you missed it: He is domiciled in Canada because he intends to stay there. If he moves back, he will be eligible again. Unless and until he does, he's not eligible. Nobody is saying that somebody ceases to be eligible if they go abroad for a week. Your edit summary, "He can't be appointed now, but he is still eligible" literally contradicts itself. Richard75 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Craig Prescott's article says "should Prince Harry’s new life lead to him becoming permanently based overseas to the point that he is no longer a British subject and domiciled in the United Kingdom, then he will become ineligible to be appointed as Counsellor. In these circumstances, Princess Eugenie would replace him." That is what has happened. The quote you Anotherwikipedianuser gave in your his last edit summary is only about temporary absence from the UK. (Also, stop replacing "UK" with "Britain," they're not the same thing.) Richard75 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC) _{Message corrected to clarify that the edit was not made by Theoreticalmawi, Richard75 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}

First of all, I did not edit the page by now. Please stay objective. The source you quoted say what happen if Sussex comes to a point that he loose either his british citizenship or domicile. There is no source that provides that he reached this point yet. Every source available suggest, that he still is both british subject and domiciled in the UK, even if he is based in Canada or wherever he currently lives. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The UKCLA source does not in any way support the claim in the article. What the source says is "should Prince Harry’s new life lead to him becoming permanently based overseas to the point that he is no longer a British subject and domiciled in the United Kingdom ...". That does not make a definitive claim that Harry was domiciled in the UK at the time of writing, but rather notes the possibility that living overseas can lead to a change in domicile. In any event, the article was written in January 2020. At that point, Harry had said he was moving "part time" to Vancover and would split his time between the UK and Canada. Vancover was also stated to be a temporary base. Since then they have moved to Los Angeles, and stated that this will be their permanent home. They also bought a house there. These are all factors that affect domicile, making the UKCLA even less safe as a source for whether or not Harry is UK domiciled currently. I do not believe it provides any evidence one way or the other whether Harry is domiciled, it merely notes that it is a factor in him being a counsellor of state. Mauls (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My personal reading of the article is that it says that the Duke of Sussex was domiciled in the UK at the time of writing, but your edits definitely represent Craig Prescott's argument better. Thanks for making them! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Queen Mother

"One exception was made for Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (see below)."

This is an unclear reference to footnote 3. Also, not sure it's right to characterise the Regency Act 1953 as an exception, it added her. Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpllpr (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Age of majority"

I have taken out the references to the age of majority as it isn't really accurate any more, and also because there are different ages for the first in line to the throne (18) and everyone else 21). The age of majority has been 18 since 1970. The legislation doesn't use that wording but just says "full age." But I think all this list needs to say is that the person reached age 18 or age 21, and the relevance is explained earlier in the article. Richard75 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Full age

Hello,

I've made some edits to this page today, but was just wondering whether there is a legislative source for the "...full age..." given in the Regency Act 1937 section 3(2) (applicable under section 6(2)) being 21?

The Regency Act 1953 section 2 made "...full age..." 18 for the heir apparent or heir presumptive, but surely this would be the same for the other Counsellors of State, the age of majority in England, for instance, being 18? I can't find any relevant reference to "full age" in statute.

Let me know if I've missed anything.

Thanks,

FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The Regency Acts were exempted from the change of the age of majority by Schedule 2 to the Family Law Reform Act 1969. Richard75 (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense: thank you! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Prince Harry's domicile

If Prince Harry is not eligible to be a Counselor of State due to residing outside the UK, doesn't Beatrice replace him? If not that should probably be explained. Rlendog (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I've only just seen this. Yes, Princess Beatrice would replace the Duke of Sussex as a counsellor of state if he was ineligible for pretty much any reason, as the next eligible person in the line of succession who isn't already a counsellor of state. Oddly, Craig Prescott says that (the younger) Princess Eugenie would replace the Duke, but I can't see how this is correct.

The question of the Duke's ineligibility is an interesting one. In his article from January 2020, published a couple of days after it was announced that "the Sussexes will pursue a new life in Canada", Prescott says: "[a]s a side note, should Prince Harry’s new life lead to him becoming permanently based overseas to the point that he is no longer a British subject and domiciled in the United Kingdom, then he will become ineligible to be appointed as Counsellor." This suggests that the Duke would not have been precluded from being a counsellor of state by the subjects of the announcements made in January 2020 coming to fruition. Additionally, royal.uk still lists the Duke as a counsellor of state, though I think that care has to be taken with using that page as an authoritative source. Firstly, it seems oddly formatted, secondly, it still includes the late Duke of Edinburgh and, thirdly, it inconsistently refers to the Duke of Sussex as Prince Harry, while referring to the other counsellors of state by their dukedoms. It could, perhaps, be outdated. However, recent events (namely prolonged absence from the UK during the COIVD-19 pandemic, though the Duke did return for his grandfather's funeral, and the fact that he now lives in the USA) may have changed things. Nonetheless, without any more recent authoritative source to the contrary (of which I can't find), we must keep referring to the Duke of Sussex as a counsellor of state on Wikipedia. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with FollowTheTortoise. I would add that domicile can't be changed as quickly as residence. It's not enough to move to another country, or to announce your intentions in a press conference. Changing domicile can take years, and Harry will still be paying taxes to the UK government for years to come. Richard75 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed a sentence that stated if Prince Harry ceases to be a British Subject. Prince Harry has never been a "British Subject", that particular nationality category was significantly narrowed the year before Prince Harry was born, he is and has only every been British Citizen. In any case why only mention this in reference to Prince Harry, British Citizens do not lose their citizenship by living abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.189.190 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Philip's place in the line of succession

I am not sure it is correct to describe Philip's place in the line of succession as "not applicable". He is in the line, though that is not what makes him a counsellor of state. Surtsicna (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not applicable because only the first four adults in the line of succession matter here. Philip must be 800th in line or something. Richard75 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits from yesterday

Hey again @Richard75, I think that this is the best place to have this discussion. I noticed that you reversed my most recent edit. I'd be happy to keep the mechanism information in the lede, but I was hoping that it would be okay with you if I added back my wording improvements and some additional content that I added yesterday. I also took issue with some unsourced material and changed "Charles, Prince of Wales" to "Prince Charles, Prince of Wales". Let me know what you think! Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, that would be fine with me. Richard75 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there are any problems! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It mostly looks good, but the bit about they can't appoint prime ministers, dissolve Parliament or deal with Commonwealth matters is not in the Regency Act 1937, which is the source you cited. That Act only says they can't grant titles. I can see you got that from the royal website, so I've changed the citation to make that clear, and pointed out which prohibition is in the law and which are just in the letters patent. Richard75 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - it reads a lot better now. And yes, I noticed that discrepancy too - thanks for clarifying it! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Prince Charles and Prince William just got appointed Counsellors of State. Said so on the news. Is how they opened Parliament on her behalf. Page should be updated. I don't have enough solid info to edit it myself though. 217.155.61.226 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It already says so. Richard75 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)