The role of the British Monarchy, Popularity and Future discussion

[wannable]

I think they should have added Anne, Edward and Sophie IF the theme was to poll working and ex working royals.

Camilla is in the safe zone  adding the purple hues to 55%.  All light purple hues have to be worked hard to maintain it or else, bad news. Camilla's 37, Charles 40, The Institution of the Monarchy 37 light purple hues could go anyway from equal to better or bad, it all depends on the foursome work tied to national interests tied to behaviour too (Charles, Camila, William and Catherine)

[Curryong]

The monarchy sees a minor improvement in public opinion | YouGov

Large divergence once again in the stance of young Britain versus the old towards the monarchy.

There continues to be an enormous generational difference in attitudes to the monarchy. While fully 86% of Britons aged 65 and over say we should continue to have a monarchy, this falls to just 47% among 18-24 year olds. Even this latter figure is probably temporarily inflated by current events: just 33% had voiced their desire to keep the crown in May, at the time of the Platinum Jubilee, and the average figure from 2020 onwards prior to the Queen?s death had been 35%.

[Curryong]

Popularity of all royals.

The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings

[wannable]

According to The Sunday Telegraph, reportedly King Charles would like to have the governing which members of the BRF qualify as Counsellors of State amended. Currently the Counsellors of State are the following: Queen Consort, PoW, DoS, DoY and Pss Beatrice. Reportedly KCIII would prefer to have working members of the family as CoS.

King Charles to seek to amend laws which would relieve Harry, Andrew & Beatrice of constitutional role ? Royal Central

It is happening. The first official and formal discussion yesterday.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-10-24/debates/AD3AEDE1-B3AE-4492-91B6-6A61D1C793E0/RegencyAct1937?highlight=%22regency%20act%22#contribution-B204D117-DE7C-4E21-B146-039CC02941B1

In the House of Lords today, there was a question about reforming the Regency Acts. Government did not rule out making changes, but really rule it in. I think this was the first time the issue of Princes Harry & Andrew being Counsellors of State has been raised in Parliament.

[PrincessOfPeace]

Apparently the process was started under the Queen. Rather than remove individuals the plan seems to be to add Edward and Anne. Either way the message is clear.

the Palace plan to sideline Harry and Andrew, writes ROBERT HARDMAN  | Daily Mail Online

[TLLK]

I had read recently that there is proposed legislation to alter the current the Counsellors of State and the link and the article below refer to it. Also it's reported that the late Queen had already give approval to the measure.  Currently the CoS are the following: The Queen Consort and the four adults over the age of 21 who closest in the line of succession: PoW, DoS, DoY, and Princess Beatrice.

Here's the exchange that took place in the House of Lords on Oct. 24, 2022 regarding the Regency Act of 1937.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-10-24/debates/AD3AEDE1-B3AE-4492-91B6-6A61D1C793E0/RegencyAct1937#main-content

The Daily Telegraph had covered this back in September.

It is believed that the King recognises the incongruity of having a trio of non-working Royals able to step into his shoes if he is abroad or incapacitated.

archive.ph

the Palace plan to sideline Harry and Andrew, writes ROBERT HARDMAN  | Daily Mail Online

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.

The urgency is due to the fact that the King and Queen Consort will be undertaking their first overseas visits in the coming months. While the PoW and PssB would be enough, there is an opinion that the CoS should be from the working group of royals. If the DoS, DoY, and PssB were to be removed they'd likely be replaced with EoW, PssR and DoG.

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.

[Curryong]

This rumoured action has been seen by some observers as a move specifically to remove Harry and Andrew from the list of Counsellors of State. Not using non working members of the RF is an option of course, and that includes Beatrice. However it doesn?t look as if removal of those already there, which constitutionally has to be the first four adults in the line of succession (ie William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice) is what is proposed.

In fact removal  of anyone as C of S  is not what Hardman is suggesting in this article. Specifically Hardman is suggesting extensions not removals.
He writes
?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?.

Such a move would also mean there could be no suggestion of targeting anyone. And in fact under this proposal  if Harry was in the country and in Windsor (a distinct possibility in 2023) he and William could act together.

[wannable]

As I posted in another thread early today It is not a rumor. Official and formal discussion.

[wannable]

Parliament will use the same sentence as vandalism and destruction of public and or private property. The little slap note 📝 is not enough.

The EU jail them with huge bail fines.

[Curryong]

As I posted in another thread early today It is not a rumor. Official and formal discussion.

It is a rumour until there is a formal announcement on behalf of the King. And this move appears to extend Counsellors of State to two or three more but also not get rid of any already there.

[wannable]

It is in the parliament discussion as posted.

[Curryong]

It is in the parliament discussion as posted.

Well, we shall see. A couple of questions in the House of Lords, not the Commons. doesn?t constitute a complete and extensive discussion. And ultimately it will be the King who makes the final decision about the make up of Counsellors of State not Parliament.

[Curryong]

Parliament will use the same sentence as vandalism and destruction of public and or private property. The little slap note 📝 is not enough.

The EU jail them with huge bail fines.

And what does this post  mean? Is this post in the correct thread? Because it doesn?t make any sense with regard to the current discussion in this thread.

[PrincessOfPeace]

By expanding the list it means Harry and Andrew won't be needed, which is the point. Neither one carries out anything official on behalf of the monarchy or government. It would be pretty bizarre then to call on either to sign off on government business. Same for Beatrice.

[Curryong]

By expanding the list it means Harry and Andrew won't be needed, which is the point. Neither one carries out anything official on behalf of the monarchy or government. It would be pretty bizarre then to call on either to sign off on government business. Same for Beatrice.

I addressed that in my original post. However there have been rejoicings in the Anti Sussexes camp for weeks that Harry was going to be unceremoniously kicked out of remaining as a Counsellor of State (thereby humiliating him.) And that does not, judging by this latest article appear to be going to happen.

[PrincessOfPeace]

We don't know what in the regency act will be amended. The Telegraph reports Charles wants only working royals which would mean they will be removed. Or as the Mail reports the list will be expanded. I think either way the message is clear that Harry, Andrew and Beatrice won't be used as CoS for obvious reasons. 

[Curryong]

We don't what in the regency act will be amended. The Telegraph reports Charles wants only working royals which would mean they will be removed. Or as the Mail reports the list will be expanded. I think either way the message is clear that Harry, Andrew and Beatrice won't be used as CoS for obvious reasons.

However Counsellors of State are hardly used anyway. With digital communications and modern travel the way it is today the situation in 1974 when the QM and Margaret declared a State of Emergency and dissolved Parliament in the absence of the Queen and Duke overseas (Ted Heath?s Govt crumbled and there was a debilitating miners strike) would not be repeated today. That was the last time C-of-S affected Govt operations.

Charles opened Parliament accompanied by William as the late Queen was unwell was the last time two C of S were used together. In neither of those cases would Anne or the Duke of Gloucester or Edward have been utilised anyway.

[TLLK]

We don't know what in the regency act will be amended. The Telegraph reports Charles wants only working royals which would mean they will be removed. Or as the Mail reports the list will be expanded. I think either way the message is clear that Harry, Andrew and Beatrice won't be used as CoS for obvious reasons. 

I believe that it is best to have the working BRF members as oS as they aremore familiar with the demands of the role and the day to day function of the Firm.

While Harry and Andrew have past experience as CoS, both gave stepped back from senior royal duties.  Beatrice has never been part of that group and is more or less a private citizen. On the other hand, Edward, Anne and Richard have decades of experience as working royals. 

[wannable]

I addressed that in my original post. However there have been rejoicings in the Anti Sussexes camp for weeks that Harry was going to be unceremoniously kicked out of remaining as a Counsellor of State (thereby humiliating him.) And that does not, judging by this latest article appear to be going to happen.

Why is it humilating to take away (and make a new rule) of an ex senior working royal to be ousted completely from all and any monarchy related ''job''. 

I resigned a job, I don't get to be part or stay in any way shape or form in anything related to that! company".  Same happens to people who are fired.

[Curryong]

Why is it humilating to take away (and make a new rule) of an ex senior working royal to be ousted completely from all and any monarchy related ''job''. 

I resigned a job, I don't get to be part or stay in any way shape or form in anything related to that! company".  Same happens to people who are fired.

When you left your job you didn?t have the world?s media dissecting it all and rejoicing at every setback in your new life in another country. You didn?t have journalists, ?royal experts?, commentators and authors insulting and belittling you at every turn in the world?s media.

Let?s not pretend that thousands in Tumblir, Twitter, SM of all kinds, as well as the above people wouldn?t be heartily rejoicing if Harry was no longer a C of S. You and I and everyone else knows different. The British media and others have been calling for the Sussexes titles to be pulled, though that hasn?t happened. Same thing. That?s the humiliation I?m talking about. It?s different for Beatrice if she is replaced. She is neither as high up in the line of succession as Harry, not does she get one tenth of the negative press, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

[wannable]

He trashed the BRF publicly not once but multiple times. Their lies have been caught and went global because of the multiple times. 

He has been very outspoken about the very profound dislike working for the Monarchy, he should be happy then to get rid of the last vestige of his previous job.

[Curryong]

Except, according to the latest reports no C of S is going to be replaced, just the numbers extended, one of them rumoured to be a 72 year old who was herself none too popular for several decades. I have a long memory. She was called Princess Grumpy and Princess Misery for years because she hardly ever smiled on engagements, told the Press off on occasions and was frequently exceedingly ungracious as a royal representative of the monarchy.

Is Princess Anne as Miserable as Everyone Thinks?

[wannable]

My POV is it doesn't matter if she's 72, grumpy, FilInTheArchetypes, she is a working royal, trustworthy to the Monarchy and HM UK Government, is what really matters.  Both the Monarchy and HM UK Government can't have a Pedo or public known trasher as counsellor.  The act has to be changed in such a way that there is 'retirement or forced retirement (fired), that simply and simplifies work with the modern times, 21st century, etc.

As I quoted yesterday from Craig Prescott, a well known and very famous Constitutional Lawyer in the UK it is not a question of IF but When 'ruling in'. He says it will happen, sooner than thought, perhaps before Charles and Camilla's next overseas tour.

[Curryong]

Craig Prescott may be a well known British constitutional lawyer (even though Britain has no written constitution and in fact operates mainly on custom and precedent.) However that does not mean that Prescott has the King?s ear, or that he knows what King Charles will decide to do.

[Princess Cassandra]

Adding Anne and Edward makes so much sense!  Removing the Duke of Sussex also makes sense, since he chose to leave his Royal Work and has gone somewhat rogue, at least at this time, and has made a new life in the States.  I am ambivalent about Andrew - I agree he has extremely bad judgement, but I think Virginia Juffre's claims are sketchy at best.