Talk:Counsellor of State

Camilla

Isn't Camilla eligible to be a counselor of state now as Charles' spouse? Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for reminding us! Richard75 (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

holdovers

In each reign, three of the initial Counsellors are holdovers; shouldn't their tenure be dated from when they became Counsellors in the previous reign? —Tamfang (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Richard75 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Of course they should. There is literally no reason why not. Done. Richard75 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

But because you didn't make the same change at 1952, others are reverting you for consistency! Oy. —Tamfang (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll deal with that. Richard75 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it ought to be one continuous table. —Tamfang (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That might be best. We can put current people in bold if necessary. Richard75 (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Death of Prince Philip

Who replaced Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, after his death? 77.46.96.214 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody, at least not right away. It's the consort and the first four eligible people in line to the throne. When one of those four dies or becomes ineligible, they are replaced by the next eligible person in line. But the consort isn't replaced (unless the sovereign remarries or there is a new sovereign). So after Philip's death there were only four counsellors until the Queen died and Camilla became the new royal consort. Richard75 (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

“When one of those four … becomes ineligible”: has that ever happened? Many of them have been displaced when someone higher in the line of succession came of age. —Tamfang (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I just mentioned it because it's a possibility. Richard75 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Kate Middleton

...is not eligible to be a Counsellor of State. Richard75 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it not that the Princess of Wales is also a Counsellor of State? I believe this is the case, though not certain on the matter. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is not a Counsellor of State. He will never be King, and has effectively been stripped of all his titles. Catherine, Princess of Wales on the other hand is the likely Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 Commonwealth Realms.MorphinESTP (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The article, and the legislation, is very clear that the Princess of Wales is not eligible (until she is queen). Also, Harry hasn't been stripped of any of his titles; he is still Duke of Sussex. I wonder how much attention you have paid to this subject. Richard75 (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The article clearly states that Prince Harry, Duke of Suffolk is indeed a current Counsellor of State. It is likely the reason that King Charles III is expanding the number of C of A so that he and Prince Andrew would never need to be called upon to fulfil the role, which would be intolerable. @MorphinESTP fr33kman 22:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit that I don't know as much about the particular details and roles or duties each Royal has. I assumed that with Catherine, Princess of Wales being next in line to be Queen of the United Kingdom and 14 commonwealth realms, when Prince William ascends to the throne meant that she would be a Counsellor of State. I guess not, though. Although Charles III can change that if he so wishes. Harry lives in North America, has no Royal duties, and a British MP just introduced a bill which will strip both he and Meghan Markle will be stripped of the titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex. They keep bashing the Royal family, while at; the same time using these titles for clout, attention, and favor. They're two narcissistic brats (that's my personal opinion of them). @Fr33kman --MorphinESTP (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Richard75 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

I had a go at making a timeline of Counsellors of State - any use? John Womble (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought of that too; glad someone did it. I'd put Anne below Edward, reflecting the line of succession. —Tamfang (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good thinking - I've added some horizontal bars as well, to help show family distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_Womble/sandbox&oldid=1118693265 John Womble (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a timeline, feel free to suggest changes. John Womble (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

"British Subject"

None of the current Counsellors of State are British Subjects. Indeed two of them, Prince Harry and Princess Beatrice have never held such status, the others ceased to be British Subjects on 1 January 1983 when they became British Citizens.

It is true the Regency Act uses the term "British Subject", (which was a status held by a much larger number of people at the time). It probably a source of genuine debate how we should read "British Subject" for the purpose of the Regency Act, it could mean 'Commonwealth Citizen' or perhaps , 'British Citizen'. At the moment, the point is moot, (all eligible people are both) but say one of Prince Harry's children (who are only British Citizens by descent) married a Canadian, or a South African citizem... then it gets interesting. It depends on whether "British Subject" in the Regency Act should be read... Probably it means 'Commonwealth Citizen' which suggests a Canadian Citizen could be a Counsellor of State (consistent with eligibility to join the Army or stand for Parliament).

If of course 'British Subject' in the Regency Act is to be read by the current understanding of British Subject, then it is unlikely anyone has been eligible to be a Counsellor of State since 1983! 91.84.189.190 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Instead of guessing, you could try looking it up... Section 51(1)(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981 says that in old legislation the term "British subject" just means a Commonwealth citizen, which is defined in section 37. (Spoiler alert: it doesn't "get interesting," and the people who have been eligible to be counsellors of state since 1983 are the ones listed in this article.) Richard75 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Harry and Andrew

Princes Harry and Andrew haven't been disqualified from being counsellors. They're no longer being appointed, but this article is a list of who is eligible. Richard75 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Prince Harry - Eligibility

In UK law ([1]https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis/rdrm22300) domicile of choice is acquired once the conditions of residency and intent have been met. Residency is clear: he resides in a legal jurisdiction outside the UK and, as of this week, has no residence in the UK. Intent is also apparent, given that the Sussexes are not on holiday or temporarily 'deployed' to California, but there is a clear determination to remain in the United States. On that basis, Prince Harry no longer meets the requirements of the act and has ceased to be eligible for appointment as Counsellor of State.

Princess Eugenie would, therefore, take his place on the list. 2A00:23C8:4383:9301:8CC0:D161:8153:FEB0 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is also following the royal.uk website about counsellors of state and it still states that Prince Harry is still a counsellor of state due to his place in the line of succession. Also on the royal.uk website, they still haven't added Princess Anne of Prince Edward to their own list yet. DDMS123 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that part of the website was last updated following the Queen's death and does not yet reflect subsequent developments. As such, it's not necessarily the best source for the existing state of affairs (nor would it supersede legislation). 2A00:23C8:4383:9301:DC91:B589:597:94C2 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@2A00:23C8:4383:9301:8CC0:D161:8153:FEB0 First of all, even though it is a very interesting question, what you are trying to do is original research. Wikipedia is not the right place for original research. We should wait till we have some source to cite.

On your point: What you where citing are the rules of a domicil of choice. Harry has british domicile by origin, which he could only lose, if he a) obtained another domicile of choice and b) does not retain a british domicile of choice. On a) he has to express his intent to reside in the US indefinitely and on b) he has to express that he has no intent at all to reside in the UK in the future.

Instead of trying to prove a) and b), I would recommend to wait till we get reliable sources that we can cite without the need of any synthesis. 2003:DE:770C:59D7:1821:F93D:F3EE:E325 (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I did not amend the article to replace Prince Harry with Princess Eugenie as there currently is no source to confirm that the change has taken place. It is, however, indisputably dubious that the former retains his post based on HMRC's own manuals. As such, it is appropriate to include such a note on the article.

On your points A and B, you are incorrect, as an expression of intent is not required and/or may not necessarily overrule the actual status. I quote hereunder the relevant extracts from HMRC's guidance:

"An important aspect of the existence, or otherwise, of the necessary intention is whether or not there is a contingency upon the occurrence of which the individual’s residence in a particular territory is anticipated to end. If there is an intention to return to the domicile of origin on a clearly foreseen and reasonably anticipated contingency, there is no intention to remain indefinitely. However, if the contingency is vague or sufficiently conditional, an intention to remain indefinitely could exist and a domicile of choice be acquired."

"Mere statements are generally less important than actual conduct and may carry little weight if the statement does not correlate with actions taken."

"Motives, such as avoidance of family or creditors, or tax mitigation or avoidance, can shed light on intended permanence." 2A00:23C8:4383:9301:79CE:2F6A:BA40:9F2D (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Harry again

Harry still hasn't been removed from the list of counsellors: see www.royal.uk and The Times. He is just no longer serving, which we knew already. Only an act of Parliament can change that. Richard75 (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That GB News article probably isn't accurate. If Parliament had changed the law again -- which it hasn't -- there would be another source to say so. What GBNews are trying to say here is that Harry isn't being invited to come to London and serve as a CoS, not that he's no longer on the list of eligible people. Richard75 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)