The roles of Counsellors of State have been debated in the House of Lords, the first time the topic has been raised since King Charles’s reign began.
The news could spell trouble for the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York as the Regency Act 1937 was debated regarding the roles of Counsellors of State, and who is entitled to act on behalf of the Sovereign.
Currently this is limited to the spouse of the Sovereign and the next four adults in the line of succession. Currently, the role can be fulfilled by Queen Camilla, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex, The Duke of York, and Princess Beatrice.
Viscount Stansgate brought up the question in Monday’s session, asking “what plans [His Majesty’s Government] have, if any, to amend the Regency Act 1937.”
The Regency Act provides laws for what occurs if the Sovereign is a minor at the time of accession, who is entitled to act as regent on their behalf, what happens when the Sovereign is incapacitated, and who is entitled to act as a Counsellor of State on behalf of the Sovereign.
The Lord Privy Seal, The Lord True, replied that the Government will consider “their legislative programme for the remainder of the session,” without opening the topic up to further discussion.
Viscount Stansgate pressed on, noting that the Regency Act 1937 “is the only reason why it was possible to open the current Session of this Parliament.”
King Charles, then Prince of Wales, and his son William, then the Duke of Cambridge, were called upon as Counsellors of State to oversee the State Opening of Parliament on 10 May 2022 when the late Queen Elizabeth II was unable to do so herself.
The Regency Act 1937 gave King Charles and Prince William the power to jointly open Parliament on behalf of The Queen, with King Charles reading The Queen’s Speech.
Viscount Stansgate continued, asking if the Regency Act 1937 should not be amended, particularly Clause 6—which regulates Counsellors of States—because,“Otherwise, are the Government happy to continue with a situation where the counsels of state and regency powers may be exercised by the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, one of whom has left public life and the other of whom has left the country? Is it not time for the Government to approach the King to see whether a sensible amendment can be made to this Act?”
It is the most political rebuke of the Regency Act and the fact that both the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York continue to be Counsellors of State despite neither carrying out official duties—and in Prince Harry’s case, no longer domiciled in the UK.
Princess Beatrice, likewise, does not carry out official duties, but only became a Counsellor of State upon her uncle’s accession.
Lord True replied that he would not discuss any private conversations he has had with King Charles III or the Royal Household over the matter, but noted that “the Government will always consider what arrangements are needed to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements, and in the past we have seen that the point of accession has proved a useful opportunity to consider the arrangements in place.”
Dominic Hubbard, 6th Baron Addington, then asked if the Government would “indicate that they will at least consider that the person they go to in the first consideration will be somebody who actually undertakes royal duties, or at least some part of them, at present?”
Lord True again replied that he would not commit to an answer as any changes would have to be taken in consultation with the Royal Household.
Changes to the Regency Act 1937 have been a talking point in recent years with many calling for the role to be amended to working royals only, removing Princes Harry and Andrew and Princess Beatrice. Possible replacements suggested have included the Earl of Wessex, the Princess Royal, and potentially the Princess of Wales.
The Palace has not commented on any changes to the Regency Act 1937.
