How an obscure question in the House of Lords revealed a Palace plan to sideline Harry and Andrew
AMID all this week’s frantic numbercrunching 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.
On the last occasion, the late Queen was attending the 2015 Commonwealth summit in Malta. The Dukes of Sussex and York were among those she appointed as Counsellors of State beforehand.
Since then, however, Prince Harry has bowed out of royal duties and moved abroad, while Andrew has been removed from public life following his association with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
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.
Hence the likely inclusion of other working members of the family. That way, no one need be offended and business can continue normally. Within royal and parliamentary circles, the example of the miners’ strike in 1974 is often cited. At the time, the Queen was on a long tour of Australia and the Pacific.
On February 7, a state of emergency was declared, as Ted Heath’s government was brought to its knees by the industrial action, giving the authorities special powers to take over supplies and distribution of fuel, food and ‘the essentials of life’. The next day, Parliament was dissolved.
In both cases, these orders had to be approved by two Counsellors of State. On that occasion, they were Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother.
Let’s hope Britain is not reduced to that sort of chaos again, but it would hardly be very reassuring if it required the signature of the Duke of York to keep the lights on.
Earlier this week, the subject surfaced in the House of Lords following a question by the Labour hereditary peer, Viscount Stansgate. ‘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?’ he asked. Lord Stansgate, the son of the late Labour grandee Tony Benn, continued: ‘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 standard practice for ministers to bat off such questions with the rehearsed response that Royal Family matters are off-limits. Instead, Lord True, who had been forewarned of this question surfacing on the order paper at least a fortnight earlier, quoted the words of George VI in 1937. Shortly after his accession, said Lord True, the new King had acknowledged a need ‘to make such provision as will . . . secure the exercise of the Royal Authority’.
Then the noble Lord went further: ‘In that spirit, 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
In theory, the Duke of York could still step in for absent King
The Princess Royal could be part of a pool of substitutes
opportunity to consider the arrangements in place.’
In other words, watch this space.
Neither the Palace nor Lord True’s office had any further comment yesterday. Yet it did not go unnoticed by beadyeyed constitutional commentators such as Dr Craig Prescott, of the UK Constitutional Law Association. He tweeted: ‘ I think this was the first time the issue of Princes Harry and Andrew being Counsellors of State has been raised in Parliament.’
I am told that senior Palace officials were already exploring ways of ‘tidying up’ this potential stumbling block back in the summer.
‘The Queen could see the need for some reforms, while not wishing to exclude the Dukes of Sussex or York,’ said a source. ‘The King is simply following through with that.’
At the Palace, such matters reside jointly with the late Queen’s private secretary, Sir Edward Young, and the King’s principal private secretary, Sir Clive Alderton. For the time being, they are working in tandem at Buckingham Palace to ensure the smoothest possible handover. This is simply an example of unfinished business.
Once the King’s first overseas tours are announced — and, as the new Head of the Commonwealth, he will have many — then a closer focus on the Regency Acts will be inevitable.
Both the Palace and the Government will then want to have a plan in place before Lord Stansgate’s question becomes a chorus.