Being a member of the royal family has been described as similar to living life in a ‘gilded cage’. Prince Harry has also spoken of feeling ‘trapped’ by the institution. Francesca Jackson argues that senior members of the royal family have no choice but to serve the country because to refuse to do so would pose an existential threat to the institution of monarchy that it might not be able to survive.
Continue reading
The King’s cancer diagnosis has prompted much press speculation about the prospect of Prince William taking on additional responsibilities during his father’s illness and, possibly, a Regency. Robert Hazell answers some of the most pressing questions about what might happen next.
The announcement from the Palace that the King has cancer prompted a flurry of media requests to the Constitution Unit about what might happen next, constitutionally speaking. What follows are answers to some of the most important constitutional questions raised by the news of the King’s cancer diagnosis, such as, how many Counsellors of State are there? (Spoiler: the Palace don’t seem to know), how is a Regency declared, how might Prince Harry become Regent, and when did we last have a Regency?
What does the announcement mean in practice?
The King will continue to fulfil his essential constitutional functions like granting royal assent to laws, appointing ministers and other senior officials, and holding his weekly audience with the Prime Minister. His absence from public appearances will mean more royal visits being undertaken by other senior royals: Princess Anne, Queen Camilla, Prince William, Prince Edward and his wife Sophie.
We are a long way from triggering the provisions of the Regency Acts. These provide for other royals to act on behalf of the monarch in the event of his incapacity, or absence abroad. In the event of temporary incapacity, two or more Counsellors of State are appointed on a short term basis; whereas permanent incapacity leads to the appointment of a Regent.
Continue reading
Charles III has now been formally crowned as King in a ceremony with deep historical roots that reflect the institution’s long history. But what about the monarchy’s future? Craig Prescott discusses whether the UK is willing to consider the major constitutional change of becoming a republic, and concludes that should such a change take place, it will need to coincide with an underlying change in political culture in order to be anything other than symbolic.
The British public, as Brexit underlined, is not necessarily averse to major constitutional change. The start of a new reign provides an opportunity to reappraise the monarchy. Such a reappraisal is already taking place in many of the 14 Commonwealth realms.
In June 2022, Australia appointed an Assistant Minister for the Republic, with the intention that Australia will move towards becoming a republic after the next election, due in 2025. Over the next few years, referendums on whether to become a republic are likely in Antigua and Barbuda and Jamaica. Belize has formed a People’s Constitutional Commission to review its constitution, including the question of whether to become a republic. There is no reason, in principle, why such a reappraisal should not take place in the UK.
Constitutionally, the core argument for the monarchy was that it could function as a pressure valve in times of political crisis. If necessary, a Prime Minister could be dismissed, or a Parliament dissolved. Especially during the reign of Elizabeth II, that argument diminished almost to vanishing point as the personal prerogative powers of the monarch became increasingly regulated by convention and law. For example, the Cabinet Manual (paragraph 2.12), and events after the 2010 general election made clear that the monarch plays no active role in the formation of government even if an election returns a hung parliament.
Instead, the primary political argument for the monarchy is that it provides a space in public life which is beyond day-to-day party politics. Through their role as Head of Nation, the monarch seeks to ‘represent the nation back to itself’. Most notably, this can be seen on occasions such as Remembrance Sunday, when the monarch leads the nation in an act of remembrance which commands broad and deep, but not total, support across the political spectrum and in the country at large. In this way, there is a separation between the state and the government of the day.
Continue reading
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan) have been open about the intrusion upon their privacy which followed the announcement of their relationship, as chronicled by a new documentary. Robert Hazell and Bob Morris argue that a lack of privacy is a common problem across European monarchies and reducing the size of the royal family might allow more of its members to escape their ‘gilded cage’.
Robert Hazell appeared in Episode 1 of the Netflix documentary, in an interview drawing on our book The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy (now available in paperback with a 30% discount for readers of this blog: use the code RMMD30). That was a comparative study of the other monarchies in Western Europe, as well as the UK: Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. It showed that monarchy makes extraordinary demands not just of the monarch, but of other close members of the royal family, whose lives are restricted from the moment of their birth.
The first and biggest restriction is that all royals suffer from constant intrusion of the press into their private lives. The worst cases come from the UK, where intense competition in the tabloid press has led to extraordinary invasions of their privacy. These range from Camillagate, when the People published a transcript of a late night conversation between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles in 1993; to illegal hacking of the phones of staff to Prince William; to paparazzi using dangerous tactics to get photos of the two-year old Prince George.
Continue readingThe House of Lords yesterday debated the merits of the Counsellors of State Bill, which seeks to add Princess Anne and Prince Edward to the list of people that can act when the monarch is unable to do so. As Craig Prescott explains, this is a neat solution, but a temporary one.
The start of a new reign inevitably brings change to the monarchy. One specific change is that the monarch will once again travel overseas, including visits to some of the 14 other countries that also have a new head of state.
But what about the monarch’s constitutional and legal role while they are away? This role includes the granting of royal assent to legislation, appointment of ministers, ratification of treaties, and appointment of judges and diplomats. Many of these functions require the personal signature of the monarch (the royal sign manual), or in the case of holding Privy Council meetings and the state opening of parliament, their personal participation. This reflects how the monarch, as head of state, remains a central part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. It is pivotal to the machinery of government that the royal authority is always available to grant the final, formal legal approval to wide range of decisions made by government and parliament.
The necessary continuity is provided by the Regency Act 1937, supplemented by the Regency Acts 1943 and 1953. If the monarch is overseas, or is unwell and unable to conduct their duties, Counsellors of State can be appointed to exercise the royal functions. During the reign of Elizabeth II, Counsellors of State were appointed over 100 times, facilitating the Queen’s extensive overseas travel and establishing her position on the international stage.
The Regency Acts provide that the Counsellors of State are the spouse of the monarch and the first four in the line of succession, of full age, domiciled in the UK. For the heir apparent or heir presumptive, the Regency Act 1943 allowed for then Princess Elizabeth to become a Counsellor of State when she became 18, otherwise ‘full age’ for these purposes is 21. The 1943 Act also allowed for any potential Counsellor of State to be excluded if they are overseas during the period of appointment. This provision was introduced so that Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester, would be excepted while Governor-General of Australia to prevent any potential conflict between that role and his position as a Counsellor of State.
Continue reading