Should Harry Lose His Royal Role? Plus the Buckingham Palace Problem

0:03 Caloroga Shark Media at low and Welcome to Palace Entry. I am your host. Mark Francis questions on once again being asked about whether Prince Harry could one day lose his position as Counselor of State, with one royal commentator suggesting Prince William may take a different approach when he eventually becomes king. Councilors of State are senior members of the royal family who can carry out certain official duties on behalf of the monarch if the sovereign is overseas or temporarily unable to perform them. The current list includes Queen Camilla, Prince William, Princess Anne, Prince Edward, Andrew mount Batten Windsor, Princess Beatrice, and Prince Harry. Although Harry stepped back from royal duties in twenty twenty and now lives in California, he technically remains eligible. However, King Charles expanded the pool of working royals by appointing Princess Anne and Prince Edward as additional Counselors of State, reducing any practical need for either He, Harry or Andrew to perform the role.

1:02 Speaking on Pallace Confidential Daily Mail Diary editor Richard Eden said he believes that decisions signal the King Charles has no intention of removing Harry. Eden said, so the idea was that they wouldn't need to use Andrew or Harry because they had other people to take that role if needed. So I think it's clear the King won't. Who knows. It's hard to predict what William will do, but I think it's fair to say he will do something about it. He'll take a very different line. Royal biographer Robert Hartman pointed out that any change would not simply be a decision for the monarch. Removing a Council of State requires legislation passed by Parliament, meaning it there's ultimately a matter for the government, rather than the King acting alone. Daily Mail Royal editor Rebecca English argued that many members of the public view removing such roles as appropriate response when members of the royal family have either stepped away from royal duties or brought controversy upon the institution. What else can you do, apart from telling them they're a very naughty boy, she said, take away the things that give them validity. Roylan Side at Deep Crown tells us. I have thought about this a lot. Let us conduct an intellectual exercise. Unpleasant though it may be, William is king.

2:08 Something happens, a fall and illness, a moment of incapacity that leaves him temporarily unable to perform his duties, or something worse. George is not eighteen yet who acts in his place? The answer under the regency acts as Harry, Charlotte and Lewis are children. Both are disqualified. Going back up the line, we land on the other son of Charles. He is an adult, and yet he is the Duke of Sussex, resident in California, operating a media company that's built itself on institutional criticism. He is, in other words, politically radioactive. But he is also technically eligible. Skipping over Harry's children, andrews next. Andrew is still in a line of succession. Andrew is an adult domiciled in the UK. But Andrew is also, by the standards that have governed every other institutional decision, this reign completely disqualified. You cannot have a regency where the regent is the man the institution itself is declared unsuitable. It would be institutional suicide.

3:01 Beatrice is next, Beatrice is an adult technically eligible. But Beatrice is engaged in business relationships with Saudi Arabia. She is not a working royal. She is, in other words, marginal to the institution. More importantly, appointing Beatrice's regent over Harry over the entire Sussex machine would signal that the Palace is willing to elevate a non working royal rather than trust their heir zone uncle. The institutional message would be corrosive. Also, her father is Andrew. Eugenie is similarly positioned. You are left with Harry, and Harry is the problem. Charles left unresolved. Consider what this means. George becomes king. He is the monarch of the United Kingdom, but he does not reign. Instead, he is groomed, trained, prepared. He does not attend university as his singlic spite he does not have a normal adolescence. He cannot afford to every moment until age eighteen, is consumed by the machinery of preparation for the moment he turns eighteen and must actually take the throne, And for those years, his uncle, the man his family has spent years trying to distance itself from, is his regent is the architect of his preparation, is the visible face of the institution's continuity. Parliament does not need to remove Harry. Parliament needs to legislate now, before any crisis arrives, to designate Edward explicitly as regent. Should a minor ever ascend to the throne. There is president for this. There is a precedent for all of it.

4:19 In nineteen fifty two, King George the sixth died and was succeeded by his daughter, Queen Elizabeth. Her eldest son and heir apparent, Prince Charles was only four years old. The Regency Act nineteen thirty seven would have provided that his aunt, Princess Margaret, would serve as regent if something happened to Elizabeth before childs turned eighteen, but Parliament wanted to change that. In nineteen fifty three, Parliament passed legislation providing that in the event of a child of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh acceding to the throne while under the age of eighteen years, his Royal Highness, if living, shall be the regent. The president is explicit. Parliament can legislate in advance to designate exactly who should serve as regent. They did it for Philip.

5:01 They did it to avoid an awkward situation where the reignings monarch's system might have to govern on behalf of the monarch's four year old son. Parliament looked at the contingency, considered who should actually serve, and legislated the answer. Parliament can do the same now, spell it out by law, Make it institutional rather than reactive. Make it about competence and preparation, not about punishment or family drama. Edward as regent problem solved. But there is another possibility. Kate is the wife of the heir to the throne. If William became incapacitated while George was a minor, Kate would be the natural guardian of the child king. Parliament could legislate to designate her as regent, as they did for Philip in nineteen fifty three. Parliament could pass legislation tomorrow making this explicit. In the event George becomes king as a miner, Kate is regent until he turns eighteen. Clean, institutional, family centered.

5:53 It removes the constitutional ambiguity entirely and places the machinery of regency and hands that have already spent years preparing to support the institution more palace in just a moment. Many Royal watchers have been asking a simple question, why does no one seem to want to live at Buckingham Palace. Former Royal Chef Darren McGrady, who worked for the Royal family for fifteen years, has previously suggested even Queen Elizabeth viewed Buckingham Palace more as an office than a home, saying she's never really liked the palace. It's always been the office to the Queen. The Queen would always be whizzing off back to Windsor Castle. She can't wait to get back there. While Queen Elizabeth spent week days carrying out official duties at Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle increasingly became her preferred retreat, particularly in her later years. During the COVID pandemic, she remained almost exclusively at Windsor and ultimately spent much of the remainder of her reign there. King Charles appears to have inherited a similar outlook When in London, he and Queen Camilla continue to live at nearby Clarence House, where they have been based since two thousand and five.

6:57 Away from the capital. Charles is widely believed for most home at High Grove House in Gloucestershire, the country estate he has carefully developed over several decades. Buckingham Palace, by contrast, is a very different proposition. With seven hundred and seventy five rooms, hundreds of staff, constant security operations, and thousands of tourists gathering outside its gates every day, it is arguably better suited to state occasions than everyday family life. Reports have also suggested the Prince and Princess of Wales view Windsor as their long term family base, even after William eventually becomes king. In The Express, Emily Ferguson writes, the decision for the King and Queen to stay at Clarence House perhaps seems sensible. It saves the transportation of their belongings, moving their domestic household over and saying goodbye to a home they have loved living in for over twenty three years. But while it may be a decision from the heart, what impact will it have on the wider monarchy? Charles will continue to pop across the road to hold audience's receptions. State visits and the ceremonial events such as trooping the color. So it does it really matter if he doesn't sleep there? Sensible people will argue, No, it reflects the modern error and the king's relatable desire to live in cozy, a more comfortable surroundings aged seventy seven.

8:07 But as with all change, the decision doesn't come without its risks. Start us to the royal family is at risk and the Palace is reduced to a mere office. I can't see Britain's and tourists alike during bucking and Palaces anything but the visible symbol of the monarchy, even if it isn't the king's home. But there's no doubt it gives Republicans something else to weaponize, and they have it. If you'd like to email us our addresses The Palace Intrigue at gmail dot com. Please follow us on Spotify, Rabble and live. A comment for us on Spotify. These days I mark Francis my thanks to John McDermott. This airs Palace Intrigue and good times