Talk:Privy Council (United Kingdom)

message: The history section contains history pertaining only to the Kingdom of England prior to union - which should be in the Privy Council of England article, not not here.  However, it entirely lacks any history about how the Privy Counciil of the United Kingdom was formed, although a small section about this is in the "Other Councils" section.  That element should be moved into the history section (and maybe expanded a little) and the stuff relating to pre 1707 England (presumably a hangover from the perious when there was no separate Privy Council of England article) should be removed.  England is NOT the UK (and vice versa), and having this information here means that the article should be held up as an example for others to follow.  Simhedges (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article? - Wrong History

message: I'm confused as to why this article was selected as a featured article.  I place great weight upon the clarity and utility of the introduction section (and I believe that most featured articles have superbly informative and well-written introduction sections.  
Here, however, I find the introduction somewhat confusing and not particularly well organized.  While there are links to other articles, I feel as if the number of article references PREVENTS a reader from walking away after reading the introduction and having a good idea of what the Privy Council is (which, I think we can agree, should be the point and purpose of the introduction in the first place).  
The introduction does not mention the Privy Council's current role as effective representor of the Crown in many Parliamentary matters, e.g. the Council can in some matters enact legislation WITHOUT a vote in Parliament.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commissar Mo (talk • contribs) 02:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article?  Introduction Section is Lacking 

message: How powerful was the Privy Council in the past? Kent Wang 12:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Past Privy Council 

message: I'm pleased to find this is a featured article, as I was going to suggest it after reading it.
Constafrequent, infrequently constant 02:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Brilliant Article

message: There seems to be a major gap in this article relating to the current status of the council. Being largely linked with colonialism and hearing appeals from fledgling colonial courts (and enforcing a uniform common law) I'm fairy sure the Privy council is heading (if it's not at) towards irrelevance. Surely this warrants a mention. Psychobabble 05:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary Relevance

message: As I understand it, the PC can still issue legislative orders-in-council under the royal prerogative. If the PC and Parliament legislate on the same matter, I take it that the courts of law would follow what Parliament says - I am I right in thinking the article implies that this was not established until after Henry VIII? If so, when, or rather in what legal decisions tell us that? Pliny 12:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parliament is sovereign and can do what it pleases. Any Act of parliament would overide any OIC though most OICs relate to secondary legislation or actions passed by parliament or are areas (like the Royal Perogative) where parliamet is unlikely to intervene. Alci12 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the theory facilely trotted out - what I want is solid precedent.Pliny 06:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well you won't find any act of parliament. The best you'll get is Blackstone and Halsbury and obviously indirectly common law. Alci12 11:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that is what happens with the British Constitution - people decide that certain general principles exist - but the consititution is in fact built on individual instances of recognition by the legal system, i.e. very directly the common law. (This is taking the constitution as a legal object - one could, of course, take a wider view and consider the rules others actors recognize - and  then constitutional conventions come into view ). I am interested in the concrete individual legal cases: the legal precedent (legal recognition) for the statements in the article about the PC and legislation and supremacy vis-a-vis the Queen-in-Parliament.Pliny 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-eminence

message: "Privy Counsellors are allowed to sit on the steps to the Sovereign's Throne in the House of Lords Chamber during debates. They share this privilege with peers who are not members of the House of Lords, diocesan bishops of the Church of England, retired bishops who formerly sat in the House of Lords, the Dean of Westminster, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod."
Also included are the eldest sons of peers (until I think 1999) and thereafter the eldest legitimate child of either sex of peers. Alci12 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peers 

message: Don't want to add this, not sure if I have my facts straight.  But doesn't privy mean toilet and the "queens privy council" means a close group who use the same toilet as the queen?
I think your thinking of 'the groom of the stool' who was in charge of the privy chamber in the Tudor period and tended to the kings most personal needs - stool = toilet. The privy chamber was a room adjacent to the monarchs bedchamber - I don't know if they used the same toilet???
:"Privy" just means "private"; I'm sure the use to mean a toilet and the use to describe a private council are of common derivation, but it seems unlikely that one derives from the other. Colin Watson 13:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  I've often referred to myself as "having a Privy Council Meeting" when I use the toilet.  Not that I'm meeting anybody there, least of all Her Majesty.  My next favourite is, "I'm going to use the euphamism." 24.81.103.196 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Toilet?

message: The article claims that the Privy Councils decisions are controlled by one of it's committees  the Cabinet of the United Kingdom.  This is not correct, the two institutions are separate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.14.158 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The constitutional status and composition of the Cabinet is not set out in statute because the British constitution is partly unwritten. But the Cabinet undoubtedly evolved as an inner circle of the Privy Council. By continuing convention, all cabinet ministers must be privy counsellors. In constitutional theory and practical effect, therefore, the Cabinet can be seen as as a committee of the Privy Council (in the sense of being a subgroup of the full Privy Council) with an unwritten remit to advise the sovereign on government policy. Unlike the Privy Council itself, however, the Cabinet does not have any direct statutory, legislative or judicial powers, being restricted to the determination of government policy which is in practice then implemented by the Privy Council, or by Parliament (subject to political support), or by the Civil Service, or by other prerogative powers. Since the President of the Council is appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, Privy Council meetings are nowadays only called to ratify government decisions, and only privy counsellors who are ministers in the relevant government departments will usually be summoned to attend. This means that the Cabinet (or more generally the Government) in effect dictates what is formally agreed by the Privy Council. — Richardguk (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible confused section 

message: Good article. Should not the Act of Settlement of 1701, which provides the constitution of the UK in one line, be referenced. I am no constitutional scholar so I will not tamper with the article. Reg nim (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding History 

message: Privy Council of the United Kingdom is of course a good title for the present-day Privy Council, but as with House of Commons of the United Kingdom it doesn't work for the centuries before there was a United Kingdom. As with the creation last year of House of Commons of England and House of Commons of Great Britain, may I suggest we need a Privy Council of England and a Privy Council of Great Britain? (At the moment both of those redirect to this article.) Moonraker2 (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be little of substance that wouldn't merely overlap. No matter what, this article needs to include the history of the institution, so everything in the articles for the predecessor would still be here. If there is a problem at all, it is the name. "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" is used because there are other privy councils in the world, so it needs disabiguation. If there is to be any change at all, it should be a page move to "Privy Council (United Kingdom)". -Rrius (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An article called "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" defines itself and can't relate to periods before there was a United Kingdom, any more than that article can relate to Roman Britain. It's self-evident that the history needs to be covered, but it will be covered in the new pages. You may like to look at what has happened with the series of pages on the House of Commons. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems quite silly.  Our article on Muhammad Ali relates to periods before there was a Muhammad Ali. Our article on George VI of the United Kingdom relates to periods before there was a George VI.  The Privy Council of the United Kingdom was not created in 1801.  It simply changed its name then.  john k (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly is a word which also could be used for that comparison. Muhammad Ali was not created by abolishing both Cassius Clay and two other entities, and merging them into a new entity. Ali did not gain extra body parts in 1707 and 1801. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Privy Council of Great Britain was not abolished to create the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, nor was the Privy Council of Ireland.  The Privy Council of Great Britain was renamed, and the Privy Council of Ireland continued on as it was before after the merger of the kingdoms, continuing to exist as a distinct entity until 1922.  As for the merger of England and Scotland, the merger of the kingdoms did not lead to a merger of privy councils.  Rather, two separate privy councils continued, and the Scottish one was only abolished a year later, in 1708.  The English privy council continued to exist, just with a different name.  All its members remained members of the privy council.  Scots were only admitted to that council piecemeal, and so far as I can tell, only three Scots were inducted in 1708, and only another 4 the next year, as compared to dozens of continuing members from the English council.  The Privy Council of the United Kingdom is exactly the same privy council that existed in 1750 and 1700, just with a different name. john k (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Good idea, I'll draft something in user space. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you first please explain how these are actually different entities, rather than simply different names for the same entity?  john k (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They operate over different geographical areas in different time zones, just as with the Kingdom of England and the United Kingdom, or the House of Commons of England and the House of Commons of Great Britain. A draft, as requested by BrownHairedGirl, is now in user space at Privy Council of England. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not convinced that we need separate articles on the earlier forms of the House of Commons - the Reform Act of 1832 introduced far more dramatic changes in the composition of the Commons than the addition of some Irish MPs in 1801. Effectively, the House of Commons that met in Westminster in 1701 was the same institution that met there in 1751 and 1801, just representing a larger geographic area in a kingdom with a different name.  But with the Privy Council the case is much weaker.  The House of Commons of Great Britain superseded both old House of Commons, and there had to be new elections before it met.  Same deal in 1801.  This didn't occur with the Privy Council.  The Scottish privy council was soon abolished, but the English one continued and simply became known under another name.  There was not even any real effort to induct Scottish members - very few Scots were made privy counselors by Queen Anne.  In 1801, your claim is even more dubious, because the Irish Privy Council continued to exist until 1922 (and afterwards, the Northern Irish Privy Council continued until 1972).  There were two privy councils, one for Great Britain and one for Ireland, both before and after 1801 - nothing actually changed.  I see absolutely no reason to enforce a split until you can provide some reliable sources which treat your subjects as actual distinct topics.  john k (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree with the logic of this. Reform was about how members got into the Commons, mirrored later by women's suffrage, and that argument is a category mistake, almost as if we were going down a Ship of Theseus line. The "just" in "just representing a larger geographic area in a kingdom with a different name" does not recognize at all the constitutional upheavals which created institutions fundamentally different from the old ones, while based principally on English traditions. In any event, all such debates need to take account of the context of Wikipedia, which is that a single page needs to be modest, and not imperialistic, in its ambitions. If (which I do not accept) the Privy Council of the Kingdom of England is the same body as the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, then it is a misleading error for the name of one to be given to both, it just won't do. An intellectually respectable answer might be to move the page to Privy Council of England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, but that would be clumsy. The previous title, Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, had the virtue of representing continuity and not imposing a narrow modern identity on a much more complicated reality. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy enough with Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council if that would make you more willing to abandon the idea of splitting the article, although I don't personally think that dealing with predecessors in this article is problematic even if we keep the current name.  Beyond that, I'd be interested to see some evidence that the subject of this article has actually been called the "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" since 1801.  As I said before, the Irish Privy Council continued to exist after 1801.  After 1922, there was a Northern Irish Privy Council.  It seems quite possible to me that the Privy Council remained for some time the "Privy Council of Great Britain," just as the Lord Chancellor is still the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain; for all I know, it may have remained known as such until as late as 1972, or even later, since the Northern Irish Privy Council was never abolished.  Beyond that, if you really do want to split the article, you can't just rely on logic to say that because there were two acts of union that means we have three distinct institutions called Privy Councils.  You have to show that reliable soures believe that the Privy Council of England is a distinct institution from the Privy Council of the United Kingdom.  The Privy Council Office itself doesn't seem to agree with you.  Its description states: The Privy Council is one of the oldest parts of Government, but it has, over time, adapted to reflect the fact that the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy.   This hardly makes sense if the privy council in question dates only to 1801, as obviously the UK was already a constitutional monarchy at that point; transparently, the reference to the Privy Council as one of the oldest parts of the government is locating its origins in the medieval period.  The 1911 Britannica makes no distinctions, and its history does not even mention 1707 or 1801 as dates that led to any change in the institution of the Privy Council.  The current Britannica is no different, saying that Once powerful, the Privy Council has long ceased to be an active body, having lost most of its judicial and political functions since the middle of the 17th century. .  Reliable sources view the current privy council as dating back to before the Union with Scotland.  Find some that claim otherwise before we can even begin to discuss a split. john k (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed split

message: Could someone take a look at William Davidson of Curriehill? Was he member of this Privy Council? Taksen (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sir William Davidson of Curriehill

message: Given that this article is about to be the Main Page article, a check that all the references still worked would be sensible. I have noticed that all the links to the Privy Council Office website were bouncing to PCO's home page following a redesign of their  website, so I have updated them. The Judicial Committee also has a new website which I have added where appropriate. I've tidied up one or two other references but I haven't time to check them all, but others may want to. DavidWard talk 18:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking of references prior to promotion to Main Page 

message: Surely appropriate to mention the once significant supreme appeal authority for a wide range of Commonwealth states and including superior court justices from them -- appeals from Canada routinely getting an Australian justice and vice versa. Masalai (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "...and judges from various other Commonwealth member states"

message: Many sources say the Privy Council of Scotland was abolished by the Parliament of Great Britain in 1708 and thereafter there was one Privy Council of Great Britain in London. However, none of the sources say the Privy Council of England was abolished. I adjusted the wording of the article to be consistent with the sources, for example      . Whizz40 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1708 

message: I'd expect a member of a council to be called a councillor, rather than a counsellor ("one who counsels", though I guess they technically counsel the Queen). Hairy Dude (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is addressed under "Composition": "Both Privy Counsellor and Privy Councillor may be correctly used to refer to a member of the Council. The former, however, is preferred by the Privy Council Office, emphasising English usage of the term Counsellor as "one who gives counsel", as opposed to "one who is a member of a council". A Privy Counsellor is traditionally said to be "sworn of" the Council after being received by the sovereign." greymullet (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The article notes that "First Ministers of the devolved assemblies" are privy council members. Is this true for Northern Ireland as well? I'd assume that there'd be a requirement that both first and deputy first ministers be treated equally, but I'd also assume that Sinn Fein would object to participating. -Jfruh (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland? 

message: I added the following... In 1774, Benjamin Franklin famously appeared before the Privy Council and was dressed down. He walked into the session as a British citizen and walked out as 'The First American'. 73.85.200.71 (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benjamin Franklin appeared before Privy Council in 1774 

message: Removed the mention of the post-nominal "PC" being "optionally in superscript" as the reference provided -- nor any other that I could find -- backed this up. I'm noting it here, on the offchance that others may have encountered this usage somewhere? greymullet (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-nominal "PC" for Peers 

message: Would Orders in Council and Orders of Council be most analogous with executive orders by the president in the United States which are sometimes used to direct government departments on how to carry out an Act of Congress/law?  I guess I'm having a hard time understanding terms like "statutory instrument" and such.  It sounds like the Orders, however, cover quite a bit more ground and power than an executive order of the president. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not analogous.  Orders in Council can be used to enact legislation, which is not simply directed at the executive branch.  They are secondary legislation.  Given the different separation of powers in the Westminster system, there's no bar on having secondary legislation enacted by Order-in-council which are true laws.  The source of the legal authority can by the royal prerogative, or it can be that Parliament has delegeated legislative powers to the Council under a statute.  Regulations can be passed under orders-in-council that are true laws, not "interpretations of a statute", which is how I understand US federal regulations are analysed.  Orders-in-council can detail very minor regulations, up to constitutional provisions.  The Constitution of Barbados, for example, was originally enacted by an Order-in-Council, passed under the authority of the Barbados Independence Act.  Hope this helps. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analogous 

message: The term "Privy Council of the United Kingdom" is not universally used, and even in the UK, the term is simply the "Privy Council", as its official title (His/Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council) makes no reference to the UK, as it is THE Privy Council; Privy Councils for other regions (e.g. Canada) have the distinctive name of Privy Council for [Country], but the UK's Privy Council does not, and thus this article should be moved to Privy Council (United Kingdom). MaximusWikipedian (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The same should happen in regards to the Privy Council of England, whose name is the same as the current UK Privy Council and thus should be moved to Privy Council (England), as should the Privy Council of Scotland, which should move to Privy Council (Scotland). The Irish Privy Council should either be moved to "Privy Council in Ireland" or "Privy Council" (Ireland), as its name was His/Her Majesty's Privy Council in Ireland. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name (possible move) 

message: Isn't Her Majesty's Government (the Cabinet) itself a committee of the Privy Council - and should therefore be included in the section "Committees"? TheGlobetrotter (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government as a Committee 

message: Mention could be made of the uniform worn by Privy Counsellors. At the turn of the 19/20th centuries (when the body was exclusively male), from my memory of members portrayed eg Winston Churchill when younger, it was a plumed bicorn hat, blue braided tunic and blue trousers. Is there still a uniform?Cloptonson (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniform?

message: The second paragraph in the lead refers to the King-in-Council as a "body corporate", but does not give a cite for that statement.  "Body corporate" is a legal term with a specific meaning.  On what basis is the King-in-Council considered to be a body corporate? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Body corporate"?