Talk:Privy Council (United Kingdom)

Featured Article? - Wrong History

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)

Featured Article? Introduction Section is Lacking

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)

Specifically, there is no reference to the Privy Council's status in the government of the UK - is it an official organ of the UK government, or is it just a body of advisers to the Crown? What is its role today, with the much reduced sovereignty of the Crown? What is its most important or obvious function?

I don't believe these basic questions are answered in the introduction, so all one really gleans from it is that the Privy Council is a body of advisers to the monarch. While the rest of the article seems more explanatory (though at times I find, also somewhat confusingly written), I think the introduction is a good place to clarify and improve this article. I am not convinced that the article as such deserves featured status. Commissar Mo (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above! Lots of glorious detail regarding the activities of the privy council but a poor laying out of its relevance in todays democracy and main functions. I don't feel much wiser and wonder at why this is a featured article 86.30.191.19 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Past Privy Council

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

Privy Councillor or Privy Counsellor

Moving this from my talk page to here (AndyL):

The 'correct' spelling is, AFAIAA, "Privy Counsellor", not "Privy Councillor". Is this indeed the case, or am I mistaken? If not, I'll go through all the articles changing it back...
James F. (talk) 23:04, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I submit this Home Office doc as evidence: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/reviewcomttee.html. Please see the first para in the body text. Hope this helps. --82.35.17.203 23:32, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, in Canada it's Privy Councillor, at least according to the Privy Council Office in Canada http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=publications&Sub=min&Doc=intro_e.htm My paperback OED states: Privy Councillor (or Counsellor).

But again, OED gives primacy to Privy Councillor which suggests that it is "more correct" than Privy Counsellor. Personally, I'd rather go with OED than a government website. AndyL 02:40, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Privy Council Office in Britain seems to use Privy Counsellor http://www.privy-council.org.uk I would think that a member of a council is a councillor but perhaps the Brits perfer an archaic, counterintuitive spelling?AndyL 23:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A coucillor is someone who is a member of a coucil; a counsellor is one who gives counsel. The Privy Council is a council of those two give counsel (to the Queen).

HTH.

James F. (talk) 00:04, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at my dictionary it says "Privy Councillor (Privy Counsellor) (in Britain) a member of the Privy Council." Does that mean that in Britian it is spelt Privy Counsellor and elesewhere it is Privy Councillor? AndyL 00:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, if it wanted to say that it would say "(Privy Counsellor in Britain)". I think the whole definition is referring to Britain, and the two terms are both acceptable. john k 00:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quoth I from OED, entry "Privy Counsellor, Councillor":

2. (With capital initials.) spec. in Great Britain: One of the private counsellors of the sovereign; a member of the Privy Council.

[...]

1907 [-] Whitaker's Peerage 49 [:] In the official list the members are termed Privy Counsellors, which is correct, in view of the counsel they are supposed to give; but they are equally Councillors as being members of a Council.

However, I think we should stick to the one name, and to the official one.

James F. (talk) 01:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BBC uses Privy Councillor http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/a-z_of_parliament/p-q/85690.stm AndyL 01:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The BBC also uses "Prince Charles". So what? I'm sure one could find hundreds of incorrect uses of almost any common title.

James F. (talk) 01:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sadly the Beeb cannot be used as an authority. The website, especially on the news side, has just as generous a share of bad speeling and grammer as any respectable newspaper (e.g. the Grauniad). --Nevilley 07:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and, to be more exact, the Beeb (typically!) uses both spellings. If you try a search for the "ci" spelling against "se" on the news site you find 6 stories to 8, on the rest of the site it's slewed the other way, and so on. Some of their editing appears at times to be done without the aid of dictionaries or any form of authority. --Nevilley 08:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about Complete Peerage and the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica? john k 07:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I certainly would not take 1911 as an authority on how things are now to be spelt. There must be many words that have changed their spelling since then. I don't know about the Peerage so cannot comment. I do think that if government websites and the Council itself have a preferred spelling, whatever it is, that should probably be the way to go in the absence of any definitive statement from OED or ODWE or whatever. I do feel, with the greatest of respect, that the debate here about what makes more sense, or is or is not an archaic British spelling, though fun, is not very relevant - I would have thought that what we wanted to get into the article is what is correct in this particular usage, not what appeals most to us as individuals. --Nevilley 08:39, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Councillor" makes more sense - the thing about them is that they are on a council, not that they offer advice. john k 01:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, lovely, but the spelling is "counsellor", as the Queen is concerned with the advice, not the nature of body of people giving it.

James F. (talk) 01:35, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Privy Councillors may also be Counsellors (or they may not - I imagine the vast majority have never given the queen a word of advice in their lives), but their relationship to the Privy Council is that they are members of it. One might note that official government pages are just as likely to be wrong as the BBC. (And "Prince Charles" is not technically incorrect - he is "Prince Charles", he just shouldn't be referred to that way, except in Scotland). john k 02:01, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, 1911 Britannica uses "Privy Councillor" [1], as does Complete Peerage. john k 02:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Debrett's Correct Form says "The spelling Privy 'Councillor' is also used, but as the Privy Council Office prefers the spelling 'Counsellor' it has been adopted throughout the book." So it would seem that neither is incorrect as such, but that "Counsellor" is preferred. Proteus (Talk) 05:18, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Damned privy council, authorizing a nonsensical spelling. john k 05:39, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yet another argument for the Privy Council's abolition. They can't spell! :) Well, the article should probably state that while the British Privy Council prefers the spelling Counsellor other Privy Councils around the world (including Canada) use Councillor. AndyL 13:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And perhaps that the British themselves used to use "Councillor", but then became confused... john k 16:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The references in the OED shows that counsellor used to be used ("councellour" in 1647, "counsellour" in 1657, "counsellor" in 1659, 1711, 1765); it then changed to councillor in the 19th century (1814, 1818, 1891) and back to counsellor at the beginning of the 20th (1907).

Brilliant Article

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)

Contemporary Relevance

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)

Being removed from the Privy Council ?

Can an individual be removed from the Privy Council ? I ask this because I notice that Conrad Black remained a member of the Privy Council of Canada after he gave up his canadian citizenship.

User:Dowew May 18th 2005

Should this page be moved?

A number of other countries have privy councils, we even have category:privy councils. The general pattern of Westminster system institutions is not to give the British one precedence (e.g. House of Commons, Leader of the Opposition, Black Rod all point to general pages with links to articles on individual countries). I feel the same should be done here with this page moved to Privy Council of the United Kingdom and a general overview of the institution created at Privy Council. - SimonP 15:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pre-eminence

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)

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)

That is the theory facilely trotted out - what I want is solid precedent.Pliny 06:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Peers

"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)

Again - "UK" Privy Council still includes Caribbean realms

The British Privy Council still includes Caribbean realms.

On the following page:

• See their names on this list ---> http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp

Examples: Lookup "Percival Patterson"(of Jamaica) "Owen Arthur"(of Barbados) "Dr. Keith Mitchell"(of Grenada), "Hubert Ingraham"(of the Bahamas) etc. etc. etc. are all listed on the British Privy Council website as members. Are they to be added to this list/Category:, or elsewhere? Additionally, if you still don't believe it, see list for "Said Wilbert Musa"(of British Honduras aka Belize).

This article explains a bit more: (The CCJ will serve only to divide rather than unite the Region) CaribDigita 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Additionally this should cancel out any doubts. It is a release by the Government of Barbados explaining the correct honourific titles for government members. Within, it states clearly two former Barbadian Prime Ministers that are members of the British Privy Council and it lists their correct form of honourific titles as such.

Correct Forms Of Address Of Officials

CaribDigita (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to move this to Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council. – Kaihsu 13:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Toilet?

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)

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)

Expansion of membership

This section of the article appears to be about the size of the House of Commons rather than the Privy Council. Any objections to it being removed?--Captdoc (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Captdoc, I am presuming your query is not about the removal of the Privy Council? Just to clarify, this section is about the growth and size of Privy Council memberships, in comparison with the size of memberships of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Analysis of this same data: (Time-line; General Elections, Commons, Lords and Privy Council) in Graph format, calculates that by 2011, there will be more Privy Counselors, who already dominate the House of Lords, than elected MPs in the House of Commons.

Due to this relevance in the history and evolution of the British Government, I object to it (the section) being removed. However, I shall endeavor to clarify these relevancies ASAP. Regards Stephen2nd (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to prove some kind of point - not that anyone can really tell what it is, but if it continues it looks to be in violation of WP:SYN and WP:CRYSTAL. Regardless, the HoC data simply isn't relevant to an article on the PC. I suggest it is removed. ninety:one 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ninety:one and Captdoc: This section is in the Article: Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, (1951-now) and within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom in Wikepedia articles.

This Article doesn’t contain any CHYSTAL/SYN violations by me. Could you specify where, (in the Article section), it is in violation of WP:SYN: and the WP:CRYSTAL? Routine graph calculations of sizes with similar units, do not violate (Article section) WP:SYN: in analysis &/or in statistical projections, which are also not WP:CRYSTAL.

The only point I tried to prove to Captdoc, was that this section should not be removed. My reply to his (Talk Page) query, refered to one graph projection; that the PC will be larger than HoC membership by 2011. This being only one example of its graph analysis.

The PC overtook the Labour Opposition in the 1983 parliament. In 1989, they overtook both the Labour opposition, and Other opposition parties. In the 1992 parliament they overtook the Conservative majority. In 1994 they overtook this majority, and (non-Lab) Other parties. In 1997 they overtook the Labour majority. In 1999 they overtook this majority & (non Con) Other parties. (NB: In 1999 they also overtook each of the political and cross-bench HoL parties.) In 2003, PC overtook both Lab and Con MP HoC parties. In this context, (PC overtaking the entire HoC membership by 2011); is highly relevant. Regards Stephen2nd (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Any 'predictions' are in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Your table is in violation of WP:SYN, the one source it cites appears to be for HoL and HoC only and not the PC (and even then the 2005 HoC return is inaccurate). Further, it is dated 2001 yet includes data from 2005. It's not even clear what this table is trying to say - what does "Privy Council Cabinet" mean? I think you have the basis of a a good idea, but it's just not ready to go into the article yet. I suggest you move it to User:Stephen2nd/Sandbox and do some more work on it, then try adding it again. ninety:one 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for your opinion. The source is from a yearly publication of Whitakers Almanac, which contains all of the HoC, HoL, data, and also includes all the Privy Council membership details and data. etc. This data is from the 2001 edition, then was expanded from other editions and elsewhere. (BTW: What was the 2005 mistake?) There are no predictions in this Article section, just pre-established numeric facts of data. I disagree that this is not ready to go into this article, as this section has been included in this article, since last October, without complaint or any bias comments, for four months.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to create any data-graphs (Re: on Wikepedia), nor do I know how to upload a scanned copy of the (Court case) original, hand-done data-graphs. If someone creates this data into a graph, I’ll justify its relevance in UK political history. In the meantime, this matter is still the subject of an ongoing Talk:Page discussion, in which I have already stated; I will be endeavoring to clarify all these specific relevancies. I sincerely hope we can all collaborate on these Talk discussions for an Article inclusion.

NB: The Privy Council Cabinet: Members of the Cabinet must be Privy Counsellors, and they principally form the acting Privy Council.(Ref: Whitakers Almanac: 1951. pg 256.) Regards Stephen2nd (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The table needs some work. At present it makes no sense because there were more than 20 Councillors added in 1951, so the "1" is not readily comprehensible. Here are the problems I see:

1. I understand what "Privy Council Cabinet" is supposed to mean, but it is not actually clear for the average reader. Something like "Party in Government" or "Governing Party" would be preferable.
2. It is not immediately clear what the significance of the party strength breakdown is. It the governing party's size in absolute terms seems to correlate to changes in Privy Council membership, then that statistic should be included alone. The same goes for percentage share of seats and absolute size of the governing party's majority. If any is true, there should be some explanation of the significance in the text verified by reliable sources.
3. The House of Lords columns are completely empty; why include them?
4. What is with the "(Unelected)" note in "PC Creations (Unelected)"? On a related note, why does the Commons column say "Commons Seats (Elected)"? If the question whether a group is elected or unelected is actually important, it should be addressed in the text. At the very least, there should be some explanation of what the point is. Does "PC Creations (Unelected)" include Councillors who are in the House of Commons. I would assume it does, but the parenthetical calls that into question.
5. What is "PC Creations (Unelected)" all about anyway? The data could currently be misconstrued to mean that X members were added in the given years or, more charitably, during the relevant Parliament. This is especially true since the table is introduced with "Membership totals by year of creation". In fact, the data seems a bit out of whack. There were 26 Councillors appointed in 1951 and more than 30 members appointed in 1997.

-Rrius (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither misconstrued or charitably, these tables are unquestionable numeric data facts. These are from Whitakers Almanac, a yearly (20,000+ index) of information on British Government finances, population, commerce, and other statistics of nations of the world; inc: Tables of Sovereigns; Royal Family; House of Windsor; Royal Households: Tables of Peerages; Orders of Chivalry; Privy Council; Precedence; HM Ministers; Cabinet Ministers; Government by Party; Prime Ministers; British Constitution; both Houses of Parliament; House of Commons; Government and public offices; Baronetage, Knightage; Decorations and medals; Peers; Courtesy titles, other statistical tables & etc. (219 pages)

Annually updated, Whitakers Almanac (and Whos who), are the official parliamentary reference books, which are meticiously scrutinised by those listed within, from since its creation, to today. Unfortunately, being published as a yearly issue, only current editions were available in British libraries. These (100% correct) specific membership details, were taken from the Whitakers; (2001) 133rd Edition, which at that time, was current and available in libraries.

All WA list PC members alphabetically, followed next by their “year of PC creation”. As this research was for PC data, not individuals, I simply sequenced their years of creation. Fact, : X members were added in the given year, and also, during the relevant Parliament. Especially true as the table is introduced with “Membership totals by year of creation”.

You understand the WA definition of the "Privy Council Cabinet"; REF: Members of the Cabinet must be Privy Counsellors, and they principally form the acting Privy Council. In clarity for the average reader(?), the Privy Council is not a “Party”. The UK Cabinet is an “acting UK Privy Council Cabinet government”, &/or governing Privy Council Cabinet.

An answer to your out of whack opening & closing argument (26 unlisted creations 1951) is that by 31/08/2001, all the 284 PC creations listed in the 31/08/1951 edition were dead. Stephen2nd (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. The figures are doubtful and make no sense: there were many more privy counsellors in 1951 than are listed, and in any case it is meaningless to compare the number of privy counsellors (most of whom have no legislative, judicial or executive function by by virtue of their membership) with the number of MPs. In addition, the added material was not in accordance with Wikipedia style in terms of layout, content, citation or structure. Richardguk (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oath and Official Secrets Acts

Have reverted the addition relating to the Privy Council oath and the Official Secrets Acts made by Stephen2nd. The Official Secrets Acts do not contain any reference to the Privy Council or its oath. Though until 1989 there was a broad offence of revealing government information, this did not make it treasonable to reveal the oath. There is no evidence that Roy Hattersley seriously feared prosecution for doing so in 2000, given that the Official Secrets Act 1989 narrowed the scope of secrecy offences and that the Government itself had disclosed the wording of the oath in 1998. Nor is there evidence that Hattersley's belief that he was committing an offence was well-founded. It seems more likely that he was making a polemical or jocular debating point. There may exist grounds for thinking that the secrecy of the oath was once considered to be important, but the material added does not credibly support the case. Richardguk (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen2nd has added this material back in. Not wanting to engage in a revert war, so ask Stephen2nd to explain why, or invite others to decide whether to edit the material, taking account of the above reasons for its previous removal. Richardguk (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richardguk. First of all, I put in a different version, (excluding OSA) before you wrote the later explanation, which is justified > Mr. Baker: To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her Oral answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), of 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 779, on the Privy Council, if she will publish the text of the oath sworn by privy counsellors. [52790] Mrs. Beckett: The text of the Privy Counsellors Oath is as follows: <

Unless you are Roy Hattersley PC, your opinion of his beliefs, fears, and/or his “jocular,” writing style in his media statements, is your POV. REF: (Roy Hattersley PC. Guardian: Thursday December 14, 2000.) His complaints against the Privy Council are many including that; (Quote: “Quoting those words from the Privy Council’s oath is certainly an offence and possibly treason. Members are required to "keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you or that shall be treated secretly in council".), Also that; it is the institution through which “Orders in Council” are made, (the mechanism which activates secondary legislation – clauses of an act of parliament which come into force when the orders are made), these laws, (which have the same status as primary legislation), as laws made under Orders in Council, have the same force as primary legislation, but are not scrutinised by parliament, and do not have to comply with constitutional checks, such as the Human Rights Act. He then called for the ending of this odd circle which surrounds the monarch – to promote equality or meritocracy - would politely suggest to the Queen that she confirmed her desire to modernise the monarchy by announcing that she no longer needed "privy" advisers. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for responding and for pointing out that you did not add back in the Official Secrets Acts material. The remaining material consists of two parts:

• a statement that the Privy Council regard(ed) publication of the oath as treasonable: You cite an interview with Roy Hattersley to support this, but we have to judge whether the views he expresses are a reliable source, or whether we are giving credence to a doubtful point of view. To that extent, it is necessary for us to have a point of view on whether the source is reliable. Treason is a serious offence and I can see no evidence that it covers disclosure of the oath, which had by then already been published by the government. Remember that Hattersley was making a general case against the council, as a politician and journalist, but not as a lawyer, historian or constitutional expert.
• details of when the government published the oath: I accept that this information may be of interest. But it is already included as a citation in the footnote reference for the oath itself so perhaps it does not need to be mentioned twice.

I hope that explains my view further. Richardguk (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, without going into too much secondary detail, these may explain my views:

• It is a moot point, that this was published earlier by a (Lab gov) President of the Council. But, there are no Privy Council statements in any Hansard referring to 3rd party disclosure, nor is there any references to any penalties for disclosing any information referring to any other breaches of the oath. The only press release from any Privy Counsellor, is the one by Hattersley concerning his 25 years (1975-2000) as a (Lab) Privy Counsellor, serving in a (Con gov) Privy Council. Until the Privy Council &/or government states otherwise, disclosure (by MPs &/or ?) is still “certainly an offence, possibly treason.” Treason is a serious offence. As such, I believe that it is necessary that the prior oath disclosure in Hansard is stated, being a legal defence against prosecution, until the matter is clarified in law.

• Two points; Firstly, it was not an interview with Hattersley, the article was written by him, specifically stating his status as a Privy Counsellor. Secondly, I disagree with your opinion on Official &/or oath secrecies, for many reasons. The 1989 Official Secrets Act, was an extension of the 1911 OSA legislation, itself an extension of the (highly questionable) 1889 OSA Act. The 100 year 1889 Act expired in 1989, the 100 year limit, is now extended to 200 years. The 100 year limit 1911 OSA, due to expire in two years, has now extended to 2111ad. The OSA may not contain any reference to the Privy Council, or its oath of secrecy, but, the OSA was legislated by the Privy Council, by its members under a Privy Council oath, of secrecy. Regards Steve.Stephen2nd (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hattersley's statement cannot be taken seriously. His claim is undermined by the actual scope of the treason offences which falls far short of criminalising the disclosure of oaths - see the articles High treason in the United Kingdom and Treason Felony Act 1848. As for the Official Secrets Acts, the above claims lack evidence or credibility. Richardguk (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• With reference your support of the Privy Council, and your referral to me, of the High treason in the United Kingdom and Treason Felony Act 1848, articles. Stephen2nd (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Most statute laws regulating procedure on trials for treason also apply to misprison of treason. In England, if any 1st party had knowledge, that a specific act was “certainly an offence”, especially if the offence was possibly treason. If he further had knowledge that any 2nd party had committed that act. The 1st party has a duty to inform 3rd party judicial authorities, of all the circumstances of that act, of which the informant had knowledge. Failure of the 1st party, to discharge his public duty, legally constitutes what is known as misprison of treason. It is the failure of the 1st party to reveal the treason of the 2nd party, that is called “high treason” as the 1st party would be an accessory before or after the fact. Any decisions upon the evidence of the 1st and 2nd parties is a judgement for the 3rd party. Stephen2nd (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this is crap. There is no evidence that it has ever been a crime to reveal the Privy Council oath beyond Hattersley's claim to that effect, and I would not give his claim a lot of weight. He doesn't cite any particular law which makes it a crime. In general, for something to be a crime, there must either be an Act of Parliament that criminalises it, or (very rarely nowadays) a court judgement recognising it as a crime at common law. No one can cite any legislation or court judgement with any precision. Laws like the OSA refer to revealing secrets that damage the interests of the state, or at least arguably could (of course many will argue that their revelations don't damage the State, but the courts will give great deference to the authorities' claims that they could; at the same time, great deference is not infinite deference). There is no serious argument that revealing the Privy Council oath would in any way damage that state's interests, so I doubt any court would entertain a prosecution under the OSA. Treason isn't applicable either - mere violation of an oath is not treason. Revealing secrets to a foreign power might count as treason, but trifling matters like the wording of an oath would not count. It's the bloody Privy Council, people, not some mysterious secret society! 60.225.114.230 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

possible confused section

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)

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.[2] By continuing convention, all cabinet ministers must be privy counsellors.[3] 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)

Regarding History

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)

Proposed split

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Moonraker2, howsabout you do an outline draft of the split, so we can see how it looks? I think this is a great idea in principle, but since there are concerns about how it will work in practice, I think it'd be best to demonstrate that the split works as well as I think it will. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll draft something in user space. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sir William Davidson of Curriehill

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)

Checking of references prior to promotion to Main Page

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)

"...and judges from various other Commonwealth member states"

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)

Regent of a German state as a member?

Queen Victoria's second son, Alfred, was born in England and became the Duke of Edinburgh. Then when his uncle died in 1893, he inherited another dukedom: Saxe-Coburg Gotha; Thus, he became a regent of a (German State) foreign power in allegiance to the German Emperor, "intent on challenging England's supremacy as the foremost world power". In 1893, he is stated as the first person in recorded history to quit the Privy Council of his own volition, in 1893, he also relinquished his seat in the House of Lords.

Would the rules of membership of the (1893) Privy Council have continued to accept Prince Alfred as a member under such circumstances? Did he jump or was he pushed?

1708

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 [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Whizz40 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

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)

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)

Northern Ireland?

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)

Benjamin Franklin appeared before Privy Council in 1774

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)

Post-nominal "PC" for Peers

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)

Analogous

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)

@Criticalthinker: 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)

Name (possible move)

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)

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)

Government as a Committee

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)

Uniform?

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)

"Body corporate"?

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)