King Charles's secretary leaked Parliament's decision regarding the precise moment Harry lost his counselor role, attributing it to his listing the US as his home.
Queen Elizabeth, renowned for her wisdom, displayed decisive action by decreeing that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex couldn't merge their royal duties with pursuits for fortune overseas. Despite Prince Harry's attempts to sway her opinion, as revealed in his bestselling memoir, the late Majesty remained resolute.
Contrary to Harry's portrayal, she wasn't misled by courtiers but acted with full awareness. Now, King Charles emulates his mother's decisiveness, especially concerning Harry's role as a counselor of State. Recently, Harry updated his residency records, clearly indicating his departure from Britain for the United States. This shift raises significant questions about his eligibility as a counselor of State, given the requirement for UK domicile.
Following King Charles's request for the Sussexes to vacate Frogmore Cottage, legal experts confirmed that only Parliament, after Harry formally severs ties with Britain, can remove him as a counselor of State. This measured approach aims to de-escalate tensions and mitigate potential chaos. Constitutional expert Craig Prescott highlighted the parliamentary process required for such changes. Parliament's involvement underscores the gravity of the situation, ensuring transparency and legitimacy in the decision-making process.
Moreover, discussions within Parliament suggest that Harry's tenure as a counselor may be limited, possibly ending in about eight years. His position is contingent upon the minority status of Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis. Each time the councilors of State are invoked, a Letters Patent is issued, and new appointments are made by the Monarch. Harry's long period of inactivity and lack of UK residency disqualify him from fulfilling his duties, a fate shared with other non-working Royals like Andrew and Beatrice.
The intricacies of succession planning become apparent when considering scenarios where both the King and Prince William are unavailable. Provisions must be made to ensure continuity, even if the Monarch is incapacitated. This underscores the importance of a stable and adaptable monarchy, capable of navigating complex constitutional matters with clarity and foresight.
