Talk:Privy Council (United Kingdom)

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)

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)