![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Privy Council (United Kingdom) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2012. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
How powerful was the Privy Council in the past? Kent Wang 12:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And perhaps that the British themselves used to use "Councillor", but then became confused... john k 16:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
"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)
The British Privy Council still includes Caribbean realms.
On the following page:
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)
CaribDigita ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
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???
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)
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:
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 thatThe 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.
. 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)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.
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Privy Council (United Kingdom) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2012. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
How powerful was the Privy Council in the past? Kent Wang 12:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And perhaps that the British themselves used to use "Councillor", but then became confused... john k 16:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
"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)
The British Privy Council still includes Caribbean realms.
On the following page:
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)
CaribDigita ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
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???
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)
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:
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 thatThe 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.
. 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)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.
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)