King Charles III’s cancer diagnosis raises an important question: What happens if he cannot fulfill his constitutional obligations? Buckingham Palace has said it will continue to carry out its official procedures despite the illness and will hold its weekly meetings with the Prime Minister throughout treatment. But What happens if you become seriously ill?
There are three options: Councils of State, Regency and Abdication.
Councilors of State
First of all, King Charless may delegate some or most of its royal functions to councilors of state, as is the case when traveling abroad. Two Councilors of State can jointly exercise royal powers, such as passing laws, receiving ambassadors and holding meetings of the Privy Council.
The state councilors are the spouse the ruler (Queen Camilla) and the next four adults in line to the throne (in this case Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice).
However, Prince Harry is excluded outside the UK, and in practice too Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice will not be asked to make any appearances as they are not “working royals”.
Then all we have left is the queen Camilla and Prince William. But in 2022 a law was passed in the UK to add this Princess Anne and Prince Edward .
Councils of State can perform most of the sovereign’s duties while the sovereign is ill, but can only dissolve Parliament by order. They also cannot create like-minded people or exercise power over others. 14 kingdoms that recognize the king as their head of state. Namely: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
The question of whether council members can appoint a prime minister remains controversial.
Regency
The second option is a regency. This happens when the king “due to mental or physical illness” temporarily unable to carry out royal duties.”. The Sovereign does not control the timing or duration of the Regency, but is initiated by a declaration from three or more of the following: the Sovereign’s spouse, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord President of the High Court of England and Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal.
The UK Regency Act requires Prince William to be Regent as he is the next adult in line to the throne. According to this law, the Regent has the same powers as the King in relation to the United Kingdom, but cannot change the order of succession to the throne. It also does not grant the Regent any powers over the kingdoms.
abdication
The last option for an incapacitated monarch it means abdication.
When King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, he signed an instrument of abdication and passed laws that the various kingdoms agreed to. This is no longer possible today, since e.gThe UK can no longer legislate in relation to kingdoms such as Australia.
Does this mean that if King Charles were to abdicate, a separate abdication of the King of Australia would be required? Or would Clause 2 of the Constitution apply, which defines the sovereign in terms of Queen Victoria’s “heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”?
Explodes Constitutional confusion would arise by addressing the king’s role in his 14 kingdoms outside the United Kingdom, which would most likely prevent abdication.
Consequences for other countries
If King Charles were removed from power and councilors of state or a regent were appointed, would this cause real problems in Australia?
The only ones The King’s remaining essential powers in relation to Australia are the appointment and dismissal of the Governor-General and state governors. The governor general’s term is expected to end in the middle of the year. If King Charles was seriously ill at this point and was unable to appoint a new Governor-General, no one could do so, as neither the Councils of State nor a Regent could do so.
He will be replaced by current Governor General David Hurley, could choose to remain in office, as there is no formal termination of his position until he is replaced.
Alternatively, pcould resign and his position could be temporarily filled by a state governor as administrator, a common practice when a position is vacant. However, if a reign were to last for an extended period of time – perhaps years – this could become untenable.
The other consideration is that in a regency there is no power to remove a governor general. Therefore, if in these circumstances ato the constitutional crisis, The Governor General would know that he could act without risk of being removed by the Prime Minister. This unbalances the constitutional pressures deliberately built into the system, gives more power to the Governor General and weakens the position of the Prime Minister.
The issue could be addressed in the same way the rules of succession were changed in 2015 to eliminate gender discrimination. This would require each state to request the Commonwealth to enact a law recognizing the power of a regent to exercise the sovereign’s powers in relation to Australia.
Although solving this problem is not essential, for constitutional reasons it would be advisable to address it before real difficulties arise.
Anne Twomey, Professor Emeritus, University of Sydney
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original.
