Prince Harry's Remaining Royal Role Under Fire as Government Reconsiders

Prince Harry's most significant remaining royal role was challenged in the House of Lords this week, with the possibility of his stepping in to deputize for his father King Charles III during periods of absence or illness being questioned following his move to the U.S. with Meghan Markle.

The prince stepped down as a working member of the royal family in 2020 and in doing so was stripped of his official roles and military appointments. This did not extend to his legal eligibility to act as a Counsellor of State or as regent should the monarch be absent from Britain or incapacitated due to illness.

These entitlements are protected by law under The Regency Act of 1937 which states that the first five members of the blood royal family in the line of succession over the age of 21 (in addition to the monarch's consort) are Counsellors of State and candidates to act as regent.

This piece of legislation came under question in the House of Lords on Monday where Stephen Benn, Viscount Stansgate, asked whether the government was "happy to continue with a situation where the counsels of state and regency powers may be exercised by the Duke of York or the Duke of Sussex, one of whom has left public life and the other of whom has left the country?"

He then asked whether or not it was time for the government to approach the king to ask whether now is the right time to make an amendment to this law.

In response to his question, Lord Nicholas True, the leader of the House of Lords, did not rule out the possibility of such a change.

He said that the government would "always consider what arrangements are needed to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements," and added that "in the past, we have seen that the point of accession has proved a useful opportunity to consider the arrangements in place."

Counsellors of State can fulfil duties such as signing official documents, conducting royal ceremonies, and receiving official guests on behalf of the monarch when called upon.

Currently, the six members of the royal family who can act as counsellors are Queen Camilla, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, and Princess Beatrice.

An issue lies in the fact that only two of these are "working royals" and the times when counsellors are expected to act—such as when King Charles is travelling abroad—Camilla will likely be accompanying him.

Under the Regency Act, two counsellors are needed to act together to perform each duty, as it currently stands this would leave Prince William to act either with Harry (who would need to be in the U.K. to perform the role); Prince Andrew, who has been publicly disgraced over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and allegations of sexual abuse, or Princess Beatrice, who is not considered a "working royal."

British legal expert Craig Prescott told Newsweek that "with the accession of King Charles III there is an issue" which an amendment to the Regency Act to include more than six royal family members to be called upon as counsellors could solve.

"It seems more appropriate for Prince Edward and Princess Anne, as two royals who conduct public duties (indeed Princess Anne holds investitures) to act as Counsellors of State instead of Princess Beatrice, who doesn't," he said.

"This is ultimately a decision for Parliament, who would need to pass a new act to make this change."

Prescott said there is a legal precedent for doing this.

"The Regency Act [of] 1953, added Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother as a Counsellor of State for the rest of her life (she stopped being a Counsellor of State, as on the death of George VI [as] she was no longer the wife of the monarch)," he said.

"So a new Act of Parliament legislation could do the same for Princess Anne and Prince Edward. The Act of Parliament could also add the Princess of Wales (when William is King, she will become a Counsellor of State anyway), and she could act with William."

But where would this leave Harry? A change such as the one suggested would not remove him from being considered as a candidate for counsellor or regent but would widen the pool to other working royals.

"It's not necessary to remove Prince Harry and Prince Andrew, they could simply not act, as only two are required to act together," said Prescott.

Given reports of friction between Harry and members of the royal family including his father, the king, and brother, William, it is unlikely that a controversial move such as actively removing Harry from being considered for such a role would be desirable to the government or the monarch.

Prominent royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told Newsweek that changes to the Regency Act would be supported in Britain, as it has been "long overdue."

"There was a recent danger, after the death of Prince Philip," he explained, "that if the Queen had fallen ill when the Prince of Wales had COVID and the Duke of Cambridge was abroad for a day, who then could have been a substitute?"

"It was intimated in the debate that the beginning of a reign would be a good time to look into such matters. Although the Queen Consort is now a Counsellor of State along with the Prince of Wales, it remains a fact that this needs reform," Fitzwilliams said.

"Any new legislation to change this would have to be made by Parliament, obviously in consultation with the Royal Household. They would, in my view, have wide popular support in so doing."

The subject is not currently scheduled for further parliamentary discussion.

Newsweek reached out to Buckingham Palace and representatives of Prince Harry for comment.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.