What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
Accession Council?

The Council is supposed to meet in Westminster, St. James Palace
shortly after a demise of Crown becomes known around London. It is
said to include Lord Mayor (the one individually named member),
aldermen of London, Privy Counsellors, Lords and High Commissioners of
some (which?) domains. The participants compile and sign Accession
Proclamation. If the heir/ess is present and abled, he or she also
gives an oath to uphold Church of Scotland, whereupon the business is
concluded and the Council dissolves till the next demise of Crown. If
the heir/ess is abled but absent from London, as happened on 6th of
February, 1952, the Council dissolves, but meets again shortly after
the Sovereign has arrived around London.

Now... What happens if the members of the Accession Council disagree
on who the rightful sovereign is? What if the Right Honourable Tony
Benn wilfully refuses to show up, or shows up and then refuses to sign
the proclamation?

What if it is the Lord Mayor who will not sign?

Suppose that some, or many, Accession Counsellors allege e. g. that
Charles is disqualified as a closet Popist under Act of Settlement -
and many counsellors disagree.

The succession is not justiciable. The Parliament cannot interfere,
either - it might not be in session, and even if it is, the Sovereign
is an essential House of Parliament. So the Parliament needs the
Sovereign to assent.

If the Accession Council unanimously proclaims William by mistake, and
William agrees it was a mistake, then once both Houses of Parliament
have been called and met, William can abdicate by assenting to Act of
Parliament, like Edward VIII did.

But what if the majority of both Houses of Parliament are sure that
the last succession was in violation of Act of Settlement whether due
to wrong interpretation or wrong finding of fact? The Houses are still
bound by the decision of the Accession Council about the Sovereign is,
and they can only change succession by assent of the sovereign who
was, wrongly or rightly, proclaimed by the Accession Council...

Now, what about non-unanimous Accession Council? Do they cast and
count votes? What is needed for accession - majority, or plurality in
case of more than two plausible heirs?

So far, it refers to Counsellors showing up to meet the Counsellors
they disagree with. But what is the quorum of Accession Council? What
happens if a number of Counsellors meet separately, hold Accession
Council and issue an Accession Proclamation of a different sovereign?
Which Accession Proclamation is then valid? The one with most
signatures? The one signed by Lord Mayor? The one whose signers had
physical access to St. James Court? The one published earliest?

And what is the role of the High Commisioners of Realms?

If the High Commissioner of Canada objects to the proceedings of the
Ukogbani Accession Council and wilfully refuses to attend, or wilfully
refuses to sign, or attends another Accession Council proclaiming a
different Sovereign, or, say, hosts another Accession Council on the
premises of High Commission of Canada, who then is the King of Canada?
Is it the signature of the High Commissioner of Canada on Accession
Proclamation which creates the new King of Canada?

In alt.talk.royalty chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
: What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
: Accession Council?
: 
: The Council is supposed to meet in Westminster, St. James Palace
: shortly after a demise of Crown becomes known around London. It is
: said to include Lord Mayor (the one individually named member),
: aldermen of London, Privy Counsellors, Lords and High Commissioners of
: some (which?) domains. The participants compile and sign Accession
: Proclamation. If the heir/ess is present and abled, he or she also
: gives an oath to uphold Church of Scotland, whereupon the business is
: concluded and the Council dissolves till the next demise of Crown. If
: the heir/ess is abled but absent from London, as happened on 6th of
: February, 1952, the Council dissolves, but meets again shortly after
: the Sovereign has arrived around London.
: 
: Now... What happens if the members of the Accession Council disagree
: on who the rightful sovereign is? What if the Right Honourable Tony
: Benn wilfully refuses to show up, or shows up and then refuses to sign
: the proclamation?

The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
not to interpret it.

I believe that a public refusal to sign the proclamation should
(not by the AC,but by the authorities under the newly acceded Monarch)
be interpreted as constituting resignation from the office that qualifies
one to serve on the AC.Not showing up would not have an effect.
 
: What if it is the Lord Mayor who will not sign?
: 
: Suppose that some, or many, Accession Counsellors allege e. g. that
: Charles is disqualified as a closet Popist under Act of Settlement -
: and many counsellors disagree.
: 
: The succession is not justiciable. The Parliament cannot interfere,
: either - it might not be in session, and even if it is, the Sovereign
: is an essential House of Parliament. So the Parliament needs the
: Sovereign to assent.

Note that the proclamation as worded is a declaration that
the accession HAS HAPPENED,under existing law...not an act
by which the accession thereby happens.

: If the Accession Council unanimously proclaims William by mistake, and
: William agrees it was a mistake, then once both Houses of Parliament
: have been called and met, William can abdicate by assenting to Act of
: Parliament, like Edward VIII did.
: 
: But what if the majority of both Houses of Parliament are sure that
: the last succession was in violation of Act of Settlement whether due
: to wrong interpretation or wrong finding of fact? The Houses are still
: bound by the decision of the Accession Council about the Sovereign is,
: and they can only change succession by assent of the sovereign who
: was, wrongly or rightly, proclaimed by the Accession Council...
: 
: Now, what about non-unanimous Accession Council? Do they cast and
: count votes? What is needed for accession - majority, or plurality in
: case of more than two plausible heirs?

It is no more a matter of the Throne being in their gift than
the "sustaining vote" of a Latter-day Saint general conference
is needed for that church's Prophet to hold office...or,closer
geographically,the elections of bishops of the Church of England
held by cathedral chapters in receipt of a conge d'elire.

There is one person for whom it is permitted to "vote",
and only votes for that person are valid and countable.
 
: So far, it refers to Counsellors showing up to meet the Counsellors
: they disagree with. But what is the quorum of Accession Council? What
: happens if a number of Counsellors meet separately, hold Accession
: Council and issue an Accession Proclamation of a different sovereign?
: Which Accession Proclamation is then valid? The one with most
: signatures? The one signed by Lord Mayor? The one whose signers had
: physical access to St. James Court? The one published earliest?
: 
: And what is the role of the High Commisioners of Realms?

To show that they have made the submission required of them
to the person who has automatically become their Sovereign.

: If the High Commissioner of Canada objects to the proceedings of the
: Ukogbani Accession Council and wilfully refuses to attend, or wilfully
: refuses to sign, or attends another Accession Council proclaiming a
: different Sovereign, or, say, hosts another Accession Council on the
: premises of High Commission of Canada, who then is the King of Canada?
: Is it the signature of the High Commissioner of Canada on Accession
: Proclamation which creates the new King of Canada?

No. 
He has a duty to sign,
but not the authority to decide who to sign for.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:

> What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> Accession Council?
>
> [numerous other questions snipped for brevity]

Blast it, I posted a detailed response to your questions yesterday,
but it seems to have been eaten by the 'net gremlins.  So I shall try
again from scratch:

The Accession Council and the proclamation it makes are purely
ceremonial.  Royal succession in the UK operates automatically, so the
details of the accession proclamation are legally irrelevant; the new
sovereign becomes so at the moment of the death of the previous
sovereign.  As such, questions as to procedural irregularities are
moot.

Remember that the original function of the proclamation was to avoid a
power vacuum at a time when the sovereign had much more active
involvement in government, and when the succession could be much less
clear cut.  Nowadays it's largely irrelevant to most people, including
those with their hands on the levers of power, who the actual
sovereign is, so a disputed succession is less likely to occur, not
likely at all to involve the threat of violence, and unlikely in the
short term to disrupt the function of government.

If the succession *were* disputed, then it would ultimately fall to
Parliament to resolve the matter.  Of course this would have to
involve some extra-constitutional juggling, but in the absence of
rules it's necessary to make new ones.  1689 lends a ready precedent,
though: the two Houses decide on the "facts", agree on who the
sovereign should be, and then once they've taken up the throne it's
possible for an Act of Parliament to be passed confirming what's
happened.  Paradoxical it may be, but it would work!

As all the other realms have a Governor-General (or Queen's
Representative in one case) there is no legal difficulty at all for
those countries in the event of a disputed succession.  Obviously if
different realms had differing views as to who the true sovereign was
then that does present a political/diplomatic problem, albeit a fairly
minor one.

What the effect of a disputed succession would have on popular opinion
is, in my view, completely impossible to predict since it would depend
on both the personalities and the events at the time.

Having said all that, it's difficult to picture circumstances that
*would* result nowadays in a disputed succession.  Uncertainty over
someone's religious "qualifications" might do it, but about the only
other thing I can think of (and it's rather a stretch) is a disputed
paternity.  Given how much the royal family live in the public eye,
it's difficult to see either possibility ever really being an issue.


--
AGw.

On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> Accession Council?

"All members of the Privy Council are summoned."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp

The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
moment.

The new sovereign will have already have been advised of the
succession:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20023/20023-h/images/frontis-600.png

On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:

> The new sovereign will have already have been advised of the
> succession:
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20023/20023-h/images/frontis-600.png

I don't know what you were hoping for us to see with that, but all I
got was a stroppy message!


--
AGw.

On Apr 8, 2:11 am, freder...@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
> On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
> > The new sovereign will have already have been advised of the
> > succession:
> >http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20023/20023-h/images/frontis-600.png
>
> I don't know what you were hoping for us to see with that, but all I
> got was a stroppy message!
>
I got what looks like a picture of the men who came to inform
Victoria of William IV's death literally 'kissing hands'.

BTW, did I see something about this practice in a clip from
the Helen Mirren film?

On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
> On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> > What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> > Accession Council?
>
> "All members of the Privy Council are summoned."
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp
> The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
> cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
> meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
> include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
> those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
> moment.

http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
lists Privy Councillors
Whoever likes can sit down and count them.  They
include Law Lords, going back to Lord Bridge, who
has recently turned 90.  Also English and Northern
Ireland Lords Justices of Appeal, and Scottish Senators
of the College of Justice.  Though Lords Justices Higgins
and Girvan (appointed earlier this year) do not yet appear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lords_Justices_of_Appeal_of_Northern_Ireland
High Court of Australia Justice Sir Ninian Stephen is
there - was his PC related to being on the Court, or
something else?  It was 3 years before he became
G-G.

Various former UK politicians who you'd think would
be dead are still there, like Lord Carrington (1959) and
Lord Healey (1964).

On 8 Apr 2007 06:40:10 -0700, graham.truesdale@virgin.net wrote:

>On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>> > What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
>> > Accession Council?
>>
>> "All members of the Privy Council are summoned."
>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp
>> The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
>> cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
>> meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
>> include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
>> those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
>> moment.
>
>http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
>lists Privy Councillors
>Whoever likes can sit down and count them.  They
>include Law Lords, going back to Lord Bridge, who
>has recently turned 90.  Also English and Northern
>Ireland Lords Justices of Appeal, and Scottish Senators
>of the College of Justice.  Though Lords Justices Higgins
>and Girvan (appointed earlier this year) do not yet appear.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lords_Justices_of_Appeal_of_Northern_Ireland
>High Court of Australia Justice Sir Ninian Stephen is
>there - was his PC related to being on the Court, or
>something else?  It was 3 years before he became
>G-G.
>
>Various former UK politicians who you'd think would
>be dead are still there, like Lord Carrington (1959) and
>Lord Healey (1964).

The Accession Council, however, consists of the Privy Council "meeting
with others". The does not seem to be any definition of who the
"others" should be; the High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries
were summoned for the first time in 1952 (it would be interesting to
know when, and by whom, this was decided).

I think, although I am open to correction on this, that its origins
derive from what happened at the death of Queen Anne. Shortly *before*
the Queen's death (although after the Council had examined her
physicians, who said that she could not live more than a few hours) a
"greatly expanded" Privy Council met, including "all leading Tories
and Whigs who happened to be in London", as well as the Hanoverian
resident in London, Kreyenberg and his predecessor, Bothmer. Forty
members of this body signed an appeal to the Elector, asking him to
leave for London as rapidly as possible. This was at about 11 pm on 30
July 1714. The Queen died the next morning, on which the same body met
again, ordered King George to be proclaimed, opened the King's list of
Lords Justices, swore them in, and handed over control to them.

At that time, the PC was still the effective government of the
country. Who was to attend normally depended on who the sovereign
chose to summon, but during the Queen's incapacity the dukes of Argyll
and Somerset (both of whom had been excluded from the government since
1710 and were suspected of Jacobite sympathies) claimed the right to
attend, and this was accepted; everyone was concerned to involve as
many people as possible in a peaceful transfer of power, and it was
stressed in a number of public statements that all decisions had been
made unanimously.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Louis Epstein kirjutas:
> In alt.talk.royalty chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
> : What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> : Accession Council?
> :
> : The Council is supposed to meet in Westminster, St. James Palace
> : shortly after a demise of Crown becomes known around London. It is
> : said to include Lord Mayor (the one individually named member),
> : aldermen of London, Privy Counsellors, Lords and High Commissioners of
> : some (which?) domains. The participants compile and sign Accession
> : Proclamation. If the heir/ess is present and abled, he or she also
> : gives an oath to uphold Church of Scotland, whereupon the business is
> : concluded and the Council dissolves till the next demise of Crown. If
> : the heir/ess is abled but absent from London, as happened on 6th of
> : February, 1952, the Council dissolves, but meets again shortly after
> : the Sovereign has arrived around London.
> :
> : Now... What happens if the members of the Accession Council disagree
> : on who the rightful sovereign is? What if the Right Honourable Tony
> : Benn wilfully refuses to show up, or shows up and then refuses to sign
> : the proclamation?
>
> The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> not to interpret it.
>
But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
If they do not interpret the law, who does?

> I believe that a public refusal to sign the proclamation should
> (not by the AC,but by the authorities under the newly acceded Monarch)
> be interpreted as constituting resignation from the office that qualifies
> one to serve on the AC.Not showing up would not have an effect.
>
> : What if it is the Lord Mayor who will not sign?
> :
> : Suppose that some, or many, Accession Counsellors allege e. g. that
> : Charles is disqualified as a closet Popist under Act of Settlement -
> : and many counsellors disagree.
> :
> : The succession is not justiciable. The Parliament cannot interfere,
> : either - it might not be in session, and even if it is, the Sovereign
> : is an essential House of Parliament. So the Parliament needs the
> : Sovereign to assent.
>
> Note that the proclamation as worded is a declaration that
> the accession HAS HAPPENED,under existing law...not an act
> by which the accession thereby happens.
>
> : If the Accession Council unanimously proclaims William by mistake, and
> : William agrees it was a mistake, then once both Houses of Parliament
> : have been called and met, William can abdicate by assenting to Act of
> : Parliament, like Edward VIII did.
> :
> : But what if the majority of both Houses of Parliament are sure that
> : the last succession was in violation of Act of Settlement whether due
> : to wrong interpretation or wrong finding of fact? The Houses are still
> : bound by the decision of the Accession Council about the Sovereign is,
> : and they can only change succession by assent of the sovereign who
> : was, wrongly or rightly, proclaimed by the Accession Council...
> :
> : Now, what about non-unanimous Accession Council? Do they cast and
> : count votes? What is needed for accession - majority, or plurality in
> : case of more than two plausible heirs?
>
> It is no more a matter of the Throne being in their gift than
> the "sustaining vote" of a Latter-day Saint general conference
> is needed for that church's Prophet to hold office...or,closer
> geographically,the elections of bishops of the Church of England
> held by cathedral chapters in receipt of a conge d'elire.
>
> There is one person for whom it is permitted to "vote",
> and only votes for that person are valid and countable.
>
> : So far, it refers to Counsellors showing up to meet the Counsellors
> : they disagree with. But what is the quorum of Accession Council? What
> : happens if a number of Counsellors meet separately, hold Accession
> : Council and issue an Accession Proclamation of a different sovereign?
> : Which Accession Proclamation is then valid? The one with most
> : signatures? The one signed by Lord Mayor? The one whose signers had
> : physical access to St. James Court? The one published earliest?
> :
> : And what is the role of the High Commisioners of Realms?
>
> To show that they have made the submission required of them
> to the person who has automatically become their Sovereign.
>
> : If the High Commissioner of Canada objects to the proceedings of the
> : Ukogbani Accession Council and wilfully refuses to attend, or wilfully
> : refuses to sign, or attends another Accession Council proclaiming a
> : different Sovereign, or, say, hosts another Accession Council on the
> : premises of High Commission of Canada, who then is the King of Canada?
> : Is it the signature of the High Commissioner of Canada on Accession
> : Proclamation which creates the new King of Canada?
>
> No.
> He has a duty to sign,
> but not the authority to decide who to sign for.
>

On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:

> Louis Epstein kirjutas:
>
> > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> > not to interpret it.
>
> But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.

No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.

Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
would have no legal ramifications.

> If they do not interpret the law, who does?

What law is there to interpret?

As previously stated, royal succession in the UK is automatic.  A
potential difficulty is caused by the possibility of a posthumous
heir, but there is clear precedent that establishes how to deal with
this.  Other than that it's really very hard to see what circumstances
could cause any legal uncertainty at the time an accession
proclamation would be expected to be made, without having to conjure
up utterly improbable scenarios such as there not being any non-
Catholics alive at the time of the demise.


--
AGw.

On Apr 9, 7:37 pm, freder...@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
> On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> > Louis Epstein kirjutas:
> > > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> > > not to interpret it.
>
> > But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
>
> No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.
> Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
> people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
> needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
> extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
> of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
> to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
> names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
> would have no legal ramifications.
>
> > If they do not interpret the law, who does?
>
> What law is there to interpret?
> As previously stated, royal succession in the UK is automatic.  A
> potential difficulty is caused by the possibility of a posthumous
> heir, but there is clear precedent that establishes how to deal with
> this.  Other than that it's really very hard to see what circumstances
> could cause any legal uncertainty at the time an accession
> proclamation would be expected to be made, without having to conjure
> up utterly improbable scenarios such as there not being any non-
> Catholics alive at the time of the demise.
>
To quote something which I wrote in 2004
http://groups.google.co.za/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/744ee738688dc394?hl=en&
I think that what the previous poster is trying to suggest is
something
like the following: -
The morning after the Queen dies (and may it be long in coming),
that reliable newspaper of record The Sun publishes an Exclusive
suggesting that Charles has secretly converted to Rome.  If this is
true, then the provisions of the Act of Settlement have kicked in, as
if he were naturally dead.  If it is not, then he is King.
Presumably
someone must ascertain whether there is any truth in the rumour.
I note that Don has suggested that it might be the Parliament or the
Courts.

frederick@southernskies.co.uk kirjutas:
> On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> > Louis Epstein kirjutas:
> >
> > > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> > > not to interpret it.
> >
> > But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
>
> No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.
>
> Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
> people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
> needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
> extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
> of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
> to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
> names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
> would have no legal ramifications.
>
But the people participating at the wedding do have to worry about
what the Marriage Act 1949 says - and, e. g., what the Royal Marriages
Act 1772 says.

There are the lines in wedding service about "Speak now, or forever
hold your peace".

If someone then speaks up and presents what sounds like a plausible
lawful impediment to the marriage, and the wedding is disrupted, but
afterwards the story turns out to have been a malicious lie to ruin
the wedding, there are known court procedures to deal with it, and the
marriage would go on with some delay and inconvenience.

If someone fails to speak up, and afterwards fails to forever hold
peace, then there are known court procedures to annul a marriage after
wedding.

If someone does speak up at the wedding, and the objections are
dismissed as factually incorrect or legally insufficient, then courts
can nevertheless proceed to annul the marriage, just as if the
objections had not been presented. What are the risks of
inappropriately overruling genuinely valid objections to a void
marriage?

As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
commit praemunire.

Now, accession is a different matter. There is no known court
procedure to annul accession - succession is not justiciable, unlike
marriage. And since the Crown should not be vacant, either, if a
demise of Crown has occurred, the Accession Council needs to proclaim
someone. There is no established procedure to put off the matter till
the doubts can be resolved, nor is there an established procedure to
change a decision which on closer examination appears erroneous.

> > If they do not interpret the law, who does?
>
> What law is there to interpret?
>
> As previously stated, royal succession in the UK is automatic.  A
> potential difficulty is caused by the possibility of a posthumous
> heir, but there is clear precedent that establishes how to deal with
> this.

Which one?

> Other than that it's really very hard to see what circumstances
> could cause any legal uncertainty at the time an accession
> proclamation would be expected to be made, without having to conjure
> up utterly improbable scenarios such as there not being any non-
> Catholics alive at the time of the demise.
>
Well, another "improbable" scenario:

Let´s assume Philip has lawfully married in Greece, before marrying
Elizabeth.

The Ukogbani privy council would not know - they do know all UK Royal
marriages, and therefore any secret marriage of Elizabeth would be
void to the extent of irrelevancy by RMA, but Philip is not subject to
RMA.

If the marriage of Philip and Elizabeth were bigamous, it would be
void. Elizabeth would have no lawful issue, since all her children
would be bastards. Her rightful heir would be Viscount Linley.

Does it follow that if a Greek court finds Philip to be a bigamist,
Ukogbani and all realms would have to pass legislation to legitimize
Elizabeth´s children?

Provided that there is a sovereign and parliament to do so when the
news break. Remember, the witnesses to the first marriage of Edward IV
held their peace for fifteen years or so, and most inconveniently
spoke out less than three weeks before the bastard was due for
coronation. If Philip were exposed for bigamy immediately after
Elizabeth has demised and therefore not available to assent to any
legislation to clean up the mess, who are the members of Accession
Council supposed to proclaim?

On 10 Apr 2007 08:54:34 -0700, chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:

>As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
>a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
>that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
>commit praemunire.
>
Praemunire was abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967; since then
there have been no criminal penalties for breach of the RMA - the
invalidity of the marriage is the only sanction.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1516881 and 
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186142 and
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186173

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On Apr 8, 12:28 pm, Don Aitken  wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2007 06:40:10 -0700, graham.truesd...@virgin.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >> > What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> >> > Accession Council?
>
> >> "All members of the Privy Council are summoned."
> >>http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp
> >> The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
> >> cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
> >> meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
> >> include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
> >> those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
> >> moment.
>
> >http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
> >lists Privy Councillors
> >Whoever likes can sit down and count them.  They
> >include Law Lords, going back to Lord Bridge, who
> >has recently turned 90.  Also English and Northern
> >Ireland Lords Justices of Appeal, and Scottish Senators
> >of the College of Justice.  Though Lords Justices Higgins
> >and Girvan (appointed earlier this year) do not yet appear.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lords_Justices_of_Appeal_of_Nort...
> >High Court of Australia Justice Sir Ninian Stephen is
> >there - was his PC related to being on the Court, or
> >something else?  It was 3 years before he became
> >G-G.
>
> >Various former UK politicians who you'd think would
> >be dead are still there, like Lord Carrington (1959) and
> >Lord Healey (1964).
>
> The Accession Council, however, consists of the Privy Council "meeting
> with others". The does not seem to be any definition of who the
> "others" should be; the High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries
> were summoned for the first time in 1952 (it would be interesting to
> know when, and by whom, this was decided).



Is it the Privy Council meeting with others as you put it, or, as the
proclamation states, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm
ASSISTED by others (lord mayor, aldermen, members of the late monarch
´s privy council, etc).

According to the proclamation, the Lords would seem to be the main
part of the AC.

And it begs the question: if the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are all
always summoned, irrespective of being members of the Privy Council
(all PCs are also summoned), would a Hereditary Peer without a right
of membership in the House of Lords and who is not a PC be counted as
a "Lord Temporal" for the purpose of being summoned to the AC????

>
> I think, although I am open to correction on this, that its origins
> derive from what happened at the death of Queen Anne. Shortly *before*
> the Queen's death (although after the Council had examined her
> physicians, who said that she could not live more than a few hours) a
> "greatly expanded" Privy Council met, including "all leading Tories
> and Whigs who happened to be in London", as well as the Hanoverian
> resident in London, Kreyenberg and his predecessor, Bothmer. Forty
> members of this body signed an appeal to the Elector, asking him to
> leave for London as rapidly as possible. This was at about 11 pm on 30
> July 1714. The Queen died the next morning, on which the same body met
> again, ordered King George to be proclaimed, opened the King's list of
> Lords Justices, swore them in, and handed over control to them.
>
> At that time, the PC was still the effective government of the
> country. Who was to attend normally depended on who the sovereign
> chose to summon, but during the Queen's incapacity the dukes of Argyll
> and Somerset (both of whom had been excluded from the government since
> 1710 and were suspected of Jacobite sympathies) claimed the right to
> attend, and this was accepted; everyone was concerned to involve as
> many people as possible in a peaceful transfer of power, and it was
> stressed in a number of public statements that all decisions had been
> made unanimously.
>
> --
> Don Aitken
> Mail to the From: address is not read.
> To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Apr 10, 1:38 pm, Don Aitken  wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2007 08:54:34 -0700, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> >As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
> >a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
> >that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
> >commit praemunire.
>
> Praemunire was abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967; since then
> there have been no criminal penalties for breach of the RMA - the
> invalidity of the marriage is the only sanction.
>
> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1516881andhttp://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186142andhttp://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186173
>
> --
> Don Aitken
> Mail to the From: address is not read.
> To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Note that according to the Criminal Law Act referenced in the links
above, there was specific mention not only of the revokation of the
statute of praemunire, but there was also specific mention of section
3 of the Royal Marriages Act being reppealed:

line in the table of revoked Acts reads:

12 Geo. 3. c. 11. The Royal Marriages Act 1772. Section 3 (this repeal
extending to Northern Ireland).

In alt.talk.royalty chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
: 
: frederick@southernskies.co.uk kirjutas:
:> On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
:>
:> > Louis Epstein kirjutas:
:> >
:> > > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
:> > > not to interpret it.
:> >
:> > But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
:>
:> No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.
:>
:> Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
:> people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
:> needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
:> extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
:> of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
:> to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
:> names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
:> would have no legal ramifications.
:>
: But the people participating at the wedding do have to worry about
: what the Marriage Act 1949 says - and, e. g., what the Royal Marriages
: Act 1772 says.
: 
: There are the lines in wedding service about "Speak now, or forever
: hold your peace".
: 
: If someone then speaks up and presents what sounds like a plausible
: lawful impediment to the marriage, and the wedding is disrupted, but
: afterwards the story turns out to have been a malicious lie to ruin
: the wedding, there are known court procedures to deal with it, and the
: marriage would go on with some delay and inconvenience.
: 
: If someone fails to speak up, and afterwards fails to forever hold
: peace, then there are known court procedures to annul a marriage after
: wedding.
: 
: If someone does speak up at the wedding, and the objections are
: dismissed as factually incorrect or legally insufficient, then courts
: can nevertheless proceed to annul the marriage, just as if the
: objections had not been presented. What are the risks of
: inappropriately overruling genuinely valid objections to a void
: marriage?

Tangent:
Has there ever been a time or place when "or forever hold your peace"
was a binding restriction on the ability to annul a marriage?

I believe that the language came about as a means of garnering
confessions of illicit parentage of a party to the marriage that
would render the marriage incestuous...but I'm not aware of anywhere
that,if this were the case but not acknowledged at the wedding,
the failure to acknowledge it would have rendered the consanguinity
moot and the marriage valid.
 
: As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
: a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
: that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
: commit praemunire.
: 
: Now, accession is a different matter. There is no known court
: procedure to annul accession - succession is not justiciable, unlike
: marriage. And since the Crown should not be vacant, either, if a
: demise of Crown has occurred, the Accession Council needs to proclaim
: someone.

Specifically,the person it is required to proclaim
HAS BECOME the Sovereign.

: 
: Provided that there is a sovereign and parliament to do so when the
: news break. Remember, the witnesses to the first marriage of Edward IV
: held their peace for fifteen years or so, and most inconveniently
: spoke out less than three weeks before the bastard was due for
: coronation.

Erm,it would be more correct to say that fifteen years
after the reputed contract,the man who had most to gain
by the putative bastardy of the children of Edward's
actual marriage concocted a story...

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Apr 13, 2:49 pm, "Antonio"  wrote:
> Is it the Privy Council meeting with others as you put it, or, as the
> proclamation states, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm
> ASSISTED by others (lord mayor, aldermen, members of the late monarch
> ´s privy council, etc).
> According to the proclamation, the Lords would seem to be the main
> part of the AC.
> And it begs the question: if the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are all
> always summoned, irrespective of being members of the Privy Council
> (all PCs are also summoned), would a Hereditary Peer without a right
> of membership in the House of Lords and who is not a PC be counted as
> a "Lord Temporal" for the purpose of being summoned to the AC????
>
http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveViewFrameSetup.asp?webType=0&PageDuplicate=x0
&issueNumber=39458&pageNumber=0&SearchFor=Council&selMedalType=&selHonourType=

is the London Gazette record of the 1952 AC.  Listed are
Lord Simonds- Lord Chancellor,
Churchill - Prime Minister (Commoner - I use this term
  simply to mean that he was in the Commons),
Maxwell-Fyfe - Home Secretary (Commoner),
Lord Woolton - Lord Prez of the Council,
[who was W S Morrison - the Labour politician was H S
  - unless somebody misread a signature in the hurry to
  get the Gazette out?]
Attlee - Leader of the Opposition (Commoner),
Lord Waverley was the former John Anderson, Lord Prez
  and Chancellor during the War, after whom the Anderson
  Shelter was named - no longer in government,
Viscount Samuel was the former leader of the Liberal
  Party,
Crookshank - Leader of the Commons,
Lord Leathers - Minister for the Co-ordination of Transport,
  Fuel, and Power
Lord Selborne - was the former Lord Wolmer, Minister
  of Economic Warfare in WWII,
Lord Davidson - had been Baldwin's Chancellor of the
  Duchy of Lancaster
Duke of Norfolk - Earl Marshal
Lord Ogmore - had been Attlee's Minister of Civil
  Aviation
James Griffiths (Commoner) had been Attlee's Minister
  for National Insurance and Secretary for the Colonies
Arthur Bottomley (Commoner) had held various overseas-
  related junior posts under Attlee
Clement Davies (Commoner) - Liberal Leader
[Who was Wm London?  Can't be the Bishop of London,
  since that was John Wand]
Chuter Ede (Commoner) had been Attlee's Home
  Secretary and Leader of the Commons
Lord Nathan had been Attlee's Under-Sec for War and
  Minister for Civil Aviation
Lord Mersey 'was a Deputy Speaker of the House of
  Lords and also served as Liberal Chief Whip in the
  House of Lords from 1944 to 1949. (Wiki)
Lord Goddard (Lord Chief Justice)
A T Denning - Lord Justice of Appeal - trust him not
  to miss something like this!
Lord Reid - Law Lord
Hartley Shawcross - had been Attlee's AG
Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor had been Governor
  of Newfoundland and Attlee's Paymaster-General

There are 2 more pages - but that gives a flavour of who
attended.  I can't see any signatures in the episcopal
format, or any Royals apart from Mountbatten

http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveViewFrameSetup.asp?webType=0&PageDuplicate=x0%20%20%20%20%20%20&issueNumber=39463&pageNumber=0&SearchFor=Council&selMedalType=&selHonourType=
seems to be more in precedence-order

On 15 Apr 2007 04:28:27 -0700, graham.truesdale@virgin.net wrote:

>http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveViewFrameSetup.asp?webType=0&PageDuplicate=x0
>&issueNumber=39458&pageNumber=0&SearchFor=Council&selMedalType=&selHonourType=
>
>[who was W S Morrison - the Labour politician was H S
>  - unless somebody misread a signature in the hurry to

William Shepherd Morrison, then Speaker of the House of Commons,
former Conservative minister, later Viscount Dunrossil, GG of
Australia, where he died in office in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morrison,_1st_Viscount_Dunrossil

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
Accession Council?

The Council is supposed to meet in Westminster, St. James Palace
shortly after a demise of Crown becomes known around London. It is
said to include Lord Mayor (the one individually named member),
aldermen of London, Privy Counsellors, Lords and High Commissioners of
some (which?) domains. The participants compile and sign Accession
Proclamation. If the heir/ess is present and abled, he or she also
gives an oath to uphold Church of Scotland, whereupon the business is
concluded and the Council dissolves till the next demise of Crown. If
the heir/ess is abled but absent from London, as happened on 6th of
February, 1952, the Council dissolves, but meets again shortly after
the Sovereign has arrived around London.

Now... What happens if the members of the Accession Council disagree
on who the rightful sovereign is? What if the Right Honourable Tony
Benn wilfully refuses to show up, or shows up and then refuses to sign
the proclamation?

What if it is the Lord Mayor who will not sign?

Suppose that some, or many, Accession Counsellors allege e. g. that
Charles is disqualified as a closet Popist under Act of Settlement -
and many counsellors disagree.

The succession is not justiciable. The Parliament cannot interfere,
either - it might not be in session, and even if it is, the Sovereign
is an essential House of Parliament. So the Parliament needs the
Sovereign to assent.

If the Accession Council unanimously proclaims William by mistake, and
William agrees it was a mistake, then once both Houses of Parliament
have been called and met, William can abdicate by assenting to Act of
Parliament, like Edward VIII did.

But what if the majority of both Houses of Parliament are sure that
the last succession was in violation of Act of Settlement whether due
to wrong interpretation or wrong finding of fact? The Houses are still
bound by the decision of the Accession Council about the Sovereign is,
and they can only change succession by assent of the sovereign who
was, wrongly or rightly, proclaimed by the Accession Council...

Now, what about non-unanimous Accession Council? Do they cast and
count votes? What is needed for accession - majority, or plurality in
case of more than two plausible heirs?

So far, it refers to Counsellors showing up to meet the Counsellors
they disagree with. But what is the quorum of Accession Council? What
happens if a number of Counsellors meet separately, hold Accession
Council and issue an Accession Proclamation of a different sovereign?
Which Accession Proclamation is then valid? The one with most
signatures? The one signed by Lord Mayor? The one whose signers had
physical access to St. James Court? The one published earliest?

And what is the role of the High Commisioners of Realms?

If the High Commissioner of Canada objects to the proceedings of the
Ukogbani Accession Council and wilfully refuses to attend, or wilfully
refuses to sign, or attends another Accession Council proclaiming a
different Sovereign, or, say, hosts another Accession Council on the
premises of High Commission of Canada, who then is the King of Canada?
Is it the signature of the High Commissioner of Canada on Accession
Proclamation which creates the new King of Canada?

In alt.talk.royalty chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
: What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
: Accession Council?
: 
: The Council is supposed to meet in Westminster, St. James Palace
: shortly after a demise of Crown becomes known around London. It is
: said to include Lord Mayor (the one individually named member),
: aldermen of London, Privy Counsellors, Lords and High Commissioners of
: some (which?) domains. The participants compile and sign Accession
: Proclamation. If the heir/ess is present and abled, he or she also
: gives an oath to uphold Church of Scotland, whereupon the business is
: concluded and the Council dissolves till the next demise of Crown. If
: the heir/ess is abled but absent from London, as happened on 6th of
: February, 1952, the Council dissolves, but meets again shortly after
: the Sovereign has arrived around London.
: 
: Now... What happens if the members of the Accession Council disagree
: on who the rightful sovereign is? What if the Right Honourable Tony
: Benn wilfully refuses to show up, or shows up and then refuses to sign
: the proclamation?

The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
not to interpret it.

I believe that a public refusal to sign the proclamation should
(not by the AC,but by the authorities under the newly acceded Monarch)
be interpreted as constituting resignation from the office that qualifies
one to serve on the AC.Not showing up would not have an effect.
 
: What if it is the Lord Mayor who will not sign?
: 
: Suppose that some, or many, Accession Counsellors allege e. g. that
: Charles is disqualified as a closet Popist under Act of Settlement -
: and many counsellors disagree.
: 
: The succession is not justiciable. The Parliament cannot interfere,
: either - it might not be in session, and even if it is, the Sovereign
: is an essential House of Parliament. So the Parliament needs the
: Sovereign to assent.

Note that the proclamation as worded is a declaration that
the accession HAS HAPPENED,under existing law...not an act
by which the accession thereby happens.

: If the Accession Council unanimously proclaims William by mistake, and
: William agrees it was a mistake, then once both Houses of Parliament
: have been called and met, William can abdicate by assenting to Act of
: Parliament, like Edward VIII did.
: 
: But what if the majority of both Houses of Parliament are sure that
: the last succession was in violation of Act of Settlement whether due
: to wrong interpretation or wrong finding of fact? The Houses are still
: bound by the decision of the Accession Council about the Sovereign is,
: and they can only change succession by assent of the sovereign who
: was, wrongly or rightly, proclaimed by the Accession Council...
: 
: Now, what about non-unanimous Accession Council? Do they cast and
: count votes? What is needed for accession - majority, or plurality in
: case of more than two plausible heirs?

It is no more a matter of the Throne being in their gift than
the "sustaining vote" of a Latter-day Saint general conference
is needed for that church's Prophet to hold office...or,closer
geographically,the elections of bishops of the Church of England
held by cathedral chapters in receipt of a conge d'elire.

There is one person for whom it is permitted to "vote",
and only votes for that person are valid and countable.
 
: So far, it refers to Counsellors showing up to meet the Counsellors
: they disagree with. But what is the quorum of Accession Council? What
: happens if a number of Counsellors meet separately, hold Accession
: Council and issue an Accession Proclamation of a different sovereign?
: Which Accession Proclamation is then valid? The one with most
: signatures? The one signed by Lord Mayor? The one whose signers had
: physical access to St. James Court? The one published earliest?
: 
: And what is the role of the High Commisioners of Realms?

To show that they have made the submission required of them
to the person who has automatically become their Sovereign.

: If the High Commissioner of Canada objects to the proceedings of the
: Ukogbani Accession Council and wilfully refuses to attend, or wilfully
: refuses to sign, or attends another Accession Council proclaiming a
: different Sovereign, or, say, hosts another Accession Council on the
: premises of High Commission of Canada, who then is the King of Canada?
: Is it the signature of the High Commissioner of Canada on Accession
: Proclamation which creates the new King of Canada?

No. 
He has a duty to sign,
but not the authority to decide who to sign for.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:

> What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> Accession Council?
>
> [numerous other questions snipped for brevity]

Blast it, I posted a detailed response to your questions yesterday,
but it seems to have been eaten by the 'net gremlins.  So I shall try
again from scratch:

The Accession Council and the proclamation it makes are purely
ceremonial.  Royal succession in the UK operates automatically, so the
details of the accession proclamation are legally irrelevant; the new
sovereign becomes so at the moment of the death of the previous
sovereign.  As such, questions as to procedural irregularities are
moot.

Remember that the original function of the proclamation was to avoid a
power vacuum at a time when the sovereign had much more active
involvement in government, and when the succession could be much less
clear cut.  Nowadays it's largely irrelevant to most people, including
those with their hands on the levers of power, who the actual
sovereign is, so a disputed succession is less likely to occur, not
likely at all to involve the threat of violence, and unlikely in the
short term to disrupt the function of government.

If the succession *were* disputed, then it would ultimately fall to
Parliament to resolve the matter.  Of course this would have to
involve some extra-constitutional juggling, but in the absence of
rules it's necessary to make new ones.  1689 lends a ready precedent,
though: the two Houses decide on the "facts", agree on who the
sovereign should be, and then once they've taken up the throne it's
possible for an Act of Parliament to be passed confirming what's
happened.  Paradoxical it may be, but it would work!

As all the other realms have a Governor-General (or Queen's
Representative in one case) there is no legal difficulty at all for
those countries in the event of a disputed succession.  Obviously if
different realms had differing views as to who the true sovereign was
then that does present a political/diplomatic problem, albeit a fairly
minor one.

What the effect of a disputed succession would have on popular opinion
is, in my view, completely impossible to predict since it would depend
on both the personalities and the events at the time.

Having said all that, it's difficult to picture circumstances that
*would* result nowadays in a disputed succession.  Uncertainty over
someone's religious "qualifications" might do it, but about the only
other thing I can think of (and it's rather a stretch) is a disputed
paternity.  Given how much the royal family live in the public eye,
it's difficult to see either possibility ever really being an issue.


--
AGw.

On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> Accession Council?

"All members of the Privy Council are summoned."

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp

The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
moment.

The new sovereign will have already have been advised of the
succession:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20023/20023-h/images/frontis-600.png

On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:

> The new sovereign will have already have been advised of the
> succession:
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20023/20023-h/images/frontis-600.png

I don't know what you were hoping for us to see with that, but all I
got was a stroppy message!


--
AGw.

On Apr 8, 2:11 am, freder...@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
> On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
> > The new sovereign will have already have been advised of the
> > succession:
> >http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20023/20023-h/images/frontis-600.png
>
> I don't know what you were hoping for us to see with that, but all I
> got was a stroppy message!
>
I got what looks like a picture of the men who came to inform
Victoria of William IV's death literally 'kissing hands'.

BTW, did I see something about this practice in a clip from
the Helen Mirren film?

On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
> On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> > What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> > Accession Council?
>
> "All members of the Privy Council are summoned."
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp
> The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
> cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
> meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
> include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
> those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
> moment.

http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
lists Privy Councillors
Whoever likes can sit down and count them.  They
include Law Lords, going back to Lord Bridge, who
has recently turned 90.  Also English and Northern
Ireland Lords Justices of Appeal, and Scottish Senators
of the College of Justice.  Though Lords Justices Higgins
and Girvan (appointed earlier this year) do not yet appear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lords_Justices_of_Appeal_of_Northern_Ireland
High Court of Australia Justice Sir Ninian Stephen is
there - was his PC related to being on the Court, or
something else?  It was 3 years before he became
G-G.

Various former UK politicians who you'd think would
be dead are still there, like Lord Carrington (1959) and
Lord Healey (1964).

On 8 Apr 2007 06:40:10 -0700, graham.truesdale@virgin.net wrote:

>On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>> > What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
>> > Accession Council?
>>
>> "All members of the Privy Council are summoned."
>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp
>> The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
>> cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
>> meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
>> include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
>> those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
>> moment.
>
>http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
>lists Privy Councillors
>Whoever likes can sit down and count them.  They
>include Law Lords, going back to Lord Bridge, who
>has recently turned 90.  Also English and Northern
>Ireland Lords Justices of Appeal, and Scottish Senators
>of the College of Justice.  Though Lords Justices Higgins
>and Girvan (appointed earlier this year) do not yet appear.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lords_Justices_of_Appeal_of_Northern_Ireland
>High Court of Australia Justice Sir Ninian Stephen is
>there - was his PC related to being on the Court, or
>something else?  It was 3 years before he became
>G-G.
>
>Various former UK politicians who you'd think would
>be dead are still there, like Lord Carrington (1959) and
>Lord Healey (1964).

The Accession Council, however, consists of the Privy Council "meeting
with others". The does not seem to be any definition of who the
"others" should be; the High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries
were summoned for the first time in 1952 (it would be interesting to
know when, and by whom, this was decided).

I think, although I am open to correction on this, that its origins
derive from what happened at the death of Queen Anne. Shortly *before*
the Queen's death (although after the Council had examined her
physicians, who said that she could not live more than a few hours) a
"greatly expanded" Privy Council met, including "all leading Tories
and Whigs who happened to be in London", as well as the Hanoverian
resident in London, Kreyenberg and his predecessor, Bothmer. Forty
members of this body signed an appeal to the Elector, asking him to
leave for London as rapidly as possible. This was at about 11 pm on 30
July 1714. The Queen died the next morning, on which the same body met
again, ordered King George to be proclaimed, opened the King's list of
Lords Justices, swore them in, and handed over control to them.

At that time, the PC was still the effective government of the
country. Who was to attend normally depended on who the sovereign
chose to summon, but during the Queen's incapacity the dukes of Argyll
and Somerset (both of whom had been excluded from the government since
1710 and were suspected of Jacobite sympathies) claimed the right to
attend, and this was accepted; everyone was concerned to involve as
many people as possible in a peaceful transfer of power, and it was
stressed in a number of public statements that all decisions had been
made unanimously.

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Louis Epstein kirjutas:
> In alt.talk.royalty chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
> : What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> : Accession Council?
> :
> : The Council is supposed to meet in Westminster, St. James Palace
> : shortly after a demise of Crown becomes known around London. It is
> : said to include Lord Mayor (the one individually named member),
> : aldermen of London, Privy Counsellors, Lords and High Commissioners of
> : some (which?) domains. The participants compile and sign Accession
> : Proclamation. If the heir/ess is present and abled, he or she also
> : gives an oath to uphold Church of Scotland, whereupon the business is
> : concluded and the Council dissolves till the next demise of Crown. If
> : the heir/ess is abled but absent from London, as happened on 6th of
> : February, 1952, the Council dissolves, but meets again shortly after
> : the Sovereign has arrived around London.
> :
> : Now... What happens if the members of the Accession Council disagree
> : on who the rightful sovereign is? What if the Right Honourable Tony
> : Benn wilfully refuses to show up, or shows up and then refuses to sign
> : the proclamation?
>
> The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> not to interpret it.
>
But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
If they do not interpret the law, who does?

> I believe that a public refusal to sign the proclamation should
> (not by the AC,but by the authorities under the newly acceded Monarch)
> be interpreted as constituting resignation from the office that qualifies
> one to serve on the AC.Not showing up would not have an effect.
>
> : What if it is the Lord Mayor who will not sign?
> :
> : Suppose that some, or many, Accession Counsellors allege e. g. that
> : Charles is disqualified as a closet Popist under Act of Settlement -
> : and many counsellors disagree.
> :
> : The succession is not justiciable. The Parliament cannot interfere,
> : either - it might not be in session, and even if it is, the Sovereign
> : is an essential House of Parliament. So the Parliament needs the
> : Sovereign to assent.
>
> Note that the proclamation as worded is a declaration that
> the accession HAS HAPPENED,under existing law...not an act
> by which the accession thereby happens.
>
> : If the Accession Council unanimously proclaims William by mistake, and
> : William agrees it was a mistake, then once both Houses of Parliament
> : have been called and met, William can abdicate by assenting to Act of
> : Parliament, like Edward VIII did.
> :
> : But what if the majority of both Houses of Parliament are sure that
> : the last succession was in violation of Act of Settlement whether due
> : to wrong interpretation or wrong finding of fact? The Houses are still
> : bound by the decision of the Accession Council about the Sovereign is,
> : and they can only change succession by assent of the sovereign who
> : was, wrongly or rightly, proclaimed by the Accession Council...
> :
> : Now, what about non-unanimous Accession Council? Do they cast and
> : count votes? What is needed for accession - majority, or plurality in
> : case of more than two plausible heirs?
>
> It is no more a matter of the Throne being in their gift than
> the "sustaining vote" of a Latter-day Saint general conference
> is needed for that church's Prophet to hold office...or,closer
> geographically,the elections of bishops of the Church of England
> held by cathedral chapters in receipt of a conge d'elire.
>
> There is one person for whom it is permitted to "vote",
> and only votes for that person are valid and countable.
>
> : So far, it refers to Counsellors showing up to meet the Counsellors
> : they disagree with. But what is the quorum of Accession Council? What
> : happens if a number of Counsellors meet separately, hold Accession
> : Council and issue an Accession Proclamation of a different sovereign?
> : Which Accession Proclamation is then valid? The one with most
> : signatures? The one signed by Lord Mayor? The one whose signers had
> : physical access to St. James Court? The one published earliest?
> :
> : And what is the role of the High Commisioners of Realms?
>
> To show that they have made the submission required of them
> to the person who has automatically become their Sovereign.
>
> : If the High Commissioner of Canada objects to the proceedings of the
> : Ukogbani Accession Council and wilfully refuses to attend, or wilfully
> : refuses to sign, or attends another Accession Council proclaiming a
> : different Sovereign, or, say, hosts another Accession Council on the
> : premises of High Commission of Canada, who then is the King of Canada?
> : Is it the signature of the High Commissioner of Canada on Accession
> : Proclamation which creates the new King of Canada?
>
> No.
> He has a duty to sign,
> but not the authority to decide who to sign for.
>

On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:

> Louis Epstein kirjutas:
>
> > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> > not to interpret it.
>
> But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.

No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.

Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
would have no legal ramifications.

> If they do not interpret the law, who does?

What law is there to interpret?

As previously stated, royal succession in the UK is automatic.  A
potential difficulty is caused by the possibility of a posthumous
heir, but there is clear precedent that establishes how to deal with
this.  Other than that it's really very hard to see what circumstances
could cause any legal uncertainty at the time an accession
proclamation would be expected to be made, without having to conjure
up utterly improbable scenarios such as there not being any non-
Catholics alive at the time of the demise.


--
AGw.

On Apr 9, 7:37 pm, freder...@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
> On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> > Louis Epstein kirjutas:
> > > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> > > not to interpret it.
>
> > But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
>
> No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.
> Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
> people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
> needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
> extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
> of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
> to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
> names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
> would have no legal ramifications.
>
> > If they do not interpret the law, who does?
>
> What law is there to interpret?
> As previously stated, royal succession in the UK is automatic.  A
> potential difficulty is caused by the possibility of a posthumous
> heir, but there is clear precedent that establishes how to deal with
> this.  Other than that it's really very hard to see what circumstances
> could cause any legal uncertainty at the time an accession
> proclamation would be expected to be made, without having to conjure
> up utterly improbable scenarios such as there not being any non-
> Catholics alive at the time of the demise.
>
To quote something which I wrote in 2004
http://groups.google.co.za/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/744ee738688dc394?hl=en&
I think that what the previous poster is trying to suggest is
something
like the following: -
The morning after the Queen dies (and may it be long in coming),
that reliable newspaper of record The Sun publishes an Exclusive
suggesting that Charles has secretly converted to Rome.  If this is
true, then the provisions of the Act of Settlement have kicked in, as
if he were naturally dead.  If it is not, then he is King.
Presumably
someone must ascertain whether there is any truth in the rumour.
I note that Don has suggested that it might be the Parliament or the
Courts.

frederick@southernskies.co.uk kirjutas:
> On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> > Louis Epstein kirjutas:
> >
> > > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
> > > not to interpret it.
> >
> > But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
>
> No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.
>
> Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
> people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
> needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
> extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
> of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
> to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
> names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
> would have no legal ramifications.
>
But the people participating at the wedding do have to worry about
what the Marriage Act 1949 says - and, e. g., what the Royal Marriages
Act 1772 says.

There are the lines in wedding service about "Speak now, or forever
hold your peace".

If someone then speaks up and presents what sounds like a plausible
lawful impediment to the marriage, and the wedding is disrupted, but
afterwards the story turns out to have been a malicious lie to ruin
the wedding, there are known court procedures to deal with it, and the
marriage would go on with some delay and inconvenience.

If someone fails to speak up, and afterwards fails to forever hold
peace, then there are known court procedures to annul a marriage after
wedding.

If someone does speak up at the wedding, and the objections are
dismissed as factually incorrect or legally insufficient, then courts
can nevertheless proceed to annul the marriage, just as if the
objections had not been presented. What are the risks of
inappropriately overruling genuinely valid objections to a void
marriage?

As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
commit praemunire.

Now, accession is a different matter. There is no known court
procedure to annul accession - succession is not justiciable, unlike
marriage. And since the Crown should not be vacant, either, if a
demise of Crown has occurred, the Accession Council needs to proclaim
someone. There is no established procedure to put off the matter till
the doubts can be resolved, nor is there an established procedure to
change a decision which on closer examination appears erroneous.

> > If they do not interpret the law, who does?
>
> What law is there to interpret?
>
> As previously stated, royal succession in the UK is automatic.  A
> potential difficulty is caused by the possibility of a posthumous
> heir, but there is clear precedent that establishes how to deal with
> this.

Which one?

> Other than that it's really very hard to see what circumstances
> could cause any legal uncertainty at the time an accession
> proclamation would be expected to be made, without having to conjure
> up utterly improbable scenarios such as there not being any non-
> Catholics alive at the time of the demise.
>
Well, another "improbable" scenario:

Let´s assume Philip has lawfully married in Greece, before marrying
Elizabeth.

The Ukogbani privy council would not know - they do know all UK Royal
marriages, and therefore any secret marriage of Elizabeth would be
void to the extent of irrelevancy by RMA, but Philip is not subject to
RMA.

If the marriage of Philip and Elizabeth were bigamous, it would be
void. Elizabeth would have no lawful issue, since all her children
would be bastards. Her rightful heir would be Viscount Linley.

Does it follow that if a Greek court finds Philip to be a bigamist,
Ukogbani and all realms would have to pass legislation to legitimize
Elizabeth´s children?

Provided that there is a sovereign and parliament to do so when the
news break. Remember, the witnesses to the first marriage of Edward IV
held their peace for fifteen years or so, and most inconveniently
spoke out less than three weeks before the bastard was due for
coronation. If Philip were exposed for bigamy immediately after
Elizabeth has demised and therefore not available to assent to any
legislation to clean up the mess, who are the members of Accession
Council supposed to proclaim?

On 10 Apr 2007 08:54:34 -0700, chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:

>As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
>a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
>that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
>commit praemunire.
>
Praemunire was abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967; since then
there have been no criminal penalties for breach of the RMA - the
invalidity of the marriage is the only sanction.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1516881 and 
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186142 and
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186173

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On Apr 8, 12:28 pm, Don Aitken  wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2007 06:40:10 -0700, graham.truesd...@virgin.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 7, 9:52 pm, "Hovite"  wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
> >> > What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> >> > Accession Council?
>
> >> "All members of the Privy Council are summoned."
> >>http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp
> >> The Privy Council normally meets every month, and three or four
> >> cabinet ministers attend. The Accession Council is just a special
> >> meeting to which all Privy Councillors are invited, which would
> >> include The Leader of the Opposition and the Rev Ian Paisley. Most of
> >> those invited will wish to be present, as it will be a historic
> >> moment.
>
> >http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp
> >lists Privy Councillors
> >Whoever likes can sit down and count them.  They
> >include Law Lords, going back to Lord Bridge, who
> >has recently turned 90.  Also English and Northern
> >Ireland Lords Justices of Appeal, and Scottish Senators
> >of the College of Justice.  Though Lords Justices Higgins
> >and Girvan (appointed earlier this year) do not yet appear.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lords_Justices_of_Appeal_of_Nort...
> >High Court of Australia Justice Sir Ninian Stephen is
> >there - was his PC related to being on the Court, or
> >something else?  It was 3 years before he became
> >G-G.
>
> >Various former UK politicians who you'd think would
> >be dead are still there, like Lord Carrington (1959) and
> >Lord Healey (1964).
>
> The Accession Council, however, consists of the Privy Council "meeting
> with others". The does not seem to be any definition of who the
> "others" should be; the High Commissioners of Commonwealth countries
> were summoned for the first time in 1952 (it would be interesting to
> know when, and by whom, this was decided).



Is it the Privy Council meeting with others as you put it, or, as the
proclamation states, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm
ASSISTED by others (lord mayor, aldermen, members of the late monarch
´s privy council, etc).

According to the proclamation, the Lords would seem to be the main
part of the AC.

And it begs the question: if the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are all
always summoned, irrespective of being members of the Privy Council
(all PCs are also summoned), would a Hereditary Peer without a right
of membership in the House of Lords and who is not a PC be counted as
a "Lord Temporal" for the purpose of being summoned to the AC????

>
> I think, although I am open to correction on this, that its origins
> derive from what happened at the death of Queen Anne. Shortly *before*
> the Queen's death (although after the Council had examined her
> physicians, who said that she could not live more than a few hours) a
> "greatly expanded" Privy Council met, including "all leading Tories
> and Whigs who happened to be in London", as well as the Hanoverian
> resident in London, Kreyenberg and his predecessor, Bothmer. Forty
> members of this body signed an appeal to the Elector, asking him to
> leave for London as rapidly as possible. This was at about 11 pm on 30
> July 1714. The Queen died the next morning, on which the same body met
> again, ordered King George to be proclaimed, opened the King's list of
> Lords Justices, swore them in, and handed over control to them.
>
> At that time, the PC was still the effective government of the
> country. Who was to attend normally depended on who the sovereign
> chose to summon, but during the Queen's incapacity the dukes of Argyll
> and Somerset (both of whom had been excluded from the government since
> 1710 and were suspected of Jacobite sympathies) claimed the right to
> attend, and this was accepted; everyone was concerned to involve as
> many people as possible in a peaceful transfer of power, and it was
> stressed in a number of public statements that all decisions had been
> made unanimously.
>
> --
> Don Aitken
> Mail to the From: address is not read.
> To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Apr 10, 1:38 pm, Don Aitken  wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2007 08:54:34 -0700, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
>
> >As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
> >a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
> >that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
> >commit praemunire.
>
> Praemunire was abolished by the Criminal Law Act 1967; since then
> there have been no criminal penalties for breach of the RMA - the
> invalidity of the marriage is the only sanction.
>
> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1516881andhttp://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186142andhttp://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1186173
>
> --
> Don Aitken
> Mail to the From: address is not read.
> To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Note that according to the Criminal Law Act referenced in the links
above, there was specific mention not only of the revokation of the
statute of praemunire, but there was also specific mention of section
3 of the Royal Marriages Act being reppealed:

line in the table of revoked Acts reads:

12 Geo. 3. c. 11. The Royal Marriages Act 1772. Section 3 (this repeal
extending to Northern Ireland).

In alt.talk.royalty chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
: 
: frederick@southernskies.co.uk kirjutas:
:> On Apr 9, 5:22 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:
:>
:> > Louis Epstein kirjutas:
:> >
:> > > The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
:> > > not to interpret it.
:> >
:> > But they have to interpret the law so far as to execute it correctly.
:>
:> No they don't, because their role is purely ceremonial.
:>
:> Think of an announcement being placed in a local newspaper that two
:> people have got married.  The person placing the announcement perhaps
:> needs to think about how these things are usually worded, and might in
:> extremis have to worry about having booked the announcement in advance
:> of a wedding that in the event doesn't take place; but they don't have
:> to worry about what the Marriage Act 1949 says, and if they get the
:> names muddled up or the date wrong it might be embarrassing but it
:> would have no legal ramifications.
:>
: But the people participating at the wedding do have to worry about
: what the Marriage Act 1949 says - and, e. g., what the Royal Marriages
: Act 1772 says.
: 
: There are the lines in wedding service about "Speak now, or forever
: hold your peace".
: 
: If someone then speaks up and presents what sounds like a plausible
: lawful impediment to the marriage, and the wedding is disrupted, but
: afterwards the story turns out to have been a malicious lie to ruin
: the wedding, there are known court procedures to deal with it, and the
: marriage would go on with some delay and inconvenience.
: 
: If someone fails to speak up, and afterwards fails to forever hold
: peace, then there are known court procedures to annul a marriage after
: wedding.
: 
: If someone does speak up at the wedding, and the objections are
: dismissed as factually incorrect or legally insufficient, then courts
: can nevertheless proceed to annul the marriage, just as if the
: objections had not been presented. What are the risks of
: inappropriately overruling genuinely valid objections to a void
: marriage?

Tangent:
Has there ever been a time or place when "or forever hold your peace"
was a binding restriction on the ability to annul a marriage?

I believe that the language came about as a means of garnering
confessions of illicit parentage of a party to the marriage that
would render the marriage incestuous...but I'm not aware of anywhere
that,if this were the case but not acknowledged at the wedding,
the failure to acknowledge it would have rendered the consanguinity
moot and the marriage valid.
 
: As far as royals are concerned, the risks are real. A person assisting
: a wedding who fails to realize, and is not reminded by participants,
: that a Mister or Miss von Hannover is a descendant of George II might
: commit praemunire.
: 
: Now, accession is a different matter. There is no known court
: procedure to annul accession - succession is not justiciable, unlike
: marriage. And since the Crown should not be vacant, either, if a
: demise of Crown has occurred, the Accession Council needs to proclaim
: someone.

Specifically,the person it is required to proclaim
HAS BECOME the Sovereign.

: 
: Provided that there is a sovereign and parliament to do so when the
: news break. Remember, the witnesses to the first marriage of Edward IV
: held their peace for fifteen years or so, and most inconveniently
: spoke out less than three weeks before the bastard was due for
: coronation.

Erm,it would be more correct to say that fifteen years
after the reputed contract,the man who had most to gain
by the putative bastardy of the children of Edward's
actual marriage concocted a story...

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Apr 13, 2:49 pm, "Antonio"  wrote:
> Is it the Privy Council meeting with others as you put it, or, as the
> proclamation states, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm
> ASSISTED by others (lord mayor, aldermen, members of the late monarch
> ´s privy council, etc).
> According to the proclamation, the Lords would seem to be the main
> part of the AC.
> And it begs the question: if the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are all
> always summoned, irrespective of being members of the Privy Council
> (all PCs are also summoned), would a Hereditary Peer without a right
> of membership in the House of Lords and who is not a PC be counted as
> a "Lord Temporal" for the purpose of being summoned to the AC????
>
http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveViewFrameSetup.asp?webType=0&PageDuplicate=x0
&issueNumber=39458&pageNumber=0&SearchFor=Council&selMedalType=&selHonourType=

is the London Gazette record of the 1952 AC.  Listed are
Lord Simonds- Lord Chancellor,
Churchill - Prime Minister (Commoner - I use this term
  simply to mean that he was in the Commons),
Maxwell-Fyfe - Home Secretary (Commoner),
Lord Woolton - Lord Prez of the Council,
[who was W S Morrison - the Labour politician was H S
  - unless somebody misread a signature in the hurry to
  get the Gazette out?]
Attlee - Leader of the Opposition (Commoner),
Lord Waverley was the former John Anderson, Lord Prez
  and Chancellor during the War, after whom the Anderson
  Shelter was named - no longer in government,
Viscount Samuel was the former leader of the Liberal
  Party,
Crookshank - Leader of the Commons,
Lord Leathers - Minister for the Co-ordination of Transport,
  Fuel, and Power
Lord Selborne - was the former Lord Wolmer, Minister
  of Economic Warfare in WWII,
Lord Davidson - had been Baldwin's Chancellor of the
  Duchy of Lancaster
Duke of Norfolk - Earl Marshal
Lord Ogmore - had been Attlee's Minister of Civil
  Aviation
James Griffiths (Commoner) had been Attlee's Minister
  for National Insurance and Secretary for the Colonies
Arthur Bottomley (Commoner) had held various overseas-
  related junior posts under Attlee
Clement Davies (Commoner) - Liberal Leader
[Who was Wm London?  Can't be the Bishop of London,
  since that was John Wand]
Chuter Ede (Commoner) had been Attlee's Home
  Secretary and Leader of the Commons
Lord Nathan had been Attlee's Under-Sec for War and
  Minister for Civil Aviation
Lord Mersey 'was a Deputy Speaker of the House of
  Lords and also served as Liberal Chief Whip in the
  House of Lords from 1944 to 1949. (Wiki)
Lord Goddard (Lord Chief Justice)
A T Denning - Lord Justice of Appeal - trust him not
  to miss something like this!
Lord Reid - Law Lord
Hartley Shawcross - had been Attlee's AG
Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor had been Governor
  of Newfoundland and Attlee's Paymaster-General

There are 2 more pages - but that gives a flavour of who
attended.  I can't see any signatures in the episcopal
format, or any Royals apart from Mountbatten

http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveViewFrameSetup.asp?webType=0&PageDuplicate=x0%20%20%20%20%20%20&issueNumber=39463&pageNumber=0&SearchFor=Council&selMedalType=&selHonourType=
seems to be more in precedence-order

On 15 Apr 2007 04:28:27 -0700, graham.truesdale@virgin.net wrote:

>http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/archiveViewFrameSetup.asp?webType=0&PageDuplicate=x0
>&issueNumber=39458&pageNumber=0&SearchFor=Council&selMedalType=&selHonourType=
>
>[who was W S Morrison - the Labour politician was H S
>  - unless somebody misread a signature in the hurry to

William Shepherd Morrison, then Speaker of the House of Commons,
former Conservative minister, later Viscount Dunrossil, GG of
Australia, where he died in office in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morrison,_1st_Viscount_Dunrossil

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

In alt.talk.royalty chornedsnorkack@hushmail.com wrote:
: What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
: Accession Council?
: 
: The Council is supposed to meet in Westminster, St. James Palace
: shortly after a demise of Crown becomes known around London. It is
: said to include Lord Mayor (the one individually named member),
: aldermen of London, Privy Counsellors, Lords and High Commissioners of
: some (which?) domains. The participants compile and sign Accession
: Proclamation. If the heir/ess is present and abled, he or she also
: gives an oath to uphold Church of Scotland, whereupon the business is
: concluded and the Council dissolves till the next demise of Crown. If
: the heir/ess is abled but absent from London, as happened on 6th of
: February, 1952, the Council dissolves, but meets again shortly after
: the Sovereign has arrived around London.
: 
: Now... What happens if the members of the Accession Council disagree
: on who the rightful sovereign is? What if the Right Honourable Tony
: Benn wilfully refuses to show up, or shows up and then refuses to sign
: the proclamation?

The AC basically has a responsibility to execute the law,
not to interpret it.

I believe that a public refusal to sign the proclamation should
(not by the AC,but by the authorities under the newly acceded Monarch)
be interpreted as constituting resignation from the office that qualifies
one to serve on the AC.Not showing up would not have an effect.
 
: What if it is the Lord Mayor who will not sign?
: 
: Suppose that some, or many, Accession Counsellors allege e. g. that
: Charles is disqualified as a closet Popist under Act of Settlement -
: and many counsellors disagree.
: 
: The succession is not justiciable. The Parliament cannot interfere,
: either - it might not be in session, and even if it is, the Sovereign
: is an essential House of Parliament. So the Parliament needs the
: Sovereign to assent.

Note that the proclamation as worded is a declaration that
the accession HAS HAPPENED,under existing law...not an act
by which the accession thereby happens.

: If the Accession Council unanimously proclaims William by mistake, and
: William agrees it was a mistake, then once both Houses of Parliament
: have been called and met, William can abdicate by assenting to Act of
: Parliament, like Edward VIII did.
: 
: But what if the majority of both Houses of Parliament are sure that
: the last succession was in violation of Act of Settlement whether due
: to wrong interpretation or wrong finding of fact? The Houses are still
: bound by the decision of the Accession Council about the Sovereign is,
: and they can only change succession by assent of the sovereign who
: was, wrongly or rightly, proclaimed by the Accession Council...
: 
: Now, what about non-unanimous Accession Council? Do they cast and
: count votes? What is needed for accession - majority, or plurality in
: case of more than two plausible heirs?

It is no more a matter of the Throne being in their gift than
the "sustaining vote" of a Latter-day Saint general conference
is needed for that church's Prophet to hold office...or,closer
geographically,the elections of bishops of the Church of England
held by cathedral chapters in receipt of a conge d'elire.

There is one person for whom it is permitted to "vote",
and only votes for that person are valid and countable.
 
: So far, it refers to Counsellors showing up to meet the Counsellors
: they disagree with. But what is the quorum of Accession Council? What
: happens if a number of Counsellors meet separately, hold Accession
: Council and issue an Accession Proclamation of a different sovereign?
: Which Accession Proclamation is then valid? The one with most
: signatures? The one signed by Lord Mayor? The one whose signers had
: physical access to St. James Court? The one published earliest?
: 
: And what is the role of the High Commisioners of Realms?

To show that they have made the submission required of them
to the person who has automatically become their Sovereign.

: If the High Commissioner of Canada objects to the proceedings of the
: Ukogbani Accession Council and wilfully refuses to attend, or wilfully
: refuses to sign, or attends another Accession Council proclaiming a
: different Sovereign, or, say, hosts another Accession Council on the
: premises of High Commission of Canada, who then is the King of Canada?
: Is it the signature of the High Commissioner of Canada on Accession
: Proclamation which creates the new King of Canada?

No. 
He has a duty to sign,
but not the authority to decide who to sign for.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Apr 5, 3:46 pm, chornedsnork...@hushmail.com wrote:

> What exactly is the quorum, powers and procedure of the Ukogbani
> Accession Council?
>
> [numerous other questions snipped for brevity]

Blast it, I posted a detailed response to your questions yesterday,
but it seems to have been eaten by the 'net gremlins.  So I shall try
again from scratch:

The Accession Council and the proclamation it makes are purely
ceremonial.  Royal succession in the UK operates automatically, so the
details of the accession proclamation are legally irrelevant; the new
sovereign becomes so at the moment of the death of the previous
sovereign.  As such, questions as to procedural irregularities are
moot.

Remember that the original function of the proclamation was to avoid a
power vacuum at a time when the sovereign had much more active
involvement in government, and when the succession could be much less
clear cut.  Nowadays it's largely irrelevant to most people, including
those with their hands on the levers of power, who the actual
sovereign is, so a disputed succession is less likely to occur, not
likely at all to involve the threat of violence, and unlikely in the
short term to disrupt the function of government.

If the succession *were* disputed, then it would ultimately fall to
Parliament to resolve the matter.  Of course this would have to
involve some extra-constitutional juggling, but in the absence of
rules it's necessary to make new ones.  1689 lends a ready precedent,
though: the two Houses decide on the "facts", agree on who the
sovereign should be, and then once they've taken up the throne it's
possible for an Act of Parliament to be passed confirming what's
happened.  Paradoxical it may be, but it would work!

As all the other realms have a Governor-General (or Queen's
Rep