Talk:List of current members of the British Privy Council

This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Updating this list

So. I guess we need to update this. The Privy Council website now publishes minutes of Privy Council meetings, including the names of all the members added. Not sure how we can track deaths. Ideas? Morwen - Talk 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to create a category to list members of the Privy Council? For example, I just noticed someone has updated David Cameron with the style The Right Honourable. If they had been able to add his to a category, he'd have appeared here too. --JRawle 15:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories wouldn't be able to give the year information, and can't contain redlinks. Morwen - Talk 16:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Specializing

I think it would be useful to divide the list into sections based on what role the people on it play - this can be in addition to the alphabetical list, or not - I've not yet removed anyone from the alphabetical list. I've given it a start, listing privy councillors who are a) government ministers; b) judges (I'm sure I've missed some - I only listed the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and the Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland); c) members of the Scottish or Welsh governments; and d) current opposition frontbenchers. But I would imagine more can be done on this front. Former government ministers could be categorized as such, as could former judges. What do people think? john k 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating

This needs updating to reflect the changes to the cabinet made on May 5 2006

--Manwithcoffee 20:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eg James Purnell SOS work and pensions not Peter Hain —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaviMurph (talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of titles such as The Rt Hon

May I note that everyone on this list is entitled to the style "The Rt Hon" (or The Rt. Hon. or whatever, there is no standard Wikipedia-wide agreement on which continent's punctuation to use), as that comes with being on the Privy Council. So.. either the style needs to be added to everyone or eliminated from everyone. Any ideas? TysK 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the highest British title should be used, so Lords should be "Lord x", MPs "The Rt Hon", Religious leader "The Right Reverend" (or it's abreviation) etc. What is definitely incorrect is "The Lord (Name - x) of (Place - y)". It can be "Lord X of Y," or "Lord X, The (nth) Lord of Y." Either way this article needs a large cleanup. I'm unaware of the specific Wiki policies on this. The18thDoctor 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a little confused about how British styles work. Most (but not all) of the peers on this list are life peers, meaning their proper style is "The Rt. Hon. The Lord/Baroness X" or "The Rt. Hon. The Lord/Baroness X of Y." "Lord/Lady X" or "Lord/Lady X of Y" is how they are normally referred to outside of formal situations. "Lord X, The (nth) Lord of Y" doesn't work for two reasons: one, life peers don't use disambiguating numerals, since they don't have heirs; and two, even without the numeral, this form is never used. Jeffrey Archer, Baron Archer of Weston-super-Mare is never called "Lord Archer, The Lord of Weston-super-Mare"; that would be completely incorrect. The standard form, at least on Wikipedia, is the title of his article. Same goes for hereditary peers, though with a numeral included. My only point was that "The Rt. Hon." either should or shouldn't be listed before every name on this list. "The Rt. Hon." is automatically goes to anyone on the Privy Council, but it automatically goes to peers as well. For clarity's sake, though, I feel we ought to always include or always leave it out. The following is copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and helps clarify what to do with the peers on the list (note that it actually uses this article as an example).

Peers should appear in lists either in the form used in the article title (substituting a different peerage if appropriate for the time period in question) or by their correct style (see Forms of Address in the United Kingdom). Usual practice is to use the full form for historical lists (e.g. lists of incumbents of a particular office) and the correct style for contemporary lists (e.g. lists of current Privy Counsellors or members of the House of Lords), but usage is by no means consistent, and the form considered most appropriate for a particular list should be used (more graphical lists tend to use the correct style for aesthetic reasons).

Hope this helps!TysK 06:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be checked to see if there are members from Northern Ireland on the privvy council since we now have an Assembly? I read in the news that the First Minister Ian Paisley, Jeffrey Donaldson and possibly Peter Robinson were all now members, either of a Northern Ireland privvy council or the UK one.

Thanks

Official list

The full list of members is available on the Privy Council website. Some fake names are being added to the list. Names should not be added unless they are on this list too. JRawle (Talk) 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific lists

Should individuals listed as a judge or cabinet member also be on the alphabetical list? There does not appear to be a consistent rule. -Rrius (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made sure the alphabetical list is up to date. I'll take care of the Cabinet list, but I'm going to wait until I've seen the final list, which should come out today, 4 October. If someone else wants to do it, by all means, but remember not to add anyone not yet sworn of council. -Rrius (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists by job

I don't understand the need for the lists at the top of the page of ministers, judges, and bishops. These people are listed in other places and their inclusion here adds nothing. For the most part, those lists include "Rt Hon." or "PC" (as the case may be). The alphabetical list is hard enough to keep up with, but keeping track of changes in those jobs doesn't make sense as this is not the natural place for people to go for that information. An explanation at the top of the page as to who gets appointed would probably do more to show how the Council is relevant than does a list that easily falls out of date. For instance, when I updated the ministers after the recent reshuffle, I found changes hadn't been noted (or only the new person added, but the old person not removed). Therefore, I propose deleting the lists. -Rrius (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page: Unless anyone objects, just delete them - they're a mess, and as you say, there's no reason for them to be there. -- 92.12.59.194 (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Judges

Currently, Scottish judges are listed as "Senator of the Court of Session", but that is not exactly the role giving rise to the appointment. Rather it is appointment to the Inner House of that court that leads to being sworn of Council. Doing this is the rough equivalent of listing Lords Justices of Appeal as "Judge of the Senior Courts of England and Wales".

The difficulty comes because of the fact that most Senators of the Court of Session are part of the Outer House first, meaning that the date we list for appointment to the Privy Council doesn't match up with the date for holding office. That doesn't seem right when we can provide the proper date.

I would prefer that we refer to them as something like "Lord of Session, Inner House". Aside from solving the problem I referred to, it would keep the line item fairly short (certainly shorter than "Senator of the College of Justice, Inner House", which would invariably drop to a new line). Perhaps as importantly, it would give readers a clue about them being called "Lord X" and "Lady X". Those familiar with this article will know that this sometimes leads to confusion both in terms of adding Senators and renaming the link text to read "The Lord" or "The Baroness" because people mistake them for peers.

Individual		Sworn	Role(s)/Reasons
	Lady Paton QC MA LLB	10 October 2007	Senator of the College of Justice (2000—)
The current form is above; the proposed one below
	Lady Paton QC MA LLB	10 October 2007	Lord of Session, Inner House (2007—)
Compare those to a Lord Justice of Appeal
	Sir Nicholas Patten	17 November 2009	Lord Justice of Appeal (2009—)

I hope people will support the change. -Rrius (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Senator of the Court of Session, Inner House" doesn't break to a second line, so that would work, too. -Rrius (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New project

Leigh Raymont's page and the Privy Council seem to prioritise appointment over oath. I suggest we comb back through and use appointment date for those appointed from October 2001 to present. With very few exceptions, dates for those appointed before October 2001 already refer to appointment. Alternatively, we could simply add the dates for those appointed and sworn. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judges and QC suffix

On a point of pedantry, the Royal Patent of Queen's Counsel is extinguished when one is appointed to the High Court bench. Thus, no High Court judge, Lord Justice of Appeal or Lord of Appeal in Ordinary (or, now, Supreme Court Justice) should have 'QC' after their name. Lord Judge, among others, needs to be amended. FH (barrister) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.146 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Mekere Morauta

He does not appear on the Privy Council website. Apart from that, the list appears up to date - I had to remove one dead Privy Councillor (Sir Gordon Bisson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.232.109 (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Welby Archbishop of Canterbury dates?

The Most Revd Justin Welby Archbishop of Canterbury. (Bishop of Durham 2011–2013). 12 February 2013[Ref: 26] / 13 March 2013[Ref: 38] = "Orders for 10 November 2010". These dates appear to be incorrect. Also, why are dead people listed as "current members"? Stephen2nd (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"These dates appear to be incorrect." The only incorrect date was the 2010 date, which only appeared in the text for the link to the 13 March order. If you think some other date is incorrect, you will have to explain yourself. As for dead people, if there are in fact any, they shouldn't be there. Since you didn't see fit to mention any specifics, it is hard to address anyone you had in mind. -Rrius (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rrius, if “10 November 2010” was only “one incorrect date” in reference to Welby, I would have changed it to the correct date. However, this exact same date was also referenced to (a) Lord Brabazon of Tara, (b) Lord Henley, and (c) Stephen O’Brian MP. This exact same date was also referenced to Dame Janet Paraskeva, and Peter Riddell, as “Members of the Torture inquiry.” Of several such Torture Inquiries, may we presume this was the Gibson Torture Inquiry?

Do we assume these incorrect dates were only in context of the Article's ‘Appointed and sworn column?’ Welby is cited as associated with this same Gibson Inquiry during his creation as Bishop of Durham in June 2011, then, was later introduced as such to the House of Lords on 12 January 2012. On 18 January 2012, these Torture Inquiries were scrapped by Privy Counsellor Kenneth Clarke, during passage of his Green Paper on the use of 'Closed Material Procedures' in his Justice and Security Bill 2012-13.

In this context, does a creation of an Archbishop of Canterbury as Privy Counsellor, retrospectively bind him to the same sworn oaths of secrecy as Paraskeva and Riddell. Also, are all such Privy Council oaths of secrecy enforceable, in civil, or criminal law? Stephen2nd (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roles of Counsellors

I've been wondering whether a specific convention exists for this list: for most PCs, their posts are listed only starting with the one that got them their appointment to the Council. For several, however, more posts are given which precede their appointment; are we supposed to remove those?

There is also the recent edit by User:Rrius (please comment if you see this), which makes me wonder: how often are people appointed to the Council on leaving government? It would seem purely honorary, and useless on a practical level (though Lord Astor does remain a member of the House of Lords, so there's that). After all, many long-serving MPs are also appointed, but I cannot imagine them taking any part in Council meetings either, so it's probably also honorary, and simply a means of allowing them seats on the front row in the Commons (if people are still observing that custom). Unless it's a matter of participating in committees? Or just making PC- and Crown-related announcements? I don't know. Waltham, The Duke of 11:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is useless and honorary, just as when a long-serving MP is appointed. Or when anyone is given a knighthood. They do get to take the oath at the beginning of a Parliament after the Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet, but before everyone else. There are other side benefits as well, but mostly it is an Honour. In fact, some of those "long-serving MPs" were named on Honours Lists. As for how often appointments are given out on leaving government, I'd say pretty often. I wouldn't stake my life on it, but it seems that major reshuffles tend to have at least one. I think the purpose is to soften the blow of losing their job, but don't quote me on it.

As for the initial question, my opinion is that we should only list roles from appointment forward. I could see an argument for removing later roles too, but I doubt that would fly. The purpose of that column is to explain the appointment. Listing everything makes the whole column pointless. -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding; I appreciate the reply.

I also doubt it would fly; listing John Major simply as "Chief Secretary to the Treasury" doesn't make much sense, to be honest; we'd probably have to include at least "Prime Minister", in which case we'd have to choose what to put in and what to leave out. Rather than make up rules and squabble about the details, we save ourselves much time and effort by simply listing all government posts. Besides, I like the idea of seeing those assorted careers set out briefly through the list; it makes it more interesting in my opinion. I am in agreement about not listing previous roles, and it is a clear cut-off point that makes the whole thing more manageable, so perhaps we ought to move in that direction—provided there is no dissent here.

Your explanation about honorary appointment makes sense, and it fits with certain impressions I have, even though I don't follow such developments very closely. I didn't mention knighthoods because they are purely honorary, but the way the British constitution works means that there are many elements with both functional and ceremonial aspects, and the line is often blurred. The Cabinet itself, which a hundred years ago was the principal instrument of executive decision-making (at a time when the prime minister was more of a primus inter pares and less of a president), is rapidly reaching the point where it's simply rubber-stamping the decisions of its own committees, and the Queen's attendance in a meeting in late 2012 arguably highlighted its increasingly ceremonial role. Waltham, The Duke of 12:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics

Comrades! In this edit I removed most (or all?) of the piped links in the list on the basis that obscuring counsellors' names is unhelpful. Certain honorifics (Sir/Dame and life peerages {on those biographies which do not include them in their titles because they aren't common usage}) have since been reinstated. It's my contention that these additions contribute no further information than the unfettered article titles and may also fall foul of Wikipedia:Honorifics. What do we think? DBD 20:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following my similar bold edits to this article, to British government frontbench and to Official Opposition frontbench which un-pipe such that the reader is presented with the destination biography's title, and strip away unnecessary honorifics (while presenting the necessary information in other ways), @83.104.139.11: has reverted the first and second of these, offering no explanation (not that she necessarily has must do so.) As such I'd like to discuss among as many interested editors as possible how and which policies might (not) apply and how we ought to go forward. DBD 19:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with DBD about this. The honorifics page says of such titles: "The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name.", which on that page it is. As these people are almost always known by their titles, it seems to be to be potentially confusing and misleading to leave them off. I thought that it was sensible of DBD to remove all the extra post nominals, degrees etc which is some cases seemed pretty random, but I entirely agreed with the person who replaced the knighthoods. Rcb1 (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)rcb1.[reply]

Hmm, I dunno... Doesn't "included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person" (Wikipedia:Honorifics) read a lot like the intended subject is individual biographical articles? Might one problem with "these people are almost always known by their titles" (Rcb1, above) be that the common name at which their biographical article lies in accordance with our own policies might suggest otherwise? Does Sir/Dame before someone's name tell our readers anything useful in these contexts at all? They might show that someone had served as a senior politician, but that much is already obvious from their list of posts (in the PC list) or their very inclusion (in the frontbench list). DBD 23:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, many thanks for your comment. When revising the Shadow Frontbench, there were many different formats by which honorific titles were being expressed, so I chose the one I thought most useful. What matters most from an academic point of view, is that the information is presented in a consistent way throughout the article. The inclusion of both name and title is helpful, as these individuals are known by both (as indeed they are on the government/party websites). Also, to know which area of the UK they are associated with is extremely useful in understanding the fast changing current political situation (London/North/South/Scotland, etc), without having to look up each individual. So I stand by my edit.Isotto (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DBD may be right about the "individual biographical article" point, but I strongly disagree about his "common name." In at least 95% of cases I think that knighthoods are referred to, and I think it is that Wikipedia that is actually at variance with common parlance. I agree with Isotto that it was inconsistent to mention peerages not knighthoods, presumably because peers' Wikipedia usually gives the whole title in their heading. In the case of peerages it WOULD be confusing to call those that have titles different from their surname by the surname . I think that DBD improved the page by getting rid of all the post nominals, whoa order is a bot of minefield, but I really don't think that knighthoods should be dropped. Rcb1 (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)rcb1[reply]

Ok, I can swallow Sir/Dame if it's common use for that person; what do we think about 'MP' — removed from this page as being fairly obvious from roles and from frontbench pages in favour of the dark-green cell, and about PC membership, removed from frontbench pages in favour of the grey-pink cell? DBD 13:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of current members of the British Privy Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of current members of the British Privy Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110221120034/http%3A//www.privy%2Dcouncil.org.uk/files/pdf/document2010%2D08%2D17%2D090328.pdf to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/document2010-08-17-090328.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/April%20Council%202011.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100718191227/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1287.htm to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1287.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-magistrates-and-tribunal-judges/list-of-members-of-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100718191227/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1287.htm to http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1287.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page6808
Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090103071642/http%3A//www.number10.gov.uk/Page10698 to http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page10698

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of current members of the British Privy Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326172305/http://www.crownofficechambers.com/cvs.asp?id=90 to http://www.crownofficechambers.com/cvs.asp?id=90

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of current members of the British Privy Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racist contributor

On the desktop, when you hover over Diane Abbotts name, the photo is of a gorilla. I am unable to rectify this but please can someone fix it. It’s awful 213.205.240.99 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complete update due to change of monarch

...this list may be outdated at this time; please update. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]