Can parliamentarians discuss the Royal Family?

Although there is no general prohibition on the discussion of members of the Royal Family in Parliament, MPs and peers are required to observe certain rules if they wish to do so. These rules also apply to discussion of other senior figures.

This briefing looks at the rules regarding discussion of the Royal Family in Parliament and what those mean in practice.

What are the rules on discussion of the Royal Family?

The Commons Speaker’s Office has stated that there is no “general prohibition” on discussing matters relating to the Royal Family in the House of Commons.

For example, legislation which directly affects the Monarch and the Royal Family – including the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 and the Counsellors of State Act 2022 – were debated fully in both the Commons and the Lords.

However, there are some restrictions, which have occasionally led to a misconception that Members of Parliament cannot talk about the Monarch or other members of the Royal Family. These are that:

• criticism of certain individuals can only be made on a substantive motion (one that calls for action or expresses an opinion) and not incidentally
• the King’s name cannot be used to influence debate, and
• questions in Parliament must relate to matters for which Ministers of the Crown are responsible

The authoritative guide to parliamentary procedure, Erskine May, explains these restrictions in greater detail, and is the basis of the following summary.

Incidental criticism

Paragraph 21.23 of Erskine May states that unless discussion in the Commons is based upon a substantive motion:

reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family.

For example, during a Westminster Hall debate on 17 March 2011, it was ruled out of order for Paul Flynn (a Labour MP) to raise the conduct of a member of the Royal Family (now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor) on a motion to adjourn the sitting. Similarly, during a 1969 debate on the Civil List the Speaker intervened when John Hynd (also a Labour MP) referred to Prince Philip’s “irresponsible” remarks during a visit to the United States.

The prohibition against incidental criticism also applies to:

• the Lord Chancellor
• members of either House of Parliament
• the Governor-General of an independent Commonwealth realm (such as Canada or Australia)
• senior judges in the UK’s three jurisdictions

Using the Monarch’s name to influence debate

Paragraph 22.15 of Erskine May states that:

No question can be put which brings the name of the Sovereign or the influence of the Crown directly before Parliament, or which casts reflections upon the Sovereign or the royal family.

For example, in 1990 Maureen Hicks (a Conservative MP) was ruled out of order when she asked the House to endorse what she believed was the view of Princess Anne, that “we should get back to basics with standardised testing” in schools.

As the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, stated in a 2022 letter to the anti-monarchy organisation Republic, this rule serves two purposes:

it keeps the Crown above politics. Just as importantly, it makes sure that Parliament is independent of the Crown and people cannot argue for a particular measure “because the [King] would like it”.

Matters for which Ministers of the Crown are responsible

Paragraph 22.16 of Erskine May states that questions may be asked of ministers regarding the King’s public duties. Questions are also permitted on the cost of royal events (such as coronations and funerals) and the Occupied Royal Palaces (for example, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle).

It has been ruled, however, that the Prime Minister cannot be “interrogated” about his or her advice to the Monarch regarding:

• the granting of honours
• ecclesiastical patronage (bishops and other church positions)
• the appointment and dismissal of Privy Counsellors
• in certain circumstances, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy (a legal power to pardon those convicted of criminal offences)

As the Speaker’s Office told Republic in February 2022:

while ministers will be responsible for some things related to members of the Royal family, they are certainly not responsible for their conduct.

House of Lords

Similar restrictions also apply in the House of Lords.

The Lords Companion (which explains procedures in the House of Lords) states that questions are “generally regarded as inadmissible” if they “cast reflections on the Sovereign or the Royal Family”.

This is connected to the long-standing convention that members of the House of Lords should avoid making any personal attacks in speeches. Lords Standing Order 31 states that:

In the House and its committees, members should be careful to avoid personally insulting or offensive speeches, which offend the customary courtesy of the House.

For example, during a debate on genetically modified organisms in July 2002, the then Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn) advised peers not to accept questions which cast “any aspersion or reflection” on the Sovereign or any other member of the Royal Family. Lord Taverne had criticised the then Prince of Wales (now King Charles III) for expressing his opposition to genetically modified crops.

About the author: Dr David Torrance is a researcher at the House of Commons Library, specialising in the Crown and the constitution.