What happens if King Charles III becomes incapacitated and cannot fulfil his royal functions?

This video addresses how to deal with situation if King Charles III becomes too ill to exercise his powers and functions with respect to the United Kingdom and his Realms, such as Australia and New Zealand.
It addresses three options: the appointment of Counsellors of State; a regency; and abdication. One problem is that the powers of Counsellors of State or a Regent do not extend to the Realms, unless the law of the Realm permits that (eg the New Zealand Constitution Act which extends the powers of a UK Regent to include the King's powers with respect to New Zealand).
The video considers what problems may arise in Australia if the King is incapacitated and neither a regent nor Counsellors of State could exercise powers in relation to Australia. This would affect the ability to appoint or remove the Governor-General and State Governors. The video concludes by discussing how this problem could be fixed.
For those who want to see the more detailed constitutional arguments, see my article on 'Regency in the Realms - Dealing with an Incapacitated or under-age Monarch' in (2016) 27(3) Public Law Review 198, or the freely available version on SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c....
Finally, apologies for the background noise from my neighbour's renovations. I'm so used to it now that I mentally block it out, but it might be irritating to others.

[@Wh4tGoesAround]

I didn't realise how interesting this question actually is. Thanks again for the details!

[@cesargodoy2920]

althrough I am an American the monarchy has always been very interesting to me ad I was so glad to hear you had a KZbin channel! ive spent hours reading your work and I just wanted to thank you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You are most welcome - I hope you enjoy it!

[@markchapman6800]

"It would be wise... to try and resolve the question while there's not a crisis" Where's the fun in that? 😀

[@ayy232]

Of course, when we cut off the head of King Charles I, he was separately also King of Scots and King of Ireland, so nothing new in having separate Crowns there…

[@peteranderson7497]

That was really really fascinating! Thank you for this and all your other videos. I might be a little biased, but this issue blindingly shows the stupidity of remaining a monarchy and not becoming a republic. Regards, Peter

[@joemonks3161]

If the USA is your example of how a republic system surpasses our constitutional monarchy, then I can't agree.

[@frankbanks7549]

Trying not to comment on women's attire, but I so loved the crown broch worn during a lecture on the King.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. I like it too. I got it from Westminster Abbey shop.

[@BigNicksWorld]

Thanks for the video!

[@JonathanLee-gl2bb]

Hmm , so S. 15 of the Australia Acts is a mirror of S 51( 38 ) ? ( the unanimity procedure )

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

It's not exactly the same - s 15(1) requires unanimity, whereas s 51(38) requires the request or concurrence of the Parliaments of the States directly concerned. But the mechanism is the same.

[@qwertyTRiG]

Your linked article is an interesting read. I'm Irish, and we dropped out of any relationship with the Crown fairly early on, which I'd say has been to our benefit. I note you remark that the Australian legislation mentions "the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland", a Crown which (a) no longer exists in that form, and (b) is no longer sovereign over Australia, which now has its own Crown. Does all the fossilised junk in legislation ever get cleaned out?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, it would be good if we could clean it out of our Constitution, but that requires a referendum, which is an expensive exercise and usually fails. So we just have to be flexible and squint when reading outdated parts of the Constitution. As for legislation, most of it has been cleaned up, although for historic reasons there is still a bit of archaic material floating around.

[@panicmerchants]

Shirt answer nothing because it is 2024 not 1524

[@peggygraham6129]

What duties? He doesn't have any outside of ribbon cutting.The Royal Family has no "power"!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

In the UK the King still has extensive formal duties - assenting to laws, holding Privy Council meetings, receiving the credentials of ambassadors, etc. David Torrance gives a good rundown of them here: twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/1755254948277702802. In terms of power - the monarch has considerable 'soft power' which is exercised by way of influence and persuasion behind closed doors. It is not seen by the public and there are laws that prevent anyone from knowing - until at least five years after the monarch's death. We are therefore yet to know what power Queen Elizabeth II exercised, and certainly have no idea about what King Charles III has done.

[@hanssolos3699]

karma for his infidelity and blood on his hands

[@kirstenandreasen908]

hanssolos3699 exactly WHAT blood on his hands?? If you have solid evidens for your claim then go to the Police or just shut your mouth