Talk:King's Counsel

Early chatter

Is this original work? -- Zoe

Surely a better example of a QC can be presented than Kim Campbell, one of the most embarrassing politicians in Canadian history.Loomis51 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In England, QC's wear a different robe than other barristers. A photo of one of those would be far better illustration for this article than a pic of Canada's most useless ex-PM.

A photograph of Cherie Blair has now been substituted, which is a better shot of the wig and robes. A "Spy" cartoon of a silk in Court (as opposed to ceremonial) dress has also been added. Photography is largely forbidden in English courtrooms and so it is hard to find a non-copyright photograph of a silk in Court. Chelseaboy 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can probably source a pic of a QC in robes which is not copyrighted. Leave it with me. --Legis (talk - contributions) 17:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

From my understanding of QCs in Australia, the title is still in common use but the article says otherwise. Can anyone offer a citation, or something, to clarify matters? Mattabat 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

-- The title is still in common use in Australia, but no new appointments are being made (any new appointments are made as a Senior Counsel, not as a Queen's Counsel). People who have the QC title still use it because they are allowed to (and the QC title has more prestige than the SC title). Personally I think they should start awarding the QC again in Australia (New Zealand has started awarding it again, after changing briefly to only awarding the SC). A lot of Australians don't even know what the 'SC' postnominals mean. But all Australians know what a QC is.

Purpose?

Can someone explain the purpose of obtaining the title? Is it merely honorific? In jurisdictions like the United States, becoming a United States Attorney or White House Counsel designates a specific job function. What special rights or duties does a QC have?

It would be better to add in the first part of the article, probably after "Queen's Counsel is a status, conferred by the Crown, that is recognised by courts. Members have the privilege of sitting within the Bar of court." that QCs still operate as representatives of the parties, not as neutral officers/councels of the court. After reading this article I am not 100 percent sure about this point. Something can be also added after "Queen's Counsel were traditionally selected from barristers, rather than from lawyers in general, because they were counsel appointed to conduct court work on behalf of the Crown." Otherwise the article is confusing. May I ask somebody more competent to make these addings if they are relevant? Thank you.--188.123.253.35 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that it does not confer any special rights or duties. Usually it is perceived as justifying a significant increase in the fees charged by the barrister in question.Fat Red 00:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

QC's are generally given larger and better cases, and may 'lead' other, less senior (or 'junior') barristers. It is seen by many as a 'quality mark' of a experianced and talented advocate. Suicidal mongoose 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally get big bucks.martianlostinspace 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a severely erroneous statement 'to get big bucks', it's regarded as an honour, besides there is invariably juniors who operate in commercial law who are earning a damn site more than QCs practising in lower paid areas. I don't dispute that there is an incentive of money, although it's nigh upon a myth that all people in the legal profession are multi- millionaires, a mere 40 people in England & Wales who are lawyers earn over £1 million a year, Jonathan Sumption earns the most, yet it's still only £1.6 million, which as he pointed out is peanuts compared to what people performing only cosmetic duties (ones that society doesn't require to operate in a civilised and ordered way), such as entertainers and sportspeople, are making.

That shows a remarkable lack of understanding of how the world works. Try removing entertainment and sports, and see how well and civilised society reacts. Kweetbeter (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point that it's about money, I don't see that you can claim someone could be in the finest 10% (or at least in the government's opinion, who select QCs) of barristers, if their only incentive was money. You would need a passion for your work, barristers, and indeed other lawyers, have to toil day and night to even get a hope of being a QC, money alone wouldn't motive someone through that. They would need to firmly enjoy the law, they would have to live and breath it, and yes then the money would be a bonus.

82.3.225.184 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a little bit thin-skinned. Although elevation to a QC is supposed to be a hallmark of quality as an advocate and as a lawyer, it is certainly regularly referred to as a "passport to higher earnings" within the profession. It isn't "all about the money" - it is probably more about prestige and recognition - but in the modern era the money is unquestionably a big part of it (certainly in the UK anyhow). All the gumph about about a duty to represent the crown disappeared centuries ago. Interestingly, it is not mentioned in the article, but more than one barrister has actually wrecked their career by taking silk too early, and their clients not thinking that they justified the higher fees. Such barristers usually get bounced onto the High Court bench. --Legis (talk - contributions) 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The original question - what is the purpose or function of the title - still stands unanswered. The article should specify what being a QC is about to a more determined extent than "being a status recognized by the courts". A spouse seeking divorce, a police officer giving testimony, a mentally ill person on trial or a diplomat enjoying immunity all hold a "status recognized by the courts" in the sense relevant to their situation, but the QC article does not specify how this status affects the lawyer and her work.

For instance, would it be correct to add to the first paragraph that "The appointment as a QC is purely honorific and has no function or effect to the judicial system, other than serving as a quality assurance mark for clients searching to employ the most distinguished barristers." or a similar wording? OJH (talk)

Yes! : I came to the page to find out exactly this and I still don't know. Couldn't someone update the main page with the info? I say go for it OJH.

The title 'Queen's Council' states that the person is qualified to serve in the High Courts and therefore in the highest criminal courts in the country, e.g., the Old Bailey. Hence it is (or should be) an indicator of the relative experience and competence of the barrister.

On this point, it's necessary to flesh out the history of the term more. While my understanding is now that it is an honorific title, originally (with the exception of Francis Bacon's appointment I think) Queen's Counsel was established to address the necessity of the Crown having legal counsel beyond just the Queen's Attorney and Solicitor Generals. I think this really highlights what exactly the title means. BornOn8thOfJuly (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added some information to this end. I think it makes the article a bit clearer! Or at least I hope it does. BornOn8thOfJuly (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Perhaps I am missing something, however it looks like most of the page has been cut and pasted from this article here: http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Queens_Counsel.htm and not referenced to them that I can see:

by Noel Cox, Auckland University of Technology and Professor Peter Spiller, University of Waikato first published [2000] New Zealand Law Journal 371-373 Calanen 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In Canada Queen's counsel also wear different gowns or robes of silk (instead of "stuff gowns").

The webpage identified as a possible source is archived here. A copyvio detector report indicates "Violation Possible 72.2% confidence" with our current article, however it only identifies relatively short matching phrases, and in my view our current text is ok. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Effect?

Several times I have come across articles describing how a trial needed to be postponed because one party indicated that they would employ a QC, and the other party needed time to follow suit. Is there a requirement that both parties need a QC, or is a QC considered so much better that otherwise you have no chance? How common is the practice? The article doesn't mention anything about this effect. As someone unfamiliar with the QC concept, I think this would be much more relevant information than, say, the fabric of someone's clothes. Kweetbeter (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Resigning as MP

The patent of precedence article say that QCs used to have to resign as MPs on appointment. When did this end? Is the background interesting? Cutler 16:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but as I'm sure you know it's not possible to unilaterally resign membership of the UK House of Commons. There are ways of arranging to become ineligible (Chiltern Hundreds etc), but even these technically depend on the say-so of another person even if in practice such requests are always granted. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Category

How about a category for QCs and KCs? --Counter-revolutionary 12:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Long Sentences (with no citations)

Quoting one paragraph:

"The appointment of Queen's Counsel was suspended in 2003 and it was widely expected that the system would be abolished, although existing QCs were not affected by the suspension. However, a vigorous campaign was mounted in defence of the system, including those who supported it as an independent indication of excellence valued by outsiders who did not have much else to go on, and especially foreign commercial litigants, and those who contended in a letter to The Times in London that it was a means whereby the most able barristers from ethnic minorities could overcome prejudice. The Government's focus then switched from abolition to reform and, in particular, reform of the much-criticised "secret soundings" of Judges and other establishment legal figures upon which the old system was based, which was said to be inappropriate and unfair given the size of the modern profession, a possible source of improper Government patronage (since the final recommendations were made by the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Government) and discriminatory against part-time workers (especially women) and ethnic minorities."

I'm not going to edit this due to the specialized subject matter, but this paragraph might be improved by dividing it into more than three sentences. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that paragraph is factually inaccurate. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Accurate or not, it needs verifiable references. Without them it is at best dubious. - Pointillist (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The letter to the Times is verifiable fact; I have read it myself in the print edition of the paper. I don't think it is available online any more and I don't have access to indices that would allow me to give the references - others will, however. Reference to the same point being made by at least two High Court Judges (Mr Justice Aikens and Mrs Justice Rafferty) can be found at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc007.pdf first paragraph. Another example, from the Association of Asian Women Lawyers, is at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc016.pdf . Unpicking the other elements: (1) It was suspended in 2003, and there was lots of press reporting about the fugure of the system. (2) The campaign against abolition was joined by the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR), at that time Chaired by William Blair QC (brother of the Prime Minister, now a High Court Judge), which produced a report defending the system along the lines in the Wikipedia article (see http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/supremecourt/responses/sc033.pdf ). Another example of the argument is in the submission from the Lord Mayor of London which can be seen here: http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc014.pdf (3) The switch in focus from abolition to reform was driven by responses to a government consultation paper which can be seen at http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/. Examples of responses to it are still (at 17 Feb 2009) on the government website at e.g. http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc001.pdf http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc117.pdf and hundreds of others (use the same web address but substitute a different three digit combination after /qc for others). I agree that references should be added; but we ought not to delete valuable factual content in the meantime. Cheers. Chelseaboy (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's been deleted—it is just marked "dubious" until someone can put together the right references. The Times letter doesn't have to be available online: the date and heading are sufficient. - Pointillist (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I've added a few more references to my para above; perhaps something can be done with those. Chelseaboy (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was from Courtenay Griffiths QC in The Times on 3 November 2003 and is referred to on p 41 para 132 of the document here: http://www.dca.gov.uk/consult/qcfuture/responses/qc199.pdf Hope this helps. Chelseaboy (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

An online copy of the letter from Courtenay Griffiths QC, Linda Dobbs, and Oba Nsugbee on 3 November 2003 headed "Barristers from ethnic minorities" can be accessed here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article1007444.ece Chelseaboy (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on assembling such great references. It would probably be best if a practitioner re-wrote the paragraph—I'm not a lawyer. - Pointillist (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) — But I will fix up the citation templates for you. Thanks again - Pointillist (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Media references to QCs/SCs

I don't know if this is just an Australian thing or not. Whenever a QC/SC is mentioned in the media, they always seem to get the postnominal: "Murgatroyd Titfink SC has been appointed a judge of the ... court"; "The alleged bankrobber will be represented by Denzil Blathercombe QC", etc. Other people with postnominals don't get this treatment. We never hear "The former Prime Minister Bob Hawke AC announced today ...." or "The Olympic delegation will be led by Dawn Fraser AO MBE". Why is this distinction made for QC/SCs? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because it is often relevant for example when the media article says they are representing someone as a lawyer- it indicates they are highly experienced and regarded. Awards like the AC and MBE are however not tied to a specific professional discipline and so don't indicate just from the postnominals, experience or status in a specified area. If you say "QC" after there name, people immediately know they have experience/status in the field of law. But with AC/MBE, you have to dig deeper to find out if they have experience in, for example, the scientific field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.154.33 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Change of Sovereign

What happens to a QC when the Queen dies? Do they automatically become KCs? Must they be re-appointed? Do they retain the title QC into the reign of the kIng? Avalon (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it simply changes from QC to KC(or KC to QC) when a new monarch takes over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.186.35 (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New appointments obviously use the new title when there is a change of monarch, but how about existing ones? This is relevant to articles such as Reginald Manningham-Buller, 1st Viscount Dilhorne - the article describes him as a KC right up until his death in 1980. Surely this isn't right? JRawle (Talk) 11:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks as though the article is incorrect. If the Queen was reigning at the time of his death, then there should be a QC after his name, not KC. The Queen's Counsel article says that the QC is known as a KC during the reign of a male monarch (and vice versa). This is even if the membership was given as a KC to begin with, as when the king dies, the person becomes a counsel to the new queen instead, they don't lose their appointment, but they can't remain a KC as they can't be a counsel to a dead male monarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.154.33 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this question has been confirmed, 14 years later - https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/wig-chamber/35475-queens-counsel-to-become-kings-counsel -- Chuq (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Canada

Some info on the QC in Canada would be helpful...unfortunately, I don't have the expertise. Any takers? fishhead64 (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The information with respect to Manitoba is largely incorrect. The Government offered to institute a Senior Counsel designation. It was never implimented. The link is to a new release wherein QC was suspended and Senior Counsel was proposed. http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/press/top/2001/01/2001-01-09-01.html

However, this proposal was not supported by the Law Society. http://www.lawsociety.mb.ca/benchers_bulletins/bench_bulletin_feb01.htm

A review of the provincial legislation does not reveal that this designation was ever created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DD28 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

This section isn't quite right, and the references don't match the text. Here's what I've been able to work out so far (my bullets against the text from this diff) - Pointillist (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The title of QC remains, but in 1998 two Northern Irish nationalists (Seamus Treacy - now Mr Justice Treacy - and Barry Macdonald) opposed the requirement of swearing an oath of allegiance to the Crown (Queen Elizabeth II during her reign).

• References don't support "nationalists"; "barristers" would be better.
• Technically it wasn't the oath of allegiance (that was dispensed with on 26 October 1995). It was about the "Declaration of Office".

The Bar Council (the body which represents barristers' interests) had agreed (in the Elliott report) that the royal oath should be dropped and replaced by a more neutral statement. It suggested that, instead of declaring their services to Queen Elizabeth, barristers should "sincerely promise and declare that I will well and truly serve all whom I may lawfully be called to serve in the office of one of Her Majesty's Counsel, learned in the law according to the best of my skill and understanding".[5]

• Reference 5 doesn't cover the Elliott report. It just says the two barristers finally took silk on 8th September. The judicial review judgement on 2 May 2000 is a better reference, because it shows the Elliott Committee's proposal, and says the Bar Council accepted it on 14 May 1997.

In 2000, the Northern Ireland High Court ruled in the barristers' favour,

• weeelll... it decided that the Lord Chancellor was misinformed in 1997 when he was told that there was no need to change the oath because the judges in the High Court had been consulted after the Elliott report (in fact, they hadn't) and saw no need for a change.
• The NI Committee on the Administration of Justice said (here) that "It was on this narrow ground therefore that Mr Treacy and Mr Macdonald’s application was successful. It is to be hoped that the Lord Chancellor will now act on what is the view of the profession...."
• On 26 June 2000 the Lord Chanceller announced to the House of Lords that "in a spirit of compromise" the declaration would be changed. Hansard reference.

and after considerable wrangling the men were permitted to make "a more neutral statement".[6]

• Misleading to imply that a concession was made to two individuals rather than a new declaration for all appointees.
• Reference 6 isn't really relevant to the QC article. It is pointing to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Section 19 of that act here is about Judicial Oaths, which aren't the same as the Declarations by new QCs. There's an interesting story about how the new judicial oath was based on recommendation 6.128 of the March 2000 Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland here, and how that was driven by an urgent submission by The Committee on the Administration of Justice here after Treacy & Macdonald had been told they could not participate in the call ceremony unless they made the declaration. But that's probably outside the scope of the article.

In 1997, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Carswell, wrote "I have little doubt myself that this is all part of an ongoing politically-based campaign to have the office of Queen’s Counsel replaced by a rank entitled Senior Counsel, or something to that effect".[7]

• Not sure what this adds to the story as currently written.

Changed "Northern Irish nationalist", which means someone who thinks that Northern Irish people are inherently superior to other people, to "Northern Irish Nationalist" which in this context means a Northern Irish person who believes that the island of Ireland should be politically unified & independent. I assume from the context that the latter is the likely intended meaning --PaphlagonianTanner (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As the original reference doesn't mention either "n" word as I pointed out (above) a year ago. Let's just call them "barristers". - Pointillist (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Northern Territory

I think the Northern Territory ceased appointing QCs in 2007 and thereafter they were styled SC see SUPREME COURT (SENIOR COUNSEL) RULES 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.176.63 (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Youngest ever QC

There are two separate articles claiming that the subject is the youngest ever British QC: Emlyn Hooson, Baron Hooson and Paul McBride. Not sure which (if either) is correct, and am struggling to come up with reliable sources. The Lord Hooson article actually claims he is the youngest QC anywhere: that is clearly not correct, as there appears to be an Australian who was made a QC three years younger: The Prism: Tony Morris QC Welcome any input.
--Legis (talk - contribs) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like neither of them - Spencer Perceval was made a KC at aged 33 in 1796. Any other contenders? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I can think of recent examples of recipients in their 30s, so it wouldn't surprise me. I imagine there is more than one who fits the description. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Morris Shumiatcher of Saskatchewan, Canada, was appointed KC at the age of 31, which would be earlier than any of the other contenders mentioned in this discussion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone who has held the title of King's Counsel survive?

The article asserts that nobody who has ever held the title of King's Counsel survives, citing the Guardian obituary of Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, the cited source does not even say that Lord Simon was a KC or QC. The Independent obituary of Lord Simon confirms that he was awarded KC in 1951 (before the Queen's accession), but does not mention whether there are any surviving ex-KCs. It is likely that no KCs appointed in England and Wales survive, this could probably be confirmed. However, it would be difficult to prove that this applies in all jurisdictions that appointed KCs. I will adjust the article accordingly. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Appointment by monarch

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: QCs (and KCs) are appointed by the governor-general of NZ on behalf of the monarch after they have been recommended by the Crown. The governor-general, acting for the monarch, can veto or approve the recommendation, therefore the final decision rests with the monarch. See this explanation. Akld guy (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that all QCs are appointed by a monarch. My objection is the reference to the appointment of all QCs by the "monarch of the United Kingdom". That is constitutionally inaccurate. QCs in the other Commonwealth realms are not appointed by the U.K. Monarch, who acts on the advice of the British government, but by the monarch of each realm, acting on the advice of the government in each realm. So QCs in New Zealand are appointed by the Queen of New Zealand, not the British monarch. It's the same person, of course, but she wears different Crowns in each realm, and is advised by the governments of each realm, not by the British government. This is an important constitutional distinction, highlighting the sovereignty of each Commonwealth realm. This general principle was recognized by the Balfour Declaration of 1926, the Statute of Westminster 1931 and subsequent constitutional statutes for each of the Commonwealth realms. I would suggest deleting the reference to the "monarch of the United Kingsom" as incorrect. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: I see the distinction you're making, but I can't see in the list of jurisdictions any country other than Great Britain and its Commonwealth countries that has a QC/KC appointment. There is a list of monarchies at List of current monarchies, but I don't have the time to trawl through them all to find out whether they have a QC/KC regime. Many of them are former Brit colonies and thus qualify as "appointed by the UK's monarch". How about this, which removes your concern about "monarch of the United Kingdom" but retains the wording about who does the appointing: is a lawyer (usually a barrister or advocate) who is appointed by a monarch to be one of "Her [His] Majesty's Counsel learned in the law. Or would you still prefer to drop the words entirely? – Akld guy (talk) 00:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Or even "the monarch". It's the tying it to the British monarch that is my concern. How about this as the opening sentence: "A Queen's Counsel (post-nominal QC) during the reign of a queen, or King's Counsel (post-nominal KC) during the reign of a king, is a lawyer (usually a barrister or advocate) who is appointed by the monarch to be one of "Her [His] Majesty's Counsel learned in the law". " (and without the wikilink to "monarch" because that takes it back to the UK monarch.) --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"The monarch" sounds like it's pointing to a specific, unique, person. How about this: "A Queen's Counsel (post-nominal QC) during the reign of a queen, or King's Counsel (post-nominal KC) during the reign of a king, is a lawyer (usually a barrister or advocate) who is appointed by a country's monarch to be one of "Her [His] Majesty's Counsel learned in the law". " (and without the wikilink to "monarch" because that takes it back to the UK monarch.) That allows for the example you cited of NZ's monarch happening to be the same person as QEII of the UK. Akld guy (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfect! --Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Done! Akld guy (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice, civil discussion. Appreciate it. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Stepping in a bit late here, but I can't help feeling that "a country's monarch" is taking things a bit too far. The office of QC exists only in the UK and some Commonwealth realms, and the same person is monarch of all of them – in different capacities, granted, but the same monarch nevertheless. The current wording sounds like it is allowing for the highly unlikely eventuality of a realm deciding to split off and become a separate monarchy in its own right, with a different monarch, and retaining the office of QC/KC in that hypothetical new monarchy! Surely "the monarch" is good enough here. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"...highly unlikely eventuality of a realm deciding to split off..." – You agree that's possible, so the current wording covers that base. You didn't say it was an impossibility. If we use "the monarch", to whom is this meant to refer? If it can only be QEII because no realm uses anyone but her as a monarch, then why not identify her? And then we're back to Buzfuz's original objection to the link. The problem is that the Queen of New Zealand for example, is, in constitutional terms, not the same person as QEII of the UK. She acts separately, but happens to be the same person. So as Buzfuz pointed out, QEII of the UK does not appoint QCs in NZ. The Queen of New Zealand does. Akld guy (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible, sure, just as it is theoretically possible that some unrelated monarchy could decide to create the position of QC/KC. In the highly unlikely event that either of these cases were to occur, the article would need to be amended in any case, of course, but in the meantime there's no need for the wording to allow for them, per WP:CRYSTAL. Using "the monarch" as shorthand for "QEII in her capacity as monarch of whichever realm we're talking about" is common practice. And incidentally she is quite definitely only one person, even in constitutional terms, but acting in different capacities. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Who would an uninformed reader interpret as "the monarch"? Akld guy (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Any reader with even the vaguest of awareness of the UK and/or the Commonwealth would surely interpret it to mean QEII (or her predecessors or successors). Any totally uninformed readers can click on the wikilinks to find out more. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

QEII of the UK does not appoint QCs in Commonwealth countries. That was Buzfuz's objection in the second post of this thread. It's a constitutional distinction. She is not QEII of New Zealand, for example, because there was no QEI of NZ. Akld guy (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, though nevertheless the relatively uninformed reader that we were talking about tends to think of her as QEII, regardless of realm. What bugs me is that the current wording "a country's monarch" makes it sound, especially to the uninformed, that we're talking about several monarchs (in the sense of several different people, not one person with several roles), i.e. that the position of QC/KC exists in other countries with unrelated monarchs. Whereas the wording "the monarch", in a UK and Commonwealth context, is the standard, more-or-less universally understood, shorthand term.

More fundamentally, reading the whole sentence and stepping back from the person/role distinction, "the monarch" would logically and grammatically be read simply as being the queen or king referred to just a few words previously: A Queen's Counsel (post-nominal QC) during the reign of a queen, or King's Counsel (post-nominal KC) during the reign of a king, is a lawyer [...] who is appointed by the monarch to be [...] Rosbif73 (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, see my latest edit where I clarify at the outset that only GB and Commonwealth countries appoint QCs and KCs. Now "the monarch" might make more sense? Akld guy (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that the context is set first, "the monarch of the country" works quite well. Some might still argue that "of the country" is superfluous, but I'll leave it be. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Barbados and its Secrets..?

Barbados and its infinite secrets strike again. Can someone please update this link because the page is no longer active and without an acceptable reference we can't keep it here. In a superficial search I haven't been able to locate anything particularly compelling. Happy searching, I suppose? India.OHC (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

We say "The selection process is secret". That could mean that no one not involved in the process even knows what the process is. Or it could just mean that the process is undertaken in secrecy. We should clarify this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Death of Elizabeth II

With the accession of her son, all of the thousands of people currently styled QC must be changed to KC. Can we make a bot for it? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look into it after dinner Pi (Talk to me!) 19:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. Louis Blom-Cooper was a QC and stays a QC. Whereas Suella Braverman was a QC but is now a KC. But we still have Category:English Queen's Counsel but not Category:English King's Counsel. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Bahamas

The Bahamas still retains the King’s Council designation. Please add them to the list of commonwealth countries that do. I am dealing with a client’s website where we need to change from QC to KC. ParkersLaw.net for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5610:B010:306E:9258:B521:1AD6 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Mourning for Queen Anne

The reference to barristers in the UK wearing black in mourning for Queen Anne seems to be inaccurate. See https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/their-sacrifice-remembered Djewesbury (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Title precedence

It would be helpful to have a section on title precidence. For example, if a KC (QC) has other titles, such as MP, CM, CH, DSO, etc. What order should these be presented? Also, does KC surplant other titles when presented after their name? This would appear to be related to order of precedence but would address specifically the order of precedence of titles as they would appear, for example, on a business card. I suspect that a short section would suffice.

I searched for a more general Wikipedia page to discuss this more generally, but did not find such topic - I searched for "Title precedence" but did not find such page, maybe it exists under another title? (If such topic exists, maybe "Title precedence" could be created as a redirect to that page.) I did, however, find Style (form of address) which broadly describes the style of addressing folks who hold certain titles. I also found a brief sub-section Suffix_(name)#Ordering, but I think that the issue of how to add such titles (in what order), etc. on a business card, or after someone's name deserves its own Wikipedia article - especially as "rules" as set out by one awarding organization may (and sometimes does) conflict with "rules" set out by another awarding organization.
Enquire (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)