Queen Elizabeth funeral and looking forward

[BayouQueen]

Apparently George would be of age to be king once he reaches his 18th birthday -- not 21. (yay!) He is already nine, so should tragedy strike at some time, the regent probably wouldn't be in place for too many years.
I believe Queen Victoria quickly took control from her regent once she came of age. Prince George would probably do that too. (His sister would prod him along lol)

 

[mom2rtk]

(His sister would prod him along lol)

Isn't that the truth!

 

[Tink-osophy]

In the very unlikely - and I don't want to think about it too much - event that something happened that meant George inherited the throne before 18, I don't think it would go down well over here if Harry got involved in any formal way.

...Unless a lot changes from the current state of affairs. I was reminded today that Meghan announced to the whole of America (back in that O interview) that Archie had been denied the title of prince at birth 'even though it was protocol' - which it isn't, but she'd know most Americans wouldn't know that. (She must have known, I can't think Harry would have misled her on that.) And, since that is just the tip of a very sad iceberg, Harry would have to eat quite a lot of humble pie to be accepted back in a role of such authority as Regent.

...Meaning, I don't know what would happen!

I suspect it is something that Charles and William will discuss and prepare for, though, If they, and the Queen, hadn't already.

 

[Tink-osophy]

(His sister would prod him along lol)

Love this comment! Yes, he'd be in good hands!

 

[Skywalker]

In the very unlikely - and I don't want to think about it too much - event that something happened that meant George inherited the throne before 18, I don't think it would go down well over here if Harry got involved in any formal way.

...Unless a lot changes from the current state of affairs. I was reminded today that Meghan announced to the whole of America (back in that O interview) that Archie had been denied the title of prince at birth 'even though it was protocol' - which it isn't, but she'd know most Americans wouldn't know that. (She must have known, I can't think Harry would have misled her on that.) And, since that is just the tip of a very sad iceberg, Harry would have to eat quite a lot of humble pie to be accepted back in a role of such authority as Regent.

...Meaning, I don't know what would happen!

I suspect it is something that Charles and William will discuss and prepare for, though, If they, and the Queen, hadn't already.

Its interesting and strange to think of Uncle Harry and Aunt Meghan running the show, while Queen Catherine would still be there to raise her son, but with no royal authority. Would make for many intriguing seasons of The Crown! Lol

Interesting about Harry not being a working royal, maybe he wouldn’t even want to be regent. I suppose if you can abdicate the throne you can abdicate being regent. And then they would move on to the next. I am sure it’s all engraved in some giant Buckingham Palace Handbook to Every Possible Contingency.

Its all just interesting discussion, God forbid it would happen. Long live the King! (And the next one too!)

 

[TippyThomas]

I love Harry and Meghan

 

[Tink-osophy]

Its interesting and strange to think of Uncle Harry and Aunt Meghan running the show, while Queen Catherine would still be there to raise her son, but with no royal authority. Would make for many intriguing seasons of The Crown! Lol

Interesting about Harry not being a working royal, maybe he wouldn’t even want to be regent. I suppose if you can abdicate the throne you can abdicate being regent. And then they would move on to the next. I am sure it’s all engraved in some giant Buckingham Palace Handbook to Every Possible Contingency.

Its all just interesting discussion, God forbid it would happen. Long live the King! (And the next one too!)

Yes, Harry may well not want to take on that kind of role anyway, but, even if he did, he'd need the acceptance and support of the British people.

I haven't watched The Crown, but it would be dramatic!

 

[mamamia2005]

I don't think Prince Harry becoming the regent would be a very popular decision with the public. But if that's what the royal protocol dictates, then generally we're generally a rule - following nation and would likely accept it.
Isn't it a little ironic nearly 100 years later, we are talking about accepting a prince regent who is married to an American divorcee should the unthinkable happen!

 

[CdnCarrie]

If Harry isn't willing to be Regent if need be then he should remove himself from the line of succession.

 

[Kennywood]

As "radioactive" as Andrew is, him being regent would spell the end of the monarchy.

 

[Tink-osophy]

I don't think Prince Harry becoming the regent would be a very popular decision with the public. But if that's what the royal protocol dictates, then generally we're generally a rule - following nation and would likely accept it.
Isn't it a little ironic nearly 100 years later, we are talking about accepting a prince regent who is married to an American divorcee should the unthinkable happen!

I'm not as sure the Monarchy is so solid that it would be accepted that easily, if at all. And I don't think the decision would lie singularly in Harry's hands, not as things stand, anyway. Mind you, if Anne or Edward weren't able to step up and it wasn't Harry, we'd be looking at the cousins, Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie. It's too difficult to guess at, but I'm sure eventualities will have been planned for - it's a tight ship.

Just the 'discussions' of it would, as Skywalker said, make for dramatic storytelling.

As an aside, since I haven't watched The Crown, is there much humour in it? Do the writers have a light touch at all?

 

[FigmentSpark]

I love Harry and Meghan

As does the king and his family.

However, whether Harry would be accepted as a regent or even, God forbid, the monarch (that would mean the unthinkable had happened to his family) is another matter entirely, since the two of them have profited on disparaging their family, the Firm and the country in very public ways.

I hope they are able to reconcile with Harry's family and if that upcoming book is respectful of the monarchy, Britain and it's people, he might have a chance of remaining on good terms, but that remains to be seen.

As "radioactive" as Andrew is, him being regent would spell the end of the monarchy.

Andrew would be very smart to claim he isn't interested in the job. Sadly, I think he would be convinced that it was his way back in to the Firm, instead. He wouldn't last long and that would reflect on his daughters, too.

Ann or Edward are the best choices. At least right now.

 

[mamamia2005]

This recent article (yes I know it's in the daily fail!) calls into question if the rules about who can stand in for King Charles should be changed should he fall ill.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11220619/Experts-call-rethink-counsellors-state-rules.html

 

[Tink-osophy]

This recent article (yes I know it's in the daily fail!) calls into question if the rules about who can stand in for King Charles should be changed should he fall ill.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11220619/Experts-call-rethink-counsellors-state-rules.html

I'd forgotten about the Counsellors, that makes the discussion much more current.

 

[fla4fun]

.
I believe Queen Victoria quickly took control from her regent once she came of age. Prince George would probably do that too. (His sister would prod him along lol)

Queen Victoria avoided a regency by just a few months, as she was 18 when the King died. Her mother’s “advisor” Conroy tried to force Victoria to agree to having a regency until she was 21, claiming she was too inexperienced to rule on her own, but she refused. He was really wanting to have a place at the table of power, and Victoria fought him at every turn. The King was supposed to have commented that he was relieved when she turned 18, so the crown could pass to her directly, since he had been quite ill and knew he didn’t have a lot of time left.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I love Harry and Meghan

 

[dcassetta]

Harry is still a UK citizen and in line for the throne. He's just currently not doing royal duties and living elsewhere. If something catastrophic happened there would be discussions and a decision would be made.
It's like the US POTUS. If he and the vice died tomorrow they don't just randomly choose someone from the House that would "do a good job". There is a order of who would be take over.
There is a constitution and legislation outlying this stuff. It's not dependent on who is "liked".

Does the regent have to be next in line? They aren't taking the throne. I would think the regent, since the person is only acting the the stead and interest of the minor sovereign, would be someone trusted by the people and the Firm. Remember, when Edward the VI died, a young Edward became king, but his regent uncle found a way to usurp the throne from him and make him disappear. So these appointments aren't taken lightly.

Anyone know enough history to know who was regent when Henry VIII's young son was king? It certainly wasn't next-in-line Catherine or even Elizabeth.

Regency in the Plantagenet, Tudor and Georgian eras was different.

The most recent regency act is 1953 and until current law would have made Princess Margaret the regent while Charles was still a minor. However, Parliament passed a new law specifically for Elizabeth and Charles that Prince Philip would be the regent if Elizabeth passed before Charles reached adulthood. It's not an issue today as George has both his father and grandfather, but if William ascends to the throne before George is an adult, I would not be surprised to see Parliament pass a law bypassing Harry and Andrew (non-working royals) in favor of Edward. Andrew's daughters and grandchildren are ahead of Edward, so it could be Beatrice, Andrew's older daughter.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Just sat down to watch the news.

DH said he misses the Queen coverage! I do, too! Anyone else?

 

[NotUrsula]

Regency in the Plantagenet, Tudor and Georgian eras was different.

The most recent regency act is 1953 and until current law would have made Princess Margaret the regent while Charles was still a minor. However, Parliament passed a new law specifically for Elizabeth and Charles that Prince Philip would be the regent if Elizabeth passed before Charles reached adulthood. It's not an issue today as George has both his father and grandfather, but if William ascends to the throne before George is an adult, I would not be surprised to see Parliament pass a law bypassing Harry and Andrew (non-working royals) in favor of Edward. Andrew's daughters and grandchildren are ahead of Edward, so it could be Beatrice, Andrew's older daughter.

The Regency Act of 1953 was the specific one with regard to minor children of QEII; once Edward came of age it ceased to apply, and as all of the potential Regents named in it are now dead, the 1937 Act is now controlling again -- at least until Parliament passes a new special Act with regard to the Heirs of KCIII, which I believe we will see very soon. Charles is dissatisfied with the current wobbly state of affairs with regard to Andrew and Harry's official expectations. He is going to want to make it legally clear as soon as possible.

 

[KayMichigan]

Just sat down to watch the news.

DH said he misses the Queen coverage! I do, too! Anyone else?

Yes, it's sort of like the Olympics - for a while there's always something interesting to watch, and then when it's gone there's an adjustment period.

Re: the Regent, just an aside -when I saw "Frozen" I always wondered why they didn't create a character who was Regent for Elsa since she was a minor where their parents died. That could have been interesting. But apparently there was no council or anybody else in charge, just Anna and Elsa. Not even a prime minister. The only other people we ever saw were the servants. So when Hans came in later in the story he was put in charge of the country even though he was a foreigner that nobody knew and everyone just said "OK". That never made sense to me.