Prince William had Covid

[lyralalala]

...around the same time as his father.

Was apparently quite ill with it and it was kept quiet so as not to alarm the public

That would have had them panicking. Heir and his heir ill at the same time is their worst nightmare!

If that had happened and George had ended up being next in line then the Regent options (Harry first, then If he declined Andrew, as the next in line over 21) would have been a disaster

No wonder the Queen was shut away so tightly!!

Why is this news. I am sure I read or heard about it when it happened.

I don't give a teent, tiny rat's arse about Prince William being ill. If anyone can afford the best medical care this country has to offer, it's him. It's the poor and vulnerable I care about. The royals are the most selfish group of people around.

I'm sure I read that the Regency Bill had been amended when HM had a young family, so that Philip would become Regent if HM had popped her clogs at an early age, before Charles was an adult. I'd rather have Kate's hand on the tiller than Harry or Andrew, so hope the RF are looking at this as we speak.

@ajandjjmum

I'm sure I read that the Regency Bill had been amended when HM had a young family, so that Philip would become Regent if HM had popped her clogs at an early age, before Charles was an adult. I'd rather have Kate's hand on the tiller than Harry or Andrew, so hope the RF are looking at this as we speak.

It was amended then. It put Philip in place over Princess Margaret. He was seen as a better choice as she was viewed as a bit of a party princess. There was also the fact that he was male and as we know having a penis makes you better at making decisions*

I wonder how much would be made of the “commoner” thing with Kate if she was put into place as potential Regent

*obviously not my opinion, just sarcasm as I think it was a huge part of the reason at the time

Load of narcissists who would have cared except his family.
I don't know anyone who'd have been alarmed

It was amended then. It put Philip in place over Princess Margaret. He was seen as a better choice as she was viewed as a bit of a party princess. There was also the fact that he was male and as we know having a penis makes you better at making decisions *

God, absolutely. it's also why Kate will be Queen but Philip can't be King - King is ALWAYS more senior than Queen.... And he wasn't really the monarch.

I think William keeping his diagnosis quiet is fine. But there are some journalist claiming that they asked the palace and were told categorically that no one else except Charles had it. So people are annoying about being lied to. if that's true, I agree it's outrageous. If they're annoyed they weren't proactively told, then no, I can't get worked up about that. There are also people claiming that during this time he was out and about delivering food etc. I don't know if that's true as I can't be bothered to go and check dates. Bt again, if it is true, I can understand the outrage. But that seems hard to believe to me because except for the most wanker of wanker types, people with confirmed Coronavirus usually accept they have to stay home.

As for Regency, yes, a I understand it, it would be Harry then Andrew. But Harry would need to return to the UK. I believe that Harry WOULD return and would take up the Regency role. Certainly, pre whatever happened this year, I imagine it was something that was fairly well discussed in a similar way perhaps to how many of us talk to family members about what happens if both parents die and someone else needs to take the kids. And with the queen and Charles both elderly, it's not an inconceivable situation that William dies younger than expected and there's a gap. Having said that, more likely, if it did happen, Charles would still be alive , at which point they'd leap into action to figure out what laws need to be changed (as they did ahead of George's birth to ensure that if it was a girl, she would still remain in line ahead of any subsequent brothers).

[quote Thecobwebsarewinning]@Burnout101. Thank you. I stand corrected. I need to start reading some more recent history obviously.

According to Wikipedia the order for any prospective Regency is Harry (but he’d have to to living in the UK), then Andrew, then Andrew’s heir Beatrice. My mind is boggling.[/quote]
Would Beatrice be such a bad choice? Imagine if it was Anne and then she passed, at least Beatrice would have a chance of fulfilled the role until he could go solo.

They need to name a regent in those uncertain times. And remove unsuitable people from the line if succession. I think they might.

I don't think they need to name a Regent. Naming one specific person can just push problems down the road if anything happens to them.

I think they absolutely need to remove Andrew from the line of succession. However, that (as far as I can work out) would require him to remove himself and I just don't think that would happen. I think he'd have to be bribed in some way, perhaps allowing him to pass on his title when he dies or some such thing would persuade him.

If Andrew was removed, would that not mean his daughters would then not be in the line?

@Samcro

If Andrew was removed, would that not mean his daughters would then not be in the line?

No, they'd still be in line.

It only removes future children if it's specifically stated in a renunciation (like with the Duke of Windsor).

The children of people who removed themselves by marrying Catholics, such as Prince Michael of Kent, were still in the line as long as they were not brought up Catholic.

@lyralalala

I don't think they need to name a Regent. Naming one specific person can just push problems down the road if anything happens to them.

I think they absolutely need to remove Andrew from the line of succession. However, that (as far as I can work out) would require him to remove himself and I just don't think that would happen. I think he'd have to be bribed in some way, perhaps allowing him to pass on his title when he dies or some such thing would persuade him.

I agree with all sane thinking people, Andrew should not be considered as part of the RF - although I appreciate that he will remain part of his actual family.

But....he hasn't actually been charged or convicted of anything. Really wish the FBI or whoever would move on with this, so that there is fact behind all of the rumours.

But....he hasn't actually been charged or convicted of anything. Really wish the FBI or whoever would move on with this, so that there is fact behind all of the rumours.

I think this is a big part of the problem for the Queen.

As Queen she must know it would be better if he was removed from the succession because if, god forbid, anything horrific happened the thought of him as Regent could absolutely be the downfall of the monarchy. Especially as he doesn't strike me as the type who'd decline for the greater good.

Equally though as a mother she must know that if she removes him, or persuades him to remove himself, she'll be adding to the weight of "proof" against him in the eyes of the public. (I'm assuming for this that she's the kind of mother who never believes her child is capable of the worst things he's been accused of).

I agree that of those 3 Beatrice would be the best bet. Anne is great but she is 70 now and I think being a regent would be a massive job. She deserves some downtime.

I'm less interested in the remote possibility of a regent, and more in the fact that William lied to the press, the outpouring of anger this has sparked in the British press and royal reporters, and the fact that William's lies have caused a significant loss of trust in the Royal Family.

The RF are extremely dependent on the Royal Reporters and on the Rota for positive coverage and "spin". They cannot afford to piss off the RRs like this, especially at a time when the RF is in so much turmoil (Andrew's dodgy doings and the Queen's public protection of him; all the drama with Harry and Meghan fucking off to America and Meghan's attention-seeking; the Cambridge household leaking nasty stories about the Sussexes and throwing them under a bus to detract attention from themselves; William's alleged affair and press coverup; the upcoming Sussex lawsuit; and the fact that when the Queen dies, it will destabilise everything).

Already RRs are publicly questioning, "if William lied about this what else has he lied about?" It will take William a long time to regain that broken trust, and in the meantime the fact that William is no longer considered a credible source in the eyes of the media will continue to create problems.

Did he lie though or just not release private medical information. I know they are public figures but they do have the same rights as anyone else when it comes to deciding what they tell everyone. Do we expect to be told if the queen has an abnormal smear test?

I've never been particularly anti or pro the royal family but now I just can't see the reason for having them.

They seem a pretty pointless bunch. Surely in a time of national crisis this would have been the occasion for them to step up to the plate.

Frankly the idea of having either Andrew or Harry as Regent is pretty horrifying.

The only thing that would make me want to keep them is the prospect of who would take their place.

@ChristmasCantComeSoonEnough

Did he lie though or just not release private medical information. I know they are public figures but they do have the same rights as anyone else when it comes to deciding what they tell everyone. Do we expect to be told if the queen has an abnormal smear test?

Quite!

The Regent is an automatic thing under the current Regency act. Unless there is a Regency act put into place the Regent is the next in line over the age of 21

If both Charles and William died then Kate would retain custody of the children (in years gone by that would have gone to the Regent as well), but she wouldn't be Regent.

Since the law states that the monarch has custody of all their children and grandchildren, are you sure the Regent wouldn’t have custody over Kate?

@ChristmasCantComeSoonEnough

Did he lie though or just not release private medical information. I know they are public figures but they do have the same rights as anyone else when it comes to deciding what they tell everyone. Do we expect to be told if the queen has an abnormal smear test?

Agreed.

He might have felt fairly unwell for a few days whilst at home but if so, that’s actually still quite mild covid. I don’t think the public generally gets or should expect an update on the health of royal family when it’s something mild.

@SunbathingDragon

The Regent is an automatic thing under the current Regency act. Unless there is a Regency act put into place the Regent is the next in line over the age of 21

If both Charles and William died then Kate would retain custody of the children (in years gone by that would have gone to the Regent as well), but she wouldn't be Regent.

Since the law states that the monarch has custody of all their children and grandchildren, are you sure the Regent wouldn’t have custody over Kate?

I’m sure. If he monarch is under 18 and unmarried then custody rests with their mother. She is in charge of their well being.

The regent would be responsible for any royal duties of the monarch.

Also if the mother isn’t around then the next in line to care for them is the Regent

@lyralalala but as things stand if/when Charles becomes King he would have custody of Prince George, not William or Kate, so why wouldn’t that power transfer to the regent?

[quote SunbathingDragon]@lyralalala but as things stand if/when Charles becomes King he would have custody of Prince George, not William or Kate, so why wouldn’t that power transfer to the regent?[/quote]
I've no idea why it doesn't, but it doesn't.

Guardianship, &c. of Sovereign during Regency.

During a Regency, unless Parliament otherwise determines,—

(a)if the Sovereign is under the age of eighteen years, and unmarried, His mother, if she is living, shall have the guardianship of His person;

(b)if the Sovereign, being married, is under the age of eighteen years or has been declared under this Act to be incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions, the wife or husband of the Sovereign, if of full age, shall have the guardianship of the person of the Sovereign;

(c)the Regent shall, save in the cases aforesaid, have the guardianship of the person of the Sovereign; and the property of the Sovereign, except any private property which in accordance with the terms of any trust affecting it to be administered by some other person, shall be administered by the Regent.

The Regent only has custody if the mother of a child is not around. If she is she has custody and is in charge of personal care of the child. The Regent is in charge of royal duties on their behalf.

The legal guardianship of the person of the monarch (with the corresponding power to administer the private property of the sovereign) does not necessarily rest with the regent. However, if the none of the prospective guardians provided for in the statute exist, then, also according to the statute, the regent becomes the guardian of the sovereign. Accordingly, during a regency, the regent is the person invested with the royal authority, that discharges the royal functions on behalf of the monarch. The guardian, on the other hand, has the legal custody of the sovereign (who is either a minor or an incapacitated person) and the duty to care for the monarch's personal well being. The two roles may or may not be combined.

According to section 5 of the Regency Act 1937,[14] if the monarch is under the age of eighteen years and unmarried, then his or her mother, if living, shall have the guardianship of the monarch's person. On the other hand, if the sovereign is married, but is still under the age of eighteen years, or if the sovereign is a married adult, but has been declared incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions, then the wife or husband of the sovereign, if of full age, shall have the guardianship of the person of the monarch. In all other cases except the two situations described above (that is, if the sovereign is unmarried and under the age of eighteen years, but his mother is no longer living; or if the sovereign is married, but the wife or husband is not of full age; or if the sovereign has been declared incapable of performing the royal functions, but does not have a wife or husband), then the regent shall be the legal guardian of the monarch and shall have custody of his or her person, and the property of the sovereign, except any private property which in accordance with the terms of any trust affecting it is to be administered by some other person, shall be administered by the regent.

So Kate would be guardian and have custody, but not be Regent unless parliament decreed it.

And if the Queen was incapacitated Charles would be her Regent, but Philip would be her guardian. Which makes sense.