Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Original poster

A silly question for you

76 replies

Dustyblue · 18/12/2021 05:02

I had a peculiar dream about the royal family last night and it got me thinking.

I don't wish to be morbid or wish anyone harm, but let's imagine:

  • The Queen dies, Charles ascends the throne
  • Not too long after, Charles dies, William ascends the throne
  • Via some awful tragedy, William dies young.

Would an underage George be King?

Told you it was silly. Just wondering if it could possibly happen to have a teenaged King.

OP posts:
urbanbuddha · 18/12/2021 05:10

Yes, George would be king. If underage in olden times a regent would have been appointed and I assume that's still the case. Most likely his mother would be regent until George came of age. There have been infant kings and queens, like Mary, Queen of Scots whose father died when she was still a baby.

Original poster
Dustyblue · 18/12/2021 05:21

Very interesting, I knew it had been done before but wasn't sure of the history.

So, George would be like a King in Training with his mother as the real power? Wow. I suppose it could work?

OP posts:
urbanbuddha · 18/12/2021 05:28

Well, I think his mother would be more like the administrator rather than the real power. He would be king. I think she would still have to curtsey to him, for instance.(Assuming that curtseying had outlasted the present Queen, and Charles, and William.)

urbanbuddha · 18/12/2021 05:35

And king - or queen - is basically a ceremonial role. They have no power now.

Bubblty · 18/12/2021 05:37

Yes

Original poster
Dustyblue · 18/12/2021 05:41

Yes, I guess there isn't any real power as such.

Still, I find the idea bizarre. Imagine curtseying to your 15 year old.

A smart-arsed pimply teenager sitting on the throne.

Appearing at the House of Lords.

It all seems a bit ridiculous, but my imagination is getting away from me.

OP posts:
Driposaurus · 18/12/2021 05:45

The point of the monarchy is that there is always a king or queen. The moment one breathes their last, the next one is it. There isn’t any choice at handover: you are either, or you’re not. That’s why conversations of it “skipping” a generation don’t work - the divine magic imaginary powers that make the Queen the Queen will make Charles the King straight afterwards.

There are been many cases in history where people have been required to serve a teenage (or younger) monarch. Not all have ended particularly well…

Aroundtheworldin80moves · 18/12/2021 06:00

I would guess Kate, Edward, Zara, even Harry would cover the day to day stuff while George finishes school and university.

urbanbuddha · 18/12/2021 06:03

Don't think Harry could be involved. He's no longer HRH.

Original poster
Dustyblue · 18/12/2021 07:26

If I had to choose a Regent for teenage King George, I think I'd pick Princess Anne. She seems a sensible sort and is a bloody hard worker.

George is her, what.. Great Nephew? Close enough. Not convinced throwing this at Kate would be ideal.

I don't know why I'm fascinated with this, I'll get over it.

OP posts:
WinnieTheW0rm · 18/12/2021 07:31

Would an underage George be King?

Yes

And you don't get to choose the Regent as a popularity poll.

It would normally be either the surviving parent (I don't see that as being acceptable, unless it was only for a very short time) or it would be who is next in the succession.

Prince Harry can be excluded on the grounds that he is not domiciled in UK (at some point he could be removed as a counsellor of state for that reason) and then next is Prince Andrew. If he has the enough sense to decline the role, then it's Princess Beatrice.

thamesriviera · 18/12/2021 07:49

Next in succession after George is his little sister Charlotte, then Louis, then Harry and his even younger kids.

Regent likely to be Catherine as his mother.

WinnieTheW0rm · 18/12/2021 07:59

Sorry, I should have been more specific - I meant following the line of succession of those who are age qualified to be Regent. I think it's age 21.

Original poster
Dustyblue · 18/12/2021 08:03

@WinnieTheW0rm

Would an underage George be King?

Yes

And you don't get to choose the Regent as a popularity poll.

It would normally be either the surviving parent (I don't see that as being acceptable, unless it was only for a very short time) or it would be who is next in the succession.

Prince Harry can be excluded on the grounds that he is not domiciled in UK (at some point he could be removed as a counsellor of state for that reason) and then next is Prince Andrew. If he has the enough sense to decline the role, then it's Princess Beatrice.

Sorry, I was joking about choosing a Regent by popular vote (shudder at the thought really!)

Do you mean that King George would remain, but the next in line of succession (as is feasible) would be the Regent? So skipping Harry, then Andrew, the Regent must be Beatrice.

Fascinating!

OP posts:
Bellevu · 18/12/2021 08:07

@urbanbuddha

Don't think Harry could be involved. He's no longer HRH.
Harry is still a HRH. Just not using it.

Andrew is also still a HRH by the way.

LadyPerseverance · 18/12/2021 08:28

I don’t feel the monarchy would last if we had underage King or Queen. I think it would be too absurd for people to accept in this day and age. It might work if the correct person was chosen as regent but in the current line up I think the only logical choice would be Kate, who isn’t royal born (although that’s not always been a problem in the past unless there’s factions at court).

I feel like if Andrew somehow became Regent it would all become very ‘princes in the tower’ ala “Charles isn’t Will & Harry’s biological father and therefore George isn’t really the King. Whose next in line? What me? Well okay then if you insist…” 😆

Maireas · 18/12/2021 09:32

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

I would guess Kate, Edward, Zara, even Harry would cover the day to day stuff while George finishes school and university.
Harry will be covering nothing.
Maireas · 18/12/2021 09:34

As pp have said, there is always a monarch. If that monarch is a minor, then a regent is in place.
There is a privy council as well.
Have no fear of a teenager making decisions of state!

julieca · 18/12/2021 14:17

In reality when a child has been on the throne, and I mean younger than 15, then the adult who looks after them has the real power.
The RF does have power. Otherwise, they would not have been excluded from laws.
But since early mortality is rare these days in Britain, it is very unlikely to happen.

EdithWeston · 18/12/2021 14:40

The people who can carry out monarchical functions when the monarch can't (overseas, incapacitated) are the Counsellors of Stare and they are the Consort (if the monarch appoints them to that role, optional) plus the first four adults in the line of succession. So at present it's Charles, William, Harry and Andrew.

Thus needs tidying up, as Harry is domiciled abroad (an existing grounds for suspension from the role) and then what dondonsbout Andrew? Also is 4 the right number at present? Any changes, other than the possible suspension of Harry which is already provided for, would need parliament's consent

SenecaFallsRedux · 18/12/2021 14:52

Yes, as others have pointed out, Harry is still HRH.

If a minor (under 18) becomes monarch, there is a regency until the monarch turns 18. Under the regency act currently in effect, the regent would be the person over the age of 21 who is the closest in line to the throne. That person would be Harry, and after him, Andrew, and then Beatrice, and Eugenie. But the act also requires that the regent be domiciled in the UK so Harry would be disqualified unless he moved back to the UK.

The Act could be amended, for example, to make Kate regent. Something similar happened in 1953 when the Act was amended to allow Prince Philip to be regent during the minority of his children; otherwise the regent would have been Princess Margaret.

urbanbuddha · 19/12/2021 21:41

Under the regency act currently in effect, the regent would be the person over the age of 21 who is the closest in line to the throne.

But wouldn't that be his mother @SenecaFallsRedux as in this hypothetical scenario she would be queen?

EdithWeston · 20/12/2021 12:47

@urbanbuddha

Under the regency act currently in effect, the regent would be the person over the age of 21 who is the closest in line to the throne.

But wouldn't that be his mother @SenecaFallsRedux as in this hypothetical scenario she would be queen?

(different poster interloping)

No, because she would be queen consort, not monarch - she is not in the line of succession herself

But, it could be her, as there is precedent for adding consort both as potential regent and as counsellor of state.

And of course you can have a hybrid, in which the surviving parent takes charge of the upbringing of the monarch, but someone else performs the constitutional duties and the running of all the property

SenecaFallsRedux · 20/12/2021 12:52

@urbanbuddha

Under the regency act currently in effect, the regent would be the person over the age of 21 who is the closest in line to the throne.

But wouldn't that be his mother @SenecaFallsRedux as in this hypothetical scenario she would be queen?

No, because she would have been only Queen Consort, with no claim to the throne in her own right. And once her husband died, she would no longer be Queen, but Queen Mother or Queen Dowager, but more likely known simply as Queen Catherine (as opposed to the Queen.)

The Regency Acts refer to people who are in the line of succession to be monarchs in their own right.

SenecaFallsRedux · 20/12/2021 12:54

Cross-post with EdithWeston. Smile