Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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 · 20/12/2021 21:05

@EdithWeston, @SenecaFallsRedux

Thank you. That makes perfect sense.

Viviennemary · 20/12/2021 21:08

There will be something in place for all scenarios. A regent till the heir comes of age.

latetothefisting · 20/12/2021 21:18

If I'm right, the last underage monarch in UK was Edward VI, who succeeded age 9 and died aged 15. He had a 'regency council' rather than one person, which may be the way to go.

He would technically be King but I imagine wouldn't take full control until he is 21 - that's the age Charles was invested as Prince of Wales. Although Queen Victoria was only 18 so he could take over earlier. The heir to the Dutch throne just turned 18 and did an interview saying if her father died unexpectedly she would still want her mother to act as regent for a good few years yet www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59516157

Santahatesbraisedcabbage · 20/12/2021 21:22

Well according to royal info Charlotte keeps George in check so she may be his right hand woman!!.
Behind every successful man and all that!

EdithWeston · 20/12/2021 21:40

The letters patent which created Charles as Orince of Wales were issued in July 1958, when he was not yet 10, but the investiture was held in July 1969. The ceremonial bit is optional, and done when the ceremony is wanted.

It's not dissimilar from Charles being king immediately (the confirmation of the Queen's death will be a proclamation 'The Queen is dead, long live the King') and the coronation following. A fatherless George will be King, but need not be crowned until later

George would take the full role at 18

Wiki on the Regency Acts is worth reading
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts

SenecaFallsRedux · 21/12/2021 01:06

If I'm right, the last underage monarch in UK was Edward VI, who succeeded age 9 and died aged 15.

And before him, his father Henry VIII, who was two months short of his 18th birthday when he succeeded. His regent was his paternal grandmother, Lady Margaret Beaufort.

urbanbuddha · 21/12/2021 03:06

If I'm right, the last underage monarch in UK was Edward VI, who succeeded age 9 and died aged 15.

Well, England. Mary, Queen of Scots was six days old when her father died.

EdithWeston · 21/12/2021 07:28

Mention of Henry VIII reminded me there also the appointments of regent if the monarch is overseas.

Barely more than a formality these days in the age of global communications, it was important when kings (and it was the kings) went off on overseas campaigns which lasted months in the days when communications couid take days to get through.

Henry VIII appointed Katherine of Aragon as his Regent for six months in 1513, and she led the army to Scotland.

Tinsellittis · 21/12/2021 07:35

@urbanbuddha

Don't think Harry could be involved. He's no longer HRH.
Yes he is
thedarkling · 21/12/2021 07:53

I'm reeling at the thought of Prince Andrew as regent. Let's hope William stops flying those helicopters around.

SenecaFallsRedux · 21/12/2021 13:43

@urbanbuddha

If I'm right, the last underage monarch in UK was Edward VI, who succeeded age 9 and died aged 15.

Well, England. Mary, Queen of Scots was six days old when her father died.

But Mary was not the last monarch of Scotland to succeed as a minor. Her son James VI (and later James I of England) became King of Scots at the age of one, when Mary was forced to abdicate.
Original poster
Dustyblue · 24/12/2021 05:24

@thedarkling

I'm reeling at the thought of Prince Andrew as regent. Let's hope William stops flying those helicopters around.
That made me snort my Xmas Eve cocktail all over myself. Cheers!
OP posts:
Viviennemary · 24/12/2021 10:40

I think Andrew should be removed from the line of succession. Also Harry and his heirs as they are not permanently domiciled in the ,UK

RoyalFamilyFan · 24/12/2021 11:13

No. Either it is a hereditary monarchy or we get to choose a President. You get who comes next.

EdithWeston · 24/12/2021 15:37

Neither Harry nor Andrew can be removed from the succession unless they personally choose to relinquish it.

Harry could be removed from the role of Counsellor of State (someone who is formally allowed to stand in for the monarch) and of any potential role as a Regent, whilst he is domiciled overseas.

SenecaFallsRedux · 24/12/2021 17:00

To remove Andrew or Harry (and Harry's children) from the line of succession would likely require an Act of Parliament. Under the current law (Succession to the Crown Act 2013), there are two circumstances that would remove someone automatically: by becoming a Roman Catholic or (if one of the first 6 in line) by marrying without the Queen's permission. Of course, upon succeeding, anyone who didn't want the job could abdicate.

diddl · 27/12/2021 16:14

It's all very interesting isn't it?

I do wonder how important it is to them all to be in the line of succession.

Wasn't it Peter Philips wife who renounced Catholicism so that he could stay in line?

Becles · 28/12/2021 00:25

If Harry and his children are removed from the line of succession, it'd be interesting to see how the British government (and royals) spin how totally unmotivated by race or spite the decision was to the black and brown parts of the commonwealth (and non-White UK citizens).

That's a press release I'd love to read.

RoyalFamilyFan · 28/12/2021 00:29

They won't be removed from the line of succession.

EdithWeston · 28/12/2021 07:40

There is no reason to remove Harry from the succession. Being domiciled overseas could be grounds to remove him as Counsellor of State and as eligibility as a Regent but nit from the succession. So unless he wishes to relinquish (which he can choose to do at any time) then he stays out.

However, Harry could only relinquish his place and that of any as yet future unborn children (same pattern as Edward VIII's abdication). Archie and Lili were born in to the succession in their own right, and only they can choose to relinquish their place

Viviennemary · 28/12/2021 12:12

There is every reason to remove Harry and his heirs from the line of succession. We could end up with a Head of State that has hardly lived in this country. It needs to be done IMHO. He did not even want to be a working royal. So why on earth would he ever want to be King.

RoyalFamilyFan · 28/12/2021 12:14

Because succession is not about whether you think somebody as an individual has earned the right to be King or Queen. It is totally based on who was born next.

upinaballoon · 28/12/2021 12:24

I know it was a long time ago, but I don't think George I spent all his life in this country, but he was next in line at the time, I suppose.

Classicblunder · 28/12/2021 12:29

My guess would be that Edward would be regent in that scenario.

Don't think it would be Kate as she isn't blood royalty. Harry and Andrew are unsuitable, Anne would be too old, Beatrice and Eugenie don't have the enthusiasm and have been pushed out by Charles. Leaves Edward

NarcissaMalfoysManicure · 28/12/2021 12:33

Don’t give Kate any ideas!

Swipe left for the next trending thread