A silly question for you

[Dustyblue]

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.

@Classicblunder, whether they are unsuitable, is totally irrelevant.
The whole point of the monarchy is we don't choose.
If we can choose why would we not just have a president?

@Classicblunder

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

Not quite - for Regency it follows the line of succession of those aged over 21

So Harry (maybe, domiciled overseas so potentially ineligible) Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Anne, Peter, Zara (add Louise after Edward if I've got it wrong and it's 18 not 21)

It's really not about choice or inclination

*So Harry (maybe, domiciled overseas so potentially ineligible) Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Anne, Peter, Zara (add Louise after Edward if I've got it wrong and it's 18 not 21)

It's really not about choice or inclination*

Well it kind of is - I think Andrew post scandal would turn it down, as would his daughters, so it would end up with Edward

[quote RoyalFamilyFan]@Classicblunder, whether they are unsuitable, is totally irrelevant.
The whole point of the monarchy is we don't choose.
If we can choose why would we not just have a president?[/quote]
But it's about who is regent not monarch - there is much more discretion around regents

@Becles

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.

Why would any spin be needed to be put on it?

Harry decided to give up his royal duties.

If Charles keels over before the Queen we'd have Andrew on the throne. Cripes.

@Felsham

If Charles keels over before the Queen we'd have Andrew on the throne. Cripes.

No we wouldn't - it would still pass to William. For Andrew to ascend the following would have to die or abdicate:

Charles
William
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Archie
Lilibet

... so highly unlikely this will happen.

Does the regent have to be a royal? Of the top of my head I know that Edward VI’s regent was his maternal (non royal) Uncle, Edward Seymour. But that caused court factions and ended up in his uncles both being executed 😬

And didn’t Isabella of France rule as regent for her son when she and her lover deposed Edward II? She had royal blood but she wasn’t an English royal.

Imagine a Middleton regent! They seem relatively stable and close compared to the royal family. All those gossip columns who painted Carole Middleton as a gold digging Mrs Bennet type would be frothing at the mouth 😆

@upinaballoon

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.

George I didn't arrive in the UK until he succeeded to the throne at the age of 54, I believe. He spoke English but it was not his first language by a long shot. He went back to Hanover a lot during his 13 years on the throne.

Does the regent have to be a royal?

No - it can be anyone. Kate would be a possibility - or they might prefer a direct descent Royal such as Edward or even one of the York princesses - the latter used to be keen to take on an official role.

I wonder if pressure is being exerted on Andrew to leave the country so he will also be removed as a counsellor of state on grounds of not being domiciled here. He would probably be keen to find a place with no extradition treaty to the US. There are a surprisingly large number if this list is accurate. www.offshore-protection.com/offshore-blog/non-extradition-countries-the-best-place-to-run-to

The various Regency Acts mean that a Regent will only be the surviving parent (unlikely today as there are no more dynastic alliances) or those high in the line of succession (or a hybrid - parent plus one, or a council)

And I think Parliament must approve

I think Andrew post scandal would turn it down

One would hope so, but we can't count on that

[quote Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]I wonder if pressure is being exerted on Andrew to leave the country so he will also be removed as a counsellor of state on grounds of not being domiciled here. He would probably be keen to find a place with no extradition treaty to the US. There are a surprisingly large number if this list is accurate. www.offshore-protection.com/offshore-blog/non-extradition-countries-the-best-place-to-run-to[/quote]
I imagine the idea of Andrew tucked away somewhere out of sight will be highly desirable to almost all concerned. But he is reputedly the Queen's favourite son so I'm not sure he would distance himself so soon after she was widowed, when her health hasn't been great, and at a time when travel is prone to be interrupted at short notice due to Covid.

I have a hunch that when the dread day comes and we no longer have HMQ, Andrew's protected position will change markedly for the worse.

If William IV had died before Victoria was 18, her mother, the Duchess of Kent, would have been Regent (Regency Act 1830) William loathed her (I think it was mutual) and was determined to last until Victoria was 18, which he did by a few weeks.

I think we could do a lot worse than the Duchess of Cambridge as Regent, TBH, both personally and because I think it is usually healthier to have someone out of the succession in the role.

The last regent was actually George IV who ruled as Prince Regent twice (in 1788-89 and in 1811 - 1820) before ascending to the throne in his own right (hence the time period known as the Regency era). However in this case it was because of the mental instability of his father (George III).

I think the next Regent will be Prince Charles, some time after 6 February - possibly after the events planned for June

The Queen will move into almost total retirement, but we might still see her on Remembrance Sunday, for the Christmas speech and at the races and Windsor Horse Show and other things she did because she actually liked them

I'm not sure Charles would want to take the formal title of Regent - although I suppose there is a precedent with George III - but as POW he has already taken on some of the Queen's duties.

The regent does not have to be royal, but under the laws governing regency currently in effect, the regent does have to be in the line of succession. So a new law would need to be enacted for Kate to be regent.

Something similar was done to make it possible for Prince Philip to be regent during a possible minority of his children. Philip was royal, but not the person age 21 or older next in the line of succession. That person at the time was Princess Margaret.

the person age 21 or older next in the line of succession

So that would be Charles by default if we are talking about the Queen 'standing down'.

In the OP's original scenario where Charles and William sadly die before George is of age, the next person would be Harry - but he is domiciled outside the UK which might rule him out.

After Harry comes Andrew (!) If that didn't work out (ahem!) the next person would be Beatrice.

There's no reason to think Beatrice wouldn't make an adequate regent as far as I know.

There's no reason to think Beatrice wouldn't make an adequate regent as far as I know.

I agree. The same for Eugenie. And, of course, I have no way of knowing, but I don't think either would refuse to serve.

@urbanbuddha

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.)

it has nothing at all to do with his mother, george would be king, but for the day to day running of thing until george turned 18 there would be a prince regent which would normally be the next in line over the age of 18

Yes, the Regent would take over for things like meetings with the Prime Minister, the state opening of Parliament and so on - things that are traditionally always the monarch rather than another Royal.

@ArblemarzipanTFruitcake

Yes, the Regent would take over for things like meetings with the Prime Minister, the state opening of Parliament and so on - things that are traditionally always the monarch rather than another Royal.

Also to appoint a Prime Minister and to give Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament.

And to do all the diplomatic stuff that usually goes unreported

And to oversee the proper running of all the property