If Charles and William die before George is 18 who would you want as Regent?

[felulageller]

Kate?
Harry??
Andrew????

What a bunfight!

How ghoulish @felulageller, William is 41 and George is 9.

I know that law has changed now but the point is that when they made that decision surely the only reason for doing so was in case Peter ever got a shot of being Regent. Hence they must have anticipated the potential for male primogeniture to be retrospectively applied to Anne and Andrew.

The same criticisms were raised about Elizabeth and that turned out ok.

Beatrice has exactly the same position as she had when she was born, ie eldest child of the monarch's second son. Only difference is that in this generation, the first son has children and grandchildren who are now above her in the line of succession.

It doesn't matter about Charles and his poor sausage fingers, because William is the heir.
The problem is William dying before George is 18, not Charles.

Oh, and I've just really registered that the thread title is "who do you WANT" not who would be! In that case, Great-Aunt Anne or Zara, or maybe Harry who can show him that there are other options <g>

And then we can all argue over a President and end up with a shit one regardless

That's nothing to do with who would be regent for George.
That's the 4 people who can step on if Charles is unable to perform his duties. They would act as monarch.

Those 4 and the 4 next in line to the throne over the age of 21. That's why Anne is not included. She is further down the list because her brother's all had children and some of them have gone on to have children. She got bumped down the list so is no longer near enough to be in the top 4 over 21. She has previously been. She is eligible to be Queen. She would have bee if Charles, Andrew and Edward died before having kids. She would be in the top 4 if they hadn't had kids.

Catherine would be Counsellor of State and shed ve responsible for George’s welfare. She wouldn’t be regent without a change in the current rules.

Philip was made the potential regent for Charles, but he was in the line and that was because Princess Margaret was seen as irresponsible (and female) and the Duke of Gloucester, who was next in line, had already given up a lot when he was potential regent for Elizabeth.

I knew that Philip would have acted as Regent, but I didn't realise it was only possible because he was in the line of succession. Where would he have been? I assume in the hundreds?

I love the fact that there's always more to learn!

In normal circumstances Harry, but I doubt he'd be interested! So I guess that leaves Anne and Edward.

Assuming Charles and William died leaving Louis (and younger children under the age of 18), then I think the correct protocol for a Regent would be the next person in line (Harry), maybe with the cooperation of Catherine.
I personally think Edward and / or P. Anne would be best, as Harry does not live in the country.

It's probably already been decided and documented. The RF don't leave anything to chance.
It'll be either Edward or Catherine I reckon. Unless William and Charles both die in the next few years, Anne would be almost 80 and probably wouldn't want the hassle.

I agree

Louis' age is irrelevant - he's not the heir.

Anne for sure

Anne
Edward
Kate

Who would I WANT?

Anne & I think she would do it 'as her duty' until George is 18, despite not wanting to.

if for some reason she was unable, then Edward, but I think he would find it all too much.

To me, it doesn't feel right Kate doing it & it DEFINITELY shouldn't be Andrew, B&E & Z & P have no experience. NOT Harry.

I'm uncertain who would, but hopefully we'll never need to find out as it would be awful for Charles & William to both die before George is 18.

I wouldn't wish it on George at 18 either. I hope both Charles & William live long (healthy) lives.

Autumn would not have to renounce Catholicism nowadays. I'm fairly sure Royals can marry Catholics, they just can not be R.C themselves.

True. Prince Michael of Kent got dropped from the line of succession when he married a Catholic. He got popped back in when the rules changed.

Prince Philip being in the line of succession had nothing to do with the law change that would have made him regent. He was so far down as to make it totally irrelevant, although his being a prince by birth did make him suitable in the eyes of many. The law could be changed to make Catherine regent.

Lady Margaret Beaufort, a non-royal, was regent for her grandson, Henry VIII, who came to the throne a few months short of his 18th birthday.

Anne!

The thread title itself demonstrates exactly why the monarchy should be a thing of the past.

Elizabeth had known, from a fairly young age, that she was destined to be Queen and had been prepared for that role.

Beatrice has not been and would be totally thrown in at the deep end.

To be honest the biggest factor in that was that he had a penis. That was far more than him being in the succession.

That fact just stopped the complaints about a non-royal in the Regency position.

Technically an act of Parliament could make anyone Regent, but once you have one non-royal in that position then the questions of why does it have to be a royal at all begin. Which is dangerous for the royals

Beatrice has not been and would be totally thrown in at the deep end.

Which would be the same for Catherine so that would be a non-argument against Beatrice imo.