Harry just protecting the other "spares"

[Magnoliasunrise]

Shocked to see in this mornings Telegraph that Harry is concerned for the other "spares" He just wants to break the bad parenting pattern and stop it happening to Charlotte or George. If I was W&K I would be absolutely LIVID by now. What does anyone else think?

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/prince-harry-interview-bryony-gordon-spare-book/

I’ve still not forgotten how my big sister got the ‘better’ bedroom when we were kids. Of course it wasn’t a castle and we didn’t have dozens to choose much grander scale).

A lot sounds like normal younger sibling gripes (but on a posher scale. He should try being the younger siblings to 5 brothers and sisters. There’d be a whole series of grumbling books on there.

I think from the linked video already involved?
www.theguardian.com/music/video/2019/feb/21/beyonce-jay-z-make-meghan-statement-brit-awards-video

I love the thought of David Beckham laying into him, it makes me very happy. Top bloke.

It's supposed to be the next adult in the line of succession - but they created an exception in 1953 for Philip instead of Margaret so Kate seems a distinct possibility

After Harry it would be Andrew then Beatrice before Eugenie, then Edward. I don't think they'd want to open the Andrew can of worms

No she wasn't. Andrew Parker Bowles is a Catholic and they were married in a Catholic church, but Camilla herself has always been Anglican.

I heard a constitutional historian talk about this recently, and he seemed to think that in such an eventuality, Kate would be Regent.

I wonder if the change has happened because he's dropped down the rankings? He realised he is becoming increasingly irrelevant and started panicking.

Nevermind the Beckham rumour. If you were A List why would you want to be friends with them anymore?

Harry sold out a lot more people than just his family in his book.

With the prospect of more books why would you risk exposing yourself to being an anecdote on page 126. Especially when you see the Royals as the real deal due to legitimacy and don't want to upset them.

Of course if you are another Z lister trying to be a hanger on makes good sense. It's a magnet for that type of chancer on the make.

The big thing about all these private parties and relationships is the unwritten rule that you don't grass to the press like this. Harry might not have done much more than other autobiographies do but the fall out is bigger due to the publicity.

Actually, I meant mistress or perhaps just a femme fatale. The princes always had aristocratic women like that in their inner circle, from a society background, often married to lesser nobles. I cannot think of the exact description but she obviously bothers the wives like no other.
She also conforms to the typical description of looking very frail and dainty and not really having any huge social or career ambitions. A lady with enough leisure time to reliably attend all their social gatherings.

I think there would need to be an Act of Parliament to allow Kate to be regent. According to this source:

The Regency Act of 1937 lays out who stands in for a Monarch in a range of situations where they can’t exercise their functions. It came into force in the first year of the reign of King George VI, when his heir was a ten year old princess called Elizabeth. Now the longest ruling Monarch in British history, the rules set up by her father still hold sway and here, Royal Central outlines what that means for the current House of Windsor.

When can a regent be appointed?

There are several circumstances in which the Act permits the implementation of a Regency. Listed first in this Act is the accession of an underage Monarch. If the throne passes to someone aged under eighteen, then a regent is appointed to rule for them until they reach the age of eighteen.

The second circumstance is the incapacity of the Monarch. If it is decided that they cannot carry out their functions, a regent is appointed until they are deemed capable of taking on their responsibilities again.

Who can be regent?

In its most simple interpretation, the Regency Act says that the next adult in the line of succession is regent providing they a British subject and resident in the United Kingdom. So in the case of the Queen needing a regent, The Prince of Wales would step in. If Charles needed a regent during his reign, as things stand, that would be The Duke of Cambridge. If either William or his children needed a regent, the role would pass to The Duke of Sussex.

Adult has two interpretations in this Act. Ordinarily, a regent must be aged 21 or over. However, the heir to the throne can act as regent from the age of 18 onwards.

Who can’t be regent?

The spouse or parent of a Monarch doesn’t necessarily have a role in their regency. The role must pass to someone in the line of succession. If a regent is deemed incapable or dies in office, the next adult in the succession who meets the criteria set out, takes their place. However, the guardianship of a Monarch under the age of 18 rests with their surviving parent while the guardianship of a ruler declared incapable rests with their spouse, if they have one.

What changes have been made to the Act?

In 1953, following the succession of The Queen, a change was made that allowed The Duke of Edinburgh to rule as regent should one of their children ascend the throne as a minor. Those changes ceased to have an effect once their children had reached adult age.

Harry would have to return home and be resident in the UK to be regent. If he does not, the next eligible adult in the line of succession would be Andrew. So yes, the RF really need to get this sorted out asap, just in case!

Time to remove Harry as counsellor of state too

There is already talk of amendments to laws related to the counsellors of state because of similar issues. I would imagine it's in progress. It's not actually a huge deal to change the law on this though. I get the impression there hadn't been a move on doing so because they were first waiting to see what the fall out from the book were and whether Harry were to be stripped of his titles / relinquish them of his own free will. I suspect the dirt will be allowed to settle for a couple of weeks and then things might happen.

They won't want anything to look like it's retribution for the book. They'll want it to look like it's just tidying up the loose ends of the rules.

There was a bill before Christmas that added Anne and Edward as counsellors of state. There was suggestion that they might remove Harry and Andrew but they didn’t.

Yes, that's what I was saying re the 1953 act for philip. It needs a specific act for it NOT to go to next adult in line of succession

That's a very clever interpretation, I like it.

It’s a little bit funny that the Telegraph article refers to Harry as the ‘most famous resident of Montecito or even the world’.

Before Meghan was introduced to Harry she wrote in her blog:

'Little girls dream of being princesses. I, for one, was all about She-Ra, Princess of Power. For those of you unfamiliar with the '80s cartoon reference, She-Ra is the twin sister of He-Man, and a sword-wielding royal rebel known for her strength. We're definitely not talking about Cinderella here. Grown women seem to retain this childhood fantasy. Just look at the pomp and circumstance surrounding the royal wedding and endless conversation about Princess Kate.'

Maybe in Meghan’s view, Kate is silly billy Cindy but Meghan is the rebellious magical princess heroine Meg-Ra who fights the evil ruler monarchy and transforms the world. The story was made into the Netflix series She-Ra and the Princesses of Power focusing its message on the necessity of taking action regardless of one's own power or circumstances. Maybe Meghan binge watched She-Ra with Harry and wants to save the world with Sussex Royal? 👸

@StatisticallyChallenged , do you know if this is done by private bill, or does it go before Parliament? I'm just wondering what the fall out might be if the succession line for regency is changed in a very public way. Although, having said that, I don't suppose there's any way to keep it out of the press and avoid another hoo-ha. I guess Harry being resident in Montecito and Andrew having his legal difficulties would be a simple enough explanation for such a change. There will be bleating from the Sussexes for sure.

No idea but it was very public last time.

They might just not do anything now as it only becomes an issue if Charles dies while George is still a child. So they could wait and only act if that happened.

Then they are basically betting on no accidents or similar killing Charles and William at the same time.

But wouldn't you love to crack a bottle of wine or two with Anne and discuss the current fiasco!!!!!!

Her and Sophie - that woman gives good side eye...

Then why is she now married to Charles? Wasn't it Andrew Parker Bowles who was the Catholic and their children were raised Catholic but Camilla never converted.

Let's have Zara there too if she can put Mike down!

Can I come? That sounds like a good night out.

As long as there's no popcorn, makes me heave!

That reminds me of when President Obama visited the Queen at Windsor and Phillip drove them to the castle in a land rover. It was made more confusing for Americans as Obama was shown to the passenger seat beside Phillip which would have been in drivers seat in American cars. They thought Obama was being expected to drive.