Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Would Harry become king in these circumstances?

42 replies

Landseer · 20/01/2023 13:49

Say William and all 3 kids walked away from the royal family (or god forbid, something happened to all of them)

would Harry be king?

OP posts:
Theskyoutsideisblue · 21/01/2023 00:34

Definitely Anne but can you imagine her no nonsense approach. Coronation what coronation . Too busy actually getting stuff done ffs

NameChange005 · 21/01/2023 01:26

Papyrus · 20/01/2023 21:03

The Regency Act of 1953 named Prince Philip as potential regent for Prince Charles. So I expect we'll see the act amended again in due course and Catherine named as regent if any of her children need one.

Wasn't Philip in the line of succession in his own right, though? Not sure it makes a difference. And in any case, hopefully nobody would be needed as this is all speculation!

LuluBlakey1 · 21/01/2023 01:56

William can only remove himself from the the line of succession, not make the decision for his children.

SenecaFallsRedux · 21/01/2023 02:19

NameChange005 · 21/01/2023 01:26

Wasn't Philip in the line of succession in his own right, though? Not sure it makes a difference. And in any case, hopefully nobody would be needed as this is all speculation!

Philip was so far down in the order of succession as to be completely inconsequential. He was named prospective regent primarily because he was the father of the children who might have succeeded the Queen as minors. Catherine would be an entirely appropriate choice for regent, and more appropriate than several people in the line of succession.

vera99 · 21/01/2023 02:21

GloomyDarkness · 20/01/2023 14:19

I'm not sure though whether William can really legally abdicate on behalf of his children.

I've seen that even abdicating on your own behalf - requires first that the incumbent dies when you automatically become king and then an act of parliamnet like the Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.

This is because when we ran out of Stuarts - parliament was involved in choosing the next monarch . They wanted to skip Catholics - but also they skipped several protestant claimants. They avoided all of Charles I children and when to back to James I (VI of Scotland) daughter - I always assumed Sophia of Hanover was only child or eldest - but no she had ten older siblings.

The line of succession is regulated by parliament first by Act of Succession 1700 and then Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and can be changed only by parliament.

So he'd have to inheritance crown - then work with parliamnet to get act though to disinheritance and then they'd have to take legal advice as to whether they could take crown from his children. Give Harry current low popularity and his lack of sense round security can't see parliament really wanting to work to put him in the main spot.

So William would have to die - and all three of his children and Kate not be pg with any other heirs then Harry could get the crown as he is still in line of succession - provided parliamnet didn't amend the act to avoid him but currently after Harry and his two children there is Andrew who would be even more unpalatable.

In those circumstances I think we are on threshold of historic abolition and a citizenry that will become awakened by the prospect of revolutionary change. All rights that we the people possess have not been given but taken over the centuries by an organised and enlightened populace often with violent reprcussions from the establishment with the monarchical system at it's head.

oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-paine-on-the-absurdity-of-an-hereditary-monarchy-1791

We have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling system; but the only system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the hereditary monarchical system. It is a system of mental levelling. It indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality, good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the abject state of the human mind in monarchical countries, when the government itself is formed on such an abject levelling system?—It has no fixed character. To-day it is one thing; to-morrow it is something else. It changes with the temper of every succeeding individual, and is subject to all the varieties of each. It is government through the medium of passions and accidents. It appears under all the various characters of childhood, decrepitude, dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in crutches. It reverses the wholesome order of nature. It occasionally puts children over men, and the conceits of non-age over wisdom and experience. In short, we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents.

NameChange005 · 21/01/2023 02:26

I'm not disputing that Catherine would be the best choice- I'm just curious if a Regent technically has to be in the line of succession themselves? I'm not sure if an exception was made for Philip because he was, as normally (from what I can gather) they would have to be the next adult in the line of succession. Obviously Harry and Andrew would be controversial choices!
(of course, the laws in such a case could easily be changed anyway, so it doesn't really matter too much)

SenecaFallsRedux · 21/01/2023 02:33

I'm just curious if a Regent technically has to be in the line of succession themselves?

No, they don't. Regency is governed by acts of Parliament. Parliament can make a new law governing regency when circumstances require it and choose whomever they think is appropriate. The line of succession is also determined by Parliament, so they can change that as well.

SenecaFallsRedux · 21/01/2023 02:49

Historically Lady Margaret Beaufort - who founded Tudor dynasty was supposed to be barred from Royal succession and she manged to get her son on the throne

And apropos of the discussion on this thread, she also managed to become regent for her grandson Henry VIII, who succeeded as a minor.

vera99 · 21/01/2023 03:47

SenecaFallsRedux · 21/01/2023 02:49

Historically Lady Margaret Beaufort - who founded Tudor dynasty was supposed to be barred from Royal succession and she manged to get her son on the throne

And apropos of the discussion on this thread, she also managed to become regent for her grandson Henry VIII, who succeeded as a minor.

In that era the Middletons would probably have got nowhere near the throne and if they had would be at under continual threat from noble families that saw the arrivistes at threatening their power and influence. Harry would probably be raising armies in the regions to fight his brother for the throne. I can see the Scots and Welsh fighting under his banner and maybe a northern Lord or two. Meghan would be an inconsequential strumpet destined for ignominy.

Blueemeraldagain · 21/01/2023 03:51

Who is/would be Prince George’s Regent? I assume it’s different if King (as he would be) William passed away (then it would be Catherine?) vs an abdication? This

vera99 · 21/01/2023 04:06

There is a concept of elective monarchy and also referendum to determine whether the citizenry still want a monarchy. I think we need a white paper drafted initially by retired volunteers. Happy to help .....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Norwegian_monarchy_referendum

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

WinnieTheW0rm · 21/01/2023 06:30

The isn't a chance of a referendum unless/until there is a question which is believed (though representative polling) be be in need of settling.

Remember the Australian referendum of the 1990s - was expected to be a mere formality as there was, apparently, such a strong level of republicanism at every turn. The country voted to 'retain'

There isn't anything like the Aussie levels of sentiment

(PS ever noted that along with places like Sweden, Wiki already describes UK as a "crowned Republic" because of the wider constiitutional arrangements and role of parliament?)

vera99 · 21/01/2023 06:53

WinnieTheW0rm · 21/01/2023 06:30

The isn't a chance of a referendum unless/until there is a question which is believed (though representative polling) be be in need of settling.

Remember the Australian referendum of the 1990s - was expected to be a mere formality as there was, apparently, such a strong level of republicanism at every turn. The country voted to 'retain'

There isn't anything like the Aussie levels of sentiment

(PS ever noted that along with places like Sweden, Wiki already describes UK as a "crowned Republic" because of the wider constiitutional arrangements and role of parliament?)

Thanks for the heads up I know little about Australian politics but I can imagine it going the other way now since the Queen died anyway I suspect it is a given in the medium term and probably the same with Canada and New Zealand as well. National pride doesn't need a remote, unaccountable, hereditary head of state to function. When these finally happen as sure they will, they could serve as good templates for how to effect and manage constitutional change back here in the 'home' country.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_Australia

WinnieTheW0rm · 21/01/2023 07:00

Yes, there has been talk of another referendum now that 30-odd years has passed. It's been pretty for about the last decade that there will be another, but it would not be during the reign of ER II

They've already said it won't be for at least 2 years.

I don't think there is anything like the same strength of feeling in either Canada or New Zealand

EdithWeston · 21/01/2023 07:04

Blueemeraldagain · 21/01/2023 03:51

Who is/would be Prince George’s Regent? I assume it’s different if King (as he would be) William passed away (then it would be Catherine?) vs an abdication? This

I posted about this a bit earlier in the thread.

It would ordinarily follow the adult line of succession (set out in law) so Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie. But I don't think any of those should have the role (Harry is already potentially excluded as resident overseas, Andrew needs to relinquish, and next to have never been working royals so should relinquish as well). Co-regency of Edward and Anne would be best bet (both experienced, both ad hominem Counsellors of State) with Catherine retaining responsibility for George's upbringing and education.

x2boys · 25/01/2023 10:26

Tontostitis · 20/01/2023 17:57

No I really don't think he would because even the staunchly Royalists would demand Parliament amend the sucession or at worst dissolve the Monarchy. Parliament can, and has, changed the Line of Succession (re above posts ontge Stuart line) and that traitorous lying buffoon will never get near the throne no matter what happens. We have Anne's family, Edwards family, Bea and Eugenie all able to take the Crown if Parliament okays it so that's what would happen.
Our Royals have a grace and favour position that is essential in the running of our country but we don't have to accept them if we don't want them

People have very short memories ,there was a time when King Charles was extremely unpopular and people said he should abdicate in favour of William ,and many people said they would never accept Camilla as Queen Consort ,yet here we are
personally I'm a republican but this is the system we have and it's not going to be changed because people on mumsnet don't like H&M.

ACynicalDad · 25/01/2023 23:11

It does concern me that William flies his whole family around in a helicopter. We are just some power cables from King Henry.

Whilst we accepted Charles, I never had a great problem with him, I think Harry or Andrew would push us towards a republic.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page