Palace considered putting Charles in as Regent as the Queen's health declined

[mamma65432]

https://uk.yahoo.com/style/palace-considered-putting-regent-throne-233044947.html

So it could have really been a possibility and could do again in the future, if William was King before George turns 18 then Harry would be (according to the rules) Regent for George.

I don't think that is any great surprise. Discussions would have clearly been uncomfortable but they did need some contingency plans given the Queen's determination never to abdicate.

Harry would never be regent for George.
Can you imagine?!
It would be changed so that Kate would be regent. There is a precedent, Princess Margaret was the potential regent for a young Charles, but that was changed to Philip.

Kate would never be regent, she’s not in the royal bloodline.

People may not like Harry and he may have stepped back and all that but no one can change who he was born as.

She would. It doesn't matter about "bloodline".
At one point, John Major was considered when William was still a minor.
Parliament is sovereign. I read a very interesting article by a constitutional historian in a history magazine.
Never, ever would Harry be allowed to be regent.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/kate-middleton-could-rule-monarchy-23797073
Not a recent article, but it explains who is involved in the decision making.

Yep...there doesn't need to be a bloodline.
I find it incredibly funny the thought of Harry doing his red boxes in Montecito.

Never, ever would Harry be allowed to be regent.

And he is probably relieved that it’s the case!
I wouldn’t want that job either, esp in the current circumstances.

@JustExistingNotLiving - oh I don't know, Harry's main complaint seems to be that he was the Spare not the heir. Plus, he's not been gifted with much self awareness. The good thing is that he's not a resident of the UK.

Hard to be the spare though isn’t it? What’s the point of you exactly? Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew, Edward and Harry have all seemed to struggle, albeit in different ways. Anne is the only one who seems well adjusted but I wonder if that’s because she had her equestrianism to give her purpose.

Hope Charlotte and Louis will do better.

Why would Harry want to come back here.

No, @Rockybooboo . It is not "shoehorn slagging off". It is a valid discussion about regency. That does not constitute "obsession". I am interested in politics and constitutional law. I do not think that Harry would be a capable regent. That is not "slagging off".

Good points. I think that the key is to find positive aspects to your work. If you are part of an hereditary monarchy, then you'll have to understand how it works and how positions change.

Seems fairly standard contingency planning.

There will be similar plans in place for e.g. sudden death of senior government ministers, catastrophic attack on the government, 9/11 type scenarios etc basically anything which could predictably cause a problem for the on-going tasks of running the country - especially where an individual IS the role, rather than a temporary occupant.

What is the point of you? What is the point of any of us? You make the best of the considerable opportunities at your fingertips. If that was me, I’d have been studying, researching and writing about history, knowing I had the freedom not to have to make money, having guaranteed publishing deals and having the kind of access to archives ordinary historians can only dream of. Anne had an obvious passion for equestrianism and followed it. Charles, although not the spare, had a clear passion for environmental issues and followed those. Half the problem is children brought up to think of nothing other than their inner self or material self and what they don’t have, rather being encouraged to develop goals and interests that take them outside of themsrlves, and find enrichment elsewhere.

They did this in all but name, as Charles had taken on 95% of her duties by the end.

Yes, I think he was regent in all but name.

It’s clear that the Palace staff were very well prepared for what could happen with an elderly Queen (the book extracts currently being serialised in the Mail state that Charles had a “London Bridge” folder with him at Dumfries which he read as he was flown back to Balmoral on the day the Queen died, and the Palace team had prepared a video of what an accession council would look like, and what would happen, which Charlie’s and William watched in the evening after the Queen’s death).

I imagine that’s the tip of the iceberg in terms of their planning, and I am not remotely surprised that it also covered a regency.

No one is slagging Harry off on here.

They are questioning his suitability to be regent as far as I can see?

He is probably not as suitable as he might have been. He isn’t here for one. And he doesn’t want to be part of the establishment and has vented his displeasure at other members of the family for another. His choices.

Only one seems to be obsessed here. And it isn’t anyone who is rationally And calmly discussing matters. 🪨 🌱

I think it’s quite sad that, knowing their mother is dying, someone has to familiarise themselves with what the procedure of what happens next, instead of just being able to appreciate their last moments.

I also rather randomly wonder if they will keep the name “London Bridge “ for when the King passes away 🤔

I would have been shocked if that hadn't been the case tbh.

It was obvious to everyone for at least the year before HMTQ died how much frailer she was, and became glaring from the death of Philip onwards. Her reduced appearances at the Plaitnum Jubilee just confirmed it. Charles became much more visible in that last year - he attended the State Opening of Parliament in her place.

As a PP said, it's pretty standard contingency planning.

If anything were to happen to Charles then obviously William would be Regent. In the case of George, then it definitely wouldn't be Harry, more likely a combination of Catherine, and selected Counsellors of State (Edward and Anne mainly I would imagine, if alive).

It wouldn't be Harry as he's now so far removed from the Palace (geographically & ideologically) it wouldn't be functional. It wouldn't be like previous Regency's with an underage King (am I right in thinking the last one is Edward VI?) The GBP would fully expect his Mother to be his Regent - not an estranged Uncle who lies overseas and whom he hasn't seen for years.

Hopefully, we will never have to witness another Regeny though, although it is an interesting discussion.

oh I’d quite to be able to legitimately say I live in regency times and swan about in a floaty white muslin nightie.

@AmazingBouncingFerret 😂oh goodness, me too (back in the day when I had the figure for it....! now I would look like an enormous floaty muslin tent...)

It wouldn't be like previous Regency's with an underage King (am I right in thinking the last one is Edward VI?) The GBP would fully expect his Mother to be his Regent - not an estranged Uncle who lies

Victoria came pretty close - William IV died less than a month after she turned 18. He had been determined to survive long enough to stop Victoria’s mother becoming Regent (so, even back in 1837, the monarch’s mother was seen as the likely choice of a Regent).

@Maireas "am interested in politics and constitutional law. I do not think that Harry would be a capable regent."
These two sentences seem unconnected. An interest in politics and constitutional law is about who is constitutionally in line to be regent, not who is the best person for the job