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.

Quite often the wife of the monarch had temporary regencies while the king was away - Catherine of Aragon in 1513 was regent for Henry VIII while he was in France

Yes, she was regent - and when Scotland was at war with England, Margaret Tudor was regent for her husband. So we had a Spanish Queen ruling England, and an English Queen ruling Scotland.
By all accounts, both capable women.

Constitutionally no-one is 'in-line' to be Regent - there have been all sorts of arrangements over the centuries, and it was usually down to who seemed the best person for the job.

Like Richard III was the best regent for the Princes in the Tower, as he had shown himself a strong, capable leader in the North, and loyal to his brother 😂

Seems reasonable to me. The poster had an interest in constitutional law, so was wondering if Harry would be in line to be regent as they personally do not think him a good fit. Doesn’t mean they don’t understand that he would in fact be regent if he was constitutionally in line to do so.

And Mary of Guise while her duaghter Mary Queen of Scots was a child (most of the time growing up in France)

The two sentences are connected. My reading and research about the constitution has lead me to think about the regency topic and how it's been enacted in the past. My opinion is that Harry would not make a good regent.
You may of course differ in your opinion.

Mary of Guise was another formidable woman.

She was indeed! Kept the show on the road in some very tricky circs...

Reading about Catherine of Aragon's capable regency during the war with Scotland has made me think that it's a pity she's only known for "failing to produce a male heir" and The King's Great Matter.

Doesn’t mean they don’t understand that he would in fact be regent if he was constitutionally in line to do so.

Any constitutional lawyer would also know very well that parliament was sovereign and would swiftly enact changes to the Regency Act if they were concerned that the person specified by the statute as Regent was an inappropriate choice.

Of course Margaret Tudor was not only regent for her husband James IV, but also, after Flodden, for her young son, James V.

I'm no expert but I don't think there is a constitutional line of heirs for a regency ?

However Harry definitely won't be now he no longer resides in the U.K.

And I agree with @Maireas , he would make an awful regent !

They are ( hopefully) only helpful stand ins for the under age king or queen, it's not a power grab ( although history teaches us it's happened in the past)

It seems that Andrew is next in line after Harry, that wouldn't go down well either and Beatrice after Andrew.

I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. By refusing to consider abdication, the Queen continued in the job long past the point at which she was no longer physically capable of actually doing important parts of it. Fortunately for the palace, she was compos mentis until the very end, so she could still do the bits of the job which entailed reading & signing bits of paper at home.

Given her physical incapacity, it’s obvious that detailed plans for a regency needed to be put into place in case they were needed.

The Line of Succession does not necessarily determine who would act as regent. As pp have said, contingency plans are no doubt already in place. There would be a committee, reporting to Parliament. Almost certainly Kate, possibly supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a previous PM, possibly Anne (speculation based on constitutional precedents).
As Serenster has pointed out, there are ways to ensure that no-one inappropriate takes the regency.
Parliament would pass a law The Regency Act (insert date). I would bet the Crown Jewels that neither Harry nor Andrew would be under consideration.

Indeed, @jeffgoldblum ! Fortunately, since the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights, (and subsequent constitutional reform) Parliament is sovereign.

Which In hindsight is , excellent news @Maireas !

But does their ability matter, as things stand? Just as we don't get to choose the monarch, the regent is something set out in the law isn't it? And unless they change that (as they did for Charles to put Philip in in place of Margaret), it's Harry. And if Harry isn't available - it's Andrew.

Philip was born royal and I believe in the line of succession in his own right albeit very far down. John Major was an ex Prime Minister. None of that applies to Kate.

Presumably for now they're just crossing their fingers rather than opening that can of worms.

No, @ColleenDonaghy . It won't be Harry or Andrew, see above.
Regency would be determined by Act of Parliament. They decide who would be an appropriate choice. It's not automatically about the Line of Succession.

Is that true? I'm no expert but I could've sworn I've read repeatedly that it's the next in the line of succession who's of age and living in the UK. So if Harry didn't move back, we would get Andrew.

How difficult it would be for the government to change that once an underage monarch was in place I don't know.

Cross post.

The 1937 regency act required that the Regent should be the next person in the line of succession if they are over 21 and in the UK. Phillip over Margaret was a specific change to the act in 1953 that the Queen had put in place to elevate Phillip's status. Certainly there could be another change to the act if needed but not sure about it being possible for a non-royal.

Ideally it would be next in Line of Succession, but not necessarily. If Parliament judged the next in line to be unsuitable, they would pass an Act determining who was regent.
The UK Parliament would never appoint Harry, he's not a UK resident, nor Andrew for obvious reasons.
It's a hereditary monarchy - however, it's a constitutional one.

Catherine, of course, grew up with a mother who was not only a queen in her own right but was successfully waging a war to restore Christianity to Spain. And she got quite bellicose with wanting to send the King of Scotland's bloodstained tabard to Henry and had to be talked out of it.

I've always thought that there was a distinct whiff of one upmanship there - 'see, I might be a woman but I can win a REAL battle, hun.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts

Wiki may not be the best of sources, but it agrees with my understanding.