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.

Spot on, @MrsDanversGlidesAgain .
She was definitely her mother's daughter.

No, you're right, it's not a great source.
It's not automatic, it's determined by Parliament.
Parliament is sovereign.

It is an interesting idea. The Queen appeared to be in good mental health; ie had all her mental capacities. However, one has to consider if the monarch developed dementia.
So, we have had a regent before (George IV), and could have one again. I think if it were the case that Harry was ever in the running to be a Regent, the Government would cast around for the next likeliest person. Maybe Edward, etc

William IV as very concerned about Sir John Conroy too, who was very much the Duchess of Kent's (Victoria's mother) handler and ruler over her household in Kensington Palace. His nefarious influence over the regent could have led to political and financial disaster. One more reason why the regency can't be handed over lightly - the government needs to look at all influences over the regent and the company they keep; as well as how they personally might treat the child monarch in question and ensure their development and well-being. Drug addled, bitter man with self confessed mental health issues isn't a good fit for a regent.

There seems to be no problem with a new Regency Act every time there is need for one. So, if it comes to that point again, Parliament will decide.

This.
I suspect it's already planned for.

So would parliament discount Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie and move onto Edward? or go with someone outside of the royal family line of succession/counsellors of state.

@Serenster and @Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar all that is fascinating - plus the race to produce an heir following the death of Charlotte. Conroy always sounds awful.

Good question. It's for them to decide. I personally think Kate, with a committee to support, but I could be wrong.

Fair enough, like I said I'm no expert.

If Harry was willing to move back though, would parliament stand in his way do you think? He may not be popular but has he done anything severe enough to warrant going against the act? I don't think he has, nothing illegal, no efforts to override the monarchy or the government. It does rather begin to demolish the whole house of cards if we begin to contemplate choosing a regent doesn't it. Only one step from choosing a monarch.

The plans for the queens death and potential regency period were very extensive, all signed off by both her and then Prince Charles - with her living to such an old age they periodically updated them too. There was definitely an escalation in planning in 2016 as I was called to a meeting about both London Bridge and Fourth Bridge contingencies due to my work and they touched on the procedures should regency be required. As it was covid meant that the complex plans were completely shelved for Fourth Bridge and toned down considerably for London Bridge over what was expected pre covid.

The regent has pretty much always been chosen though, whereas a hereditary monarch isn't.

Ultimately, that's actually what Parliament does - choose the monarch. See William and Mary and James II, more recently George VI. I think it's a good question, @ColleenDonaghy about Harry's suitability. It's unlikely imo.

Interesting, @bobomomo

It does sound automatic - according to the 1937 Regency act - If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown. So they would have to pass a law specifically to override that as they did with Phillip.

It does rather begin to demolish the whole house of cards if we begin to contemplate choosing a regent doesn't it. Only one step from choosing a monarch

Monarchs were chosen in 1689, 1701, 1714 and 1936, and it seems to have worked so far. It was by no means a given that the Duke of York would become king after Edward VIII abdicated, either. There was concern that he wasn't charismatic enough and had a stutter which meant that he wouldn't be able to cope with the speech making.

Yes, @mamma65432 , they'd pass a new law.

She actually did send at least a piece of James’ bloodied coat, for Henry to use as a banner in battle against the French. She had wanted to send his body, or at least his head, but was persuaded not to.

Indeed, @MrsDanversGlidesAgain - discussions were held with the then Duke of Gloucester. According to Philip Ziegler, it wasn't automatically going to be Bertie.

Ah right, mixed up the body and the surcoat. I do wonder why Henry when he started the divorce issue thought he was going to win against a woman who could contemplate sending a severed head to her husband.

😂

Poor, tragic Charlotte. I don't know how women went through childbirth in those days and survived. George VI* (when he was regent) was so angry that his brother had managed to produce a living heir, that he refused to let her have a "regal" name and spoiled the child's christening with a tantrum! So she was named Alexandrina Victoire, after the Tsarina of Russia and her own mother respectively.

*Apparently he had over 50 illegitimate children who lived, though!

50?! That's some going ☺️.
I've read that Charlotte was intelligent and capable as well. Very sad
.

I know, 50 kids must mean there are probably thousands of commoners in the UK and beyond with royal blood in their veins. It's fascinating.

I alawys wonder how history would have panned out, but for. But for Catherine of Aragon having a living male heir. But for Charlotte not dying, would all of the social and political changes that happened under Victoria and Alberts' watch have happened?

I think that the social and political upheaval would have happened because of the Industrial Revolution and the Empire, but it's a good question about what else would have been different.