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.

Just let’s put an end to this ridiculous ‘monarchy’ palaver.
We are all citizens, not subjects.
Being lucky enough to come out of the vagina of another person who was lucky enough…you get my drift….should not make that person able to live a life of luxury & privilege and not have to work a day in their life (bar cutting a few ribbons once or twice a week) and not have to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance .
Lets get into the 21st century & at least try to treat us all as equals!

But for Charlotte not dying, would all of the social and political changes that happened under Victoria and Alberts' watch have happened?

Interesting thought. AN Wilson in his biography of Albert reckons that the prince was in the vanguard of Britain's transformation as a centre of political, technological, scientific and intellectual advancement; you do wonder after reading Wilson what Albert would have done for and in Britain had he lived another 20 or 30 years. I can't see that Leopold would have been such a catalyst as Albert was, somehow.

Although Albert's attempts to export his version of liberal democracy into the monarchies of Europe was a bit of a disaster.

Yes, but they can do so very easily. If needed. Fast tracked legislation can get through the Commons and Lords in a single day if needed (and has done so in the past, in relation to, for example, nationalising Northern Rock).

Also in relation to whether Kate would be a suitable Regent - it’s worth bearing in mind that this hypothetical situation only comes into play if Charles is dead and William is King, but dies before George is 18. In which case, Kate would already be the Queen, and with probably more awareness of the reality of the role than other members of William’s families.

I like the idea of Harry because it would irk the daily mail gammons (not referring to anyone on here btw). Imagine that scenario - with his spouse who is a biracial, American, previously-divorced, female (tick tick tick tick), having some influence over matters. I’m anti monarchy and a tad “woke” so frankly I’d enjoy the fallout.

But seriously, some of the comments on here about historical topics have been interesting and informative. Great thread, thanks for starting it OP.

Unless William predeceased his father.

Agree a Queen Catherine would likely be very easy to install as regent for her son. I don't know whether a Princess of Wales would be quite so straightforward.

I like the idea of Harry because it would irk the daily mail gammons (not referring to anyone on here btw)

Always a good basis for making major constitutional decisions 🙄

The likely hood of any of this coming about is extremely unlikely, unless there is a major catastrophe, the likelihood of either Harry or Andrew getting close to the throne is remote, everyone can rest assured.

Yes, but they can do so very easily. If needed. Fast tracked legislation can get through the Commons and Lords in a single day if needed (and has done so in the past, in relation to, for example, nationalising Northern Rock).

Oh, and for those constitutional law geeks who were wondering how you can get Royal Assent to an Act revising the Regency Act when the monarch is underage and therefore cannot validly consent to it - that’s why you have Counsellors of State. Two of them acting jointly could provide the necessary Royal Assent to the legislation to appoint a Regent.

Yes, very much so. The Great Exhibition, his work on public health etc. All happening within the framework of an emerging labour led movement for better workers' rights and voting rights. That's another what if - what if Albert had not died and Victoria had not retreated. How would society have changed had he remained by her side with his tremendous influence.

I do like AN Wilson. He did an hilarious review of Spare for one of the media channels, but I daren't link it!

The fact that Harry is a confessed drug addict makes me think he won’t be suitable to be regent.
Also if he felt trapped in the monarchy while being a working Royal has is he going to feel being effectively in charge of it?

I'd prefer Harry over Andrew! but Edward / Anne seems like a safer choice, not sure about Kate.

Yes, it would, if Parliament so decided.

Unless William predeceased his father.

True, but If William predeceased his father however then I imagine the Regency Act would be revised fairly promptly as it would make it quite a bit more likely that George would not yet be 18 when his grandfather dies…

I do like AN Wilson. He did an hilarious review of Spare for one of the media channels, but I daren't link it!

I approached his Albert book a bit cautiously, as he suggested in The Victorians that both Albert and Victoria were illegitimate on the basis of IIRC no evidence whatsoever apart from neither of them having haemophilia in their families previously. Clearly he'd never looked at portraits of Vic and her father side by side, or at all - she was Hanoverian through and through.

Edward and Anne would be a safe pair of hands.

As would Katherine.

Hopefully it will not be necessary.

I agree - plus isn't it a genetic mutation?
Great book, though.

I agree - plus isn't it a genetic mutation?

Yup. Robert Massie in his Nicholas and Alexandra (admittedly written in 1967) said that at the time he was writing, 40% of cases had no known family history and that the defective gene can remain hidden for several generations. Even in 1967 Massie (who had a haemophiliac son) was aware of spontaneous genetic mutation. No idea why Wilson adduced absence as proof in Victoria and Albert.

Those who mentioned that it was a bit gruesome for Charles to have had to review London Bridge immediately- London Bridge will have existed for decades, been updated from time to time and both Charles and the Queen will have been involved. Charles will already have his own in place (“Waterloo Bridge”??) and know all about it. The Queen Mothers was called Tay Bridge and equally she was involved.

Nah, you're alright. I'm quite happy living with a constitutional Monarchy.

Democratic countries with Monarchies are very stable - 9 out of 15 of the top democracies in the World are Monarchies. Indeed its 4 of the top 5.

At least Harry would have a title for his next tell all book, Harry - Not Even A Spare or Spareless.

"that’s why you have Counsellors of State. Two of them acting jointly could provide the necessary Royal Assent to the legislation to appoint a Regent."

So Camilla / Harry (if he's in the UK) / Andrew / Edward / Beatrice / Anne - would have to agree? or at least two of them because if they didn't that could be difficult. Perhaps if that happened there would be a vote for becoming a republic, particularly if Labour were in power.

Those who mentioned that it was a bit gruesome for Charles to have had to review London Bridge immediately- London Bridge will have existed for decades, been updated from time to time and both Charles and the Queen will have been involved

I was surprised (given that the Queen was obviously so frail) that he HAD to review it. You'd have thought he was regularly refreshing his memory about it - but I suppose when what you're reading means a much loved parent has died and your life has completely changed, perhaps not.

The two Counsellors of State would agree. Why not?.
Is there an appetite for republicanism? I've not seen recent polls. Labour party supporters are not automatically republican..

I think "Number Two" would be a great title for a sequel. It works on so many levels.

Well, it was a four book deal, so no doubt the suggestions will be appreciated 😂