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.

😂love it!

Naughty.

Who, me? 😇

God it's all so boring now-a-days. Hopefully some distant cousin will get an army together and invade the country and kill the lot of them on the field of battle. I will then claim the throne as rightfully mine as god was on my side ensuring my victory! I mean THEY will...

Harry The Living Legend - The REALLY REAL Story About The Royal Family.

Oh no, Scooby did the definitive exposay, didn't he? (can't do an accent so have gone phonetic with the forrin word).

In what circumstances do they need a regent? I mean someone else can open parliament and rubber stamp acts of parliament.

I have a very romantic image of the last regency period! It gave us Regents Park after all ( best royal park by far) plus loads of beautiful streets with beautiful houses and clothes ( shallow)!
plus what dramas would the bbc produce?

This thread has made me reflect on the larger number of extraordinary women who have married into the royal family over the years.

I suspect that laws will change very quickly if there is even a whiff of Andrew getting near any official role.

And how dreadful it must be to lose your mother and immediately be required to be the focus of every reaction, good and bad, to that loss. The image of Charles and William sitting watching a film on the evening of the Queen's death is very touching.

And that "someone else" is the Regent. If you don't have a monarch, or some legally appointed representative to do the Royal Assent then you can't pass legislation under UK law. It's quite a big deal.

Anne is the natural pick, but she's 73, so maybe not a great long term plan even with her parents' excellent genes.

This thread has made me reflect on the larger number of extraordinary women who have married into the royal family over the years.

Just that. The Roman Empire too.

Sisters bloody well were doing it for themselves.

Yes! And in both cases the women were and are demonised. (Just listened to Natalie Haynes talking about Livia and Agrippina!)

I will give that a listen.

Thank you. 😊

Hopefully George will be 40 plus before he ascends the throne in any case. 18 would be ridiculously young, the Queen was probably too young really but luckily had the personality to do it but she probably had loads of unsolicited advice from multiple people in her early years.

Some people on here, and an American in 2004, wondered why QE2 didn't abdicate but there wasn't ever a need for that, as far as I could see. Charles had gently taken over lots of things on her behalf, and her brain was still good. She was very aware that her reign had been long and by moving into the background that gave him more to do. When her reign became the longest she was in Scotland. She didn't grovel on the floor and apologize for living so long but she did say something to the effect that the length of her reign was not what she had looked for. Sorry if someone already made this point. I haven't read through all the thread.

@upinaballoon , very true , I also think the queen was very much a product of her time , she made a solemn vow to serve until she died and that was what she intended to do !

Nice thread. Interesting. I'll read all through later when I have more time.

The late Queen had lessons on constitutional history and law from the Provost of Eton Henry Marten (starting when she was 12) and she observed her father fulfilling his role as king. Given that George VI felt he wasn't prepared to be king in 1936 I imagine he'd want his daughter to be thoroughly aware of what her role entailed.

I would exercise caution.

I have spent a couple of hours in historical google wormholes!

Every day is indeed a school day. Fascinating.

Don't EVER google how aristocracy and royal families (of any era) are all interrelated and connected. You'll lose days 😂

I've just looked up Robert Hardman books, and see he wrote one on Elizabeth II - the Spanish version of which is called Isabel II. I had no idea Isabel is Spanish for Elizabeth (or vice versa)!

Especially the Hapsburgs - not just cousin after cousin, but also uncles and neices 🤑

How can we be a true democracy with an unelected second chamber and a work-shy tax-dodging monarch who has been proved to communicate with ministers to change laws that he’s unhappy with?
Even his late mother made sure laws didn’t apply to her & her ilk.

No, they won't - each royal has their own 'bridge'. Philip was Forth Bridge, the Queen Mother was Tay Bridge. King Charles is Menai Bridge I believe.

Parliament makes laws. If ministers make changes according to the suggestion of the monarch, the fault is theirs.

I'd say we're a healthier democracy than many others. The US for example - where women's & civil rights are being removed by an unelected body.