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.

There's a limit to the extent to which the second chamber can turn down legislation from the elected chamber - though I think there is a good argument for making it more democratic and giving it more power at the same time.

I think that's what many people didn't realise - that when the Queen died it wasn't just the death of a Mother, Grandmother, Aunt, Friend.

It was the death of a Head of State of not just GB & NI, but of another 13, Head of a Commonwealth of 56 countries. Grief of family members became almost secondary (unfortunately), there wasn't time for the usual niceties of making sure every family member was informed before publicly announcing the death. The death was bigger than just the family involved. Just the same if POTUS died in office, or the PM, or the President of France.

And the close family had to grieve publicly and to lead the public in grief, while not making it about them and their grief.

Something which a lot of people didn't seem to grasp.

I think the lmits on campaign spending have a big role to play with that. Lobbying is a problem, but there are some limits on what can be bought

At least the family could prepare. I was listening to the Rest is History podcast about the assassination of JFK, and it was public grief plus complete shock. Horrendous. And chaos

Oh my goodness, Yes. That would be horrific, and utterly chaotic for all involved. So traumatic for Jackie.

I was reading a bit more about the book in question - apparently in recent years the fear was that the Queen may have collapsed in public. That's why her events were all very tightly controlled. Specially selected, time limited appearances with only a few Press present.

Did anyone watch the Danish handover today - it was a really poignant moment for me when after she watched her son sit down in the monarch’s spot at the head of the table, someone handed the abdicating Queen a walking stick and then she just turned around and walked out of the room all on her own.

I was watching a programme on PBS about the Somme, and it mentioned Ruprecht of Bavaria. Of course I just had to look him up, didn't I? followed the links around half the aristocratic and royal families of early 20c Germany. I love the names and the titles and what some of them got up to (18c French aristocracy especially).

I did. She looked really upset, it was quite emotional seeing that part.

I saw it wordler, although I watched some of it later. It was so damned sensible. And poignant as you said, too. It all seemed so very gracious when the Queen stood and motioned for her son, the King, to sit in the chair she’d just vacated, she waited a bit, was handed her stick and then walked out - and someone opened the door for her just in the right moment. She cried a little, it was a big moment for both of them. I thought it was very dignified. And went like clockwork. I’m a Republican and i was quite moved.

Then I saw Fred and Mary, and then their children, on the balcony and the huge Danish crowd that turned out to cheer. It all looked happy, and a commentator said Fred seemed a little surprised by the size of the turnout: (Really OT but I think Mary has great fashion style)

Having seen Denmark, I think Margarethe got it right. In retrospect I think the Queen should have handed over earlier. Will Charles do the same as his mother, or the Danish Queen?

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.

Sadly, a lot of us have had to do similar, find out how and where to purchase a grave, meet with a priest, call whoever needs to be there when the time comes, etc. etc.

Rocky, Harry has said himself he wants to be able to come to the UK, he has said it in court papers for his reason for wanting tax payer security. He says it his home and he wants to be able to come back and forth whenever he wants, he wants his children to be come too.

There's nothing stopping him, @Alalain .
He could stay on a royal estate. I understand that invitation has been open to him.

@maireas, he would jump at the chance of being Regent, all that security at his disposal again 😁.

He has good security when he comes to the UK. That's not the issue. He wants personal armed protection whenever and wherever he goes, which is quite different. There were a couple of threads about the RAVEC decision on here, and people will be able to explain it better than me.

Long live HellsToilet

Sadly, a lot of us have had to do similar, find out how and where to purchase a grave, meet with a priest, call whoever needs to be there when the time comes, etc. etc.

Well yes, lots of us have had to deal with the practicalities of what happens when someone is dying and afterwards, but we don’t have to appear in public, share our grief with the public, or immediately take on a whole new job is more what I meant

The Queen should have done what the Danish Queen had the good sense to do. There is a retirement age for a reason.
Dragging it on to the bitter end was not putting the needs of the country first, and has condemned us to an aging monarchy.

No a lot us have to worry about paying for the funeral, whether our boss will allow us time off to sort things out and we don't have staff to do the shitty admin load.

Of course we have worries. I was just observing that Charles’ were of a different nature. It’s not a competition and we can still sympathise with him on a human level as to what he has to deal with. You don’t need to put people down in every set of circumstances just because you don’t like or agree with them 🙄

Yes you're right but it's strange that we make the same allowances for Harry having to grieve his mum , grow up in a broken home but have to do everything in public.

Strange also that William is always forgotten about in grieving his mother, growing up in a broken home and have to do everything in public stakes…

Charles also lost his mother. That is the important bit at the end of the day.

Grief is grief. Looking at his face during his first public address screamed that. Anyone who has felt loss and grief and possessed any level of decency and empathy would have noticed that pain and felt sympathy.

To chirp on about his lack of worries in such a bitter manner screams something else entirely to me.

Not everything in life is a whataboutery challenge. Not everything should be an opportunity to have a nasty dig.

I understand that championing a cause doesn’t have to be a gleeful opportunity to stick the boot in another.

It is a shame that on these threads that understanding seems to be lacking.

I was thinking of Charles in relation to William, Harry and the sudden death of their mother Diana. I don’t know of course, but I imagine it would have been harder to be a father watching your young teenage children shocked and grieving their mother’s death, than it is to be an adult son grieving your own mothers death.

If it’s to be a monarchy, the Danish Queen’s way was best. Dignified stylish simplicity. And Fred can enjoy the role, settle into the position with the very best advisor still available to him.

You posted seconds before me ArcaneWirekess. I don’t forget William’s grief at his mother’s sudden death. The boys going to see the flowers, and the dreadful walk, dide by side, behind their mother’s coffin, and then having to sit through the funeral service with thousands - and watched by millions, followed by a long journey to finally bury Diana. Absolutely unimaginable and unthinkable that it should happen like that now, surely. I don’t think any poster who regularly posts on here is unaware that William also lost his mother and would have grieved that loss deeply, though

I'm just telling as I see it. You might not agree but it's my opinion. These threads are full of nasty from my point of view. Maybe we should have them all pulled.

Having seen Denmark, I think Margarethe got it right. In retrospect I think the Queen should have handed over earlier

I don't think that would have happened before the Platinum Jubilee.

But I think, had death not intervened, she would have made her last regnant act a request to Parliament to install Charles as Regent - either at the end of the summer at the time she would normally have returned to London, around the time of the Queen's Speech (if held in November) or in the Christmas Message.

If both Charles and William died or became too incapacitated to fulfil the constitutional roles of the monarch before 22 July 2031, then I think there will need to be a change to the Regency Act. Harry is already excluded because he lives overseas (yes he could move back, but I'm not sure that would be the right thing for him as his DC will surely be in school in California by that time, and he may well not want the disruption). Andrew - well, enough said, and also he's not a working Royal (a recent distinction with no standing in law, but I think a useful point in working out who).

I think a co_regency would be the best upshot, with Catherine in charge of the upbringing and education of the heir, and then Anne (depending on age/health) and/or Edward doing the constitutional part. In 2031, Edward will be 68, so only just over state pension age.

I agree @Rockybooboo . I think pointing out ‘nasty’ when all the threads are full of posters repeatedly criticising and laughing at Harry and Meghan and ‘sticking the boot in’ for every and imagined thing, is ott.