Ham pr disasters 50! …will Thursday be the start of something big ? …or just another damp squib!

[jeffgoldblum]

It’s all happening! 3 charity visits coming up!

Read Tom Bower’s 2 books on them Revenge and Betrayal

• obviously cannot vouch for their accuracy but he really has done his research on them.

That's correct.

However, when the late Queen ascended the throne, an Act of Parliament was passed to allow Philip to be Regent if needed for Charles, who was then 3 years old, rather than Margaret.

It's highly likely that a similar Act would be passed, if required, allowing Catherine to act as Regent for George if necessary.

Thank you. That's exactly what happened.

Phillip was royalty in his own right though. Catherine is not, and I therefore doubt she would be made regent. She might become joint regent with someone of royal blood.

If Parliament decide that she is the best person to be Regent, then Regent she will be.

Phillip was royalty in his own right though. Catherine is not, and I therefore doubt she would be made regent. She might become joint regent with someone of royal blood.

If not being of royal blood doesn't matter for her being George's mother, then it doesn't matter for her being Regent, surely?

The trouble with the acts being cited and the argument for PH being regent is that they didn't envisage the sort of situation that the RF now has with the Sussexes and AMW.

Philip had to renounce his Greek and Danish titles, and his place in the Greek line of succession to marry Princess Elizabeth. At the time of his marriage he was a naturalised Englishman, and was granted HRH by the King, as well as the Duke of Edinburgh title.

He was also not very well known to the general public in Britain at the time the Act was passed, given that Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1952. They were married in 1947 and had been in Malta for a couple of years while he was in the Navy.

Catherine is very well known and loved by the British public, and has been for years. It's an entirely different scenario. There would be no serious reason to pass over George's mother for his uncle.

And yet they have not changed it.

Philip wasn’t British royalty though (by birth), so I’m not sure why that would be relevant. He was Charles’ father which is why he would have been regent. Catherine is George’s mother so it follows that she will be regent. Being royal has nothing to do with it

If George was King then there is already a regent in place, from the moment George becomes king. They won’t have no regent whilst they fanny on with legislation. If, god forbid, something happened to William and Charles tomorrow, Harry is Regent. That’s it. That’s the law.

For those with access to X

Some excellent captions. 😂

https://x.com/the_royal_rogue/status/2110788545594249247?s=46

It doesn’t matter though. It is completely irrelevant to the Act as it stands, which is that Harry would be Regent.

But they haven’t decided that. It is Harry.

They didn’t have to envisage it. They’ve known about it since 2020 if not earlier. They could’ve changed the Act by now and they have not.

Just had to sit through Aussie tv news piece on these two 🤮
huge crowds, successful
yeah right

Probably because the need for a regent hasn't arisen so far. If it did and parliament decided PH and AMW weren't suitable regents, presumably they could pass emergency legislation to exclude them.

Harry would never be Regent. It's completely relevant.
Perhaps you're not from the UK; it's a Constitutional Monarchy. Parliament is Sovereign, they decide.

I strongly suspect that provision has already been drawn up.

That is not what would happen. By law, Harry would immediately become Regent if George became King tomorrow. It would take an active Act of Parliament to pass over Harry for anyone else, including George’s mother.

That is not the law. The law, as it stands, is that Harry would be Regent if George becomes King before he is 18. Regardless of what anyone thinks, the moment George becomes King, Harry becomes Regent.

That is not the law. The law, as it stands, is that Harry would be Regent if George becomes King before he is 18. Regardless of what anyone thinks, the moment George becomes King, Harry becomes Regent.

I would be amazed if it hasn't been, seeing as the RF prepares for the monarch's death and funeral practically from the moment the crown lands on his or her head.

I do wonder what all this insistence on 'Harry WILL be regent' is about, though.

Emergency legislation after George became the King? You think they’d pass emergency legislation for the Regent to sign which passed over the same said Regent?

That's how I understand it. Harry remains a councillor of state. Catherine will become a councillor of state if she becomes Queen, but if William died before he became king and before Catherine became the monarch's spouse, she could not be a councillor of state. The next in the line of succession of full age under the Regency Act would be Harry, followed by AMW.

It's most peculiar. I doubt even Harry would consider himself, it's far too much like hard work!
Apart from his behaviour and attitude over the years. Perhaps there's a group pushing for it? They won't get far.