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!

If Harry did, through some bizarre combination of events, become king then he would be Henry IX and could reintroduce beheading of unwanted wives. Selling tickets for that would be quite a money-spinner.

You're right, on all counts, of course.
Yes, I am somewhat suspicious, as well.

😂😂😂😂😂

I suspect that if that situation arose, the government would overnight make a new law making Catherine the regent. I think that if William were to become king in the next five years there would be an immediate Act to make Catherine the Regent in the event of William's death when George is under 18.
No way could the monarchy last if Harry were to become the Regent.

His fans would be so thrilled, they'd forget everything else!

There was a change when the current monarch acceded. There is no need for any further change at present.

There will no doubt be appropriate changes at the time of any future accession.

You may not be aware, but monarch and heir do not travel together.

This has been quite a diversion, but is starting to feel rather forced.

I am a republican. I don’t know or like any of them.

If you do not understand the law (this is not constitutional history), then perhaps don’t try and teach other people about it.

Harry would automatically be Regent if George became King tonight. Regardless of anything else. If something awful happened to Charles, William and Harry this evening, Andrew would automatically become Regent. If Andrew was with Charles, William and Harry in front of this pretend bus which is going to hit them, Beatrice would automatically become Regent. That is the law. It is not about who is a popular or good person. Much like the line of succession itself.

I don't know why you have to be quite so unpleasant in your posting, assuming everyone who disagrees with you must be a fan of Harry. I don't know what makes you think anyone wants Harry to become regent, just because they can see the reality of the CURRENT situation - not the wished for change to the current law. The frustration and fear comes from the fact that he has retained all of his royal statuses despite everything he has done and his proven unsuitability to run a crack den, never mind a country and to guide a young king. And because he has retained all his statuses despite everything he's done, on what legal basis would he be deemed to be an unsuitable regent?

But they have not changed the law, have they? So that law still stands that the next adult in the line of succession becomes Regent.

What a wonderful day for Harry and Meghan! Back in the UK, back doing royal duties and their fans wishing for him to have a high ranking constitutional role!

Is there someone handing out fivers for every post saying 'Harry's going to be regent'? because if there is someone's making a mint tonight.

You may wish to pre-order Rob Shuter's new book.

And implicit in PH having that role is the death of both his father and his brother. Quite remarkably unpleasant, and that's before the uncalled for rudeness.

Harry?

Yes, quite. On all counts.

@orthrywreeinvicedifthe I'm not the thread police by any means but there are other threads talking about a constitutional monarchy, where you may find a better discussion. But your choice.

No, at the moment it is very unlikely.

One of the first posts on this thread is speculating on William’s early death with incorrect assurances following that the PoW would become sovereign. I had no idea it would upset so many people to clarify the law.

I could not possibly comment. The mind-numbingly tedious reiteration all of a sudden of the current constitutional (emphasis on current) arrangements regarding a regency is rather strange, though.

Quite. Or there is detail on the government website which clarifies the fact that we don't have an Absolute Monarchy anymore.

It also strikes me as deeply distasteful to speculate on PW's early death.

Nice isn’t it?

I find myself longing for vats of malmsey wine.

Parliament can change who become Regent, though, as they did in the case of QE2 back in the day, when they gave Philip the job which would otherwise have gone to Princess Margaret.

Mmm. I just thought it was wilful ignorance, but you're right. Something else....

I doubt they ride the bus either.

This was a question posed and incorrectly answered during the first few posts on this thread. I am simply providing the right answer. I had no idea that it would upset people this much to understand what the law is.

I think their titles should be removed and more importantly Harry and his heirs should be removed from the line of succession. Same as they did for Edward VIII except he didn't have any heirs and successors. It's the only answer IMHO.

Why do they need to get a move on? Are Charles and William both at risk of dying in the next four years and eight months?

I'm not sure something needs to be changed and disruption created just for extreme hypotheticals. It is extremely unlikely that both Charles and William will both die in the next few years. What do you think the law should be changed to? Changing the law just to exclude specific individuals causes strife. Since the situation is extremely unlikely to arise, it's ok to leave things as they are. If, for some reason, William became terminally ill or dies before Charles, then there will likely be some amendment to the 1937 law and a new law specifically for George's situation.