Realistically, if King Charles and Prince William both pass today, would a 12 year old be our king?

Posted by Popular-History1015@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 578 comments

[removed]

Reply to Post

Reply

578 Comments

[-]

danielroseman@reddit

Titles don't bounce around like that; yes, George would be king. In the past a regent would have been appointed until he was of age, I don't know whether that would still be done given the king doesn't have any real power anyway and 12 is probably old enough to do most of the things he does need to do.

Reply

[-]

jan_tantawa@reddit

I imagine they would appoint someone to take on some of the diplomatic meetings, formal dinners, etc. Though a 12 year old probably could do it I think it would look very odd today and they'd probably want him to have a largely uninterrupted education.

Reply

[-]

cgknight1@reddit

>I imagine they would appoint someone to take on some of the diplomatic meetings, formal dinners, etc. The regent who would be Prince Harry would do all of this.

Reply

[-]

midsizedopossum@reddit

Yes, well done. They were replying to someone who said we might not need a regent in this day and age.

Reply

[-]

Exotic-Knowledge-243@reddit

He betrayed the Queen and his grandpa and his dad. He will never be regent

Reply

[-]

cgknight1@reddit

You understand that if he was not regent for some reason it would be *Prince Andrew...*

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

Based on this person’s reply to one of my comments, I don’t think they have an issue with that.

Reply

[-]

SilyLavage@reddit

He would become the regent under the Regency Act 1937 in this scenario. The law would have to be changed to make someone else regent.

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

I’d pay money to see that though, elderly states people eating beef wellington and the finest red wine, George at the head of the table eating turkey dinosaurs, beans and mash. I must point out I don’t want anything bad to happen to his dad or grandpa

Reply

[-]

cgknight1@reddit

It is still a case a regent would be appointed and that would be Prince Harry.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

He becomes King at the moment of the death of his predecessor But he only begins to carry out the role of king on his 18th birthday. And between his accession and his coming-of-age, a Regent carries out the role on the King’s behalf

Reply

[-]

SilyLavage@reddit

George would become king immediately. The passage you quote creates the legal fiction that a monarch under the age of eighteen did not accede until their eighteenth birthday. This allows the constitutional oaths the monarch must take to be delayed until after that date. Essentially, the passage delays the taking of oaths by the monarch until they are considered old enough to do so.

Reply

[-]

_Daftest_@reddit

Even though you only put part of it in bold, we can still see the other part.

Reply

[-]

Professional-Wait496@reddit

Well Nostradamus predicted that Charles as king will be short lived and somebody “unexpected” would become king… im curious to find out.

Reply

[-]

uncertain_expert@reddit

George would be King - There is precedent, Edward the 6th was crowned king at age 9. He didn’t actually rule however, the country was governed on his behalf by a regency council.

Reply

[-]

Professional-Wait496@reddit

Didnt the queen that just passed away (whatever number she was) get crowned pretty young and go straight into the role Like 15 or 18 ? I forget.

Reply

[-]

cgknight1@reddit

>George would be King - There is precedent, Edward the 6th was crowned king at age 9 No - That was in the 16th Century, the Regency Act 1937 codified how this would work. ***If the Sovereign is, at His Accession, under the age of eighteen years, then, until He attains that age, the royal functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent.*** and ***If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown.*** Late acts removed elements about gender and also marrying Roman Catholics but otherwise this is all clear in law.

Reply

[-]

atticdoor@reddit

Jesus, so if Harry declines (as he probably would) then Andrew would be regent. I sincerely hope they would pass some emergency legislation and put Anne as regent instead.

Reply

[-]

Onlyfriends0936@reddit

If Anne (or Beatrice) got the gig, would she be the Relady?

Reply

[-]

atticdoor@reddit

Only if a male midwife is called a midhusband.

Reply

[-]

Rtozier2011@reddit

If Parliament needs to bypass Andrew then the next in line would be Beatrice. She'd be regent before Anne or Edward as she's the descendant of Elizabeth II's second son and therefore comes before her third son Edward or her daughter born before 2011 Anne.

Reply

[-]

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

If Andy declines, does it not stop his line?

Reply

[-]

Rtozier2011@reddit

No. His choices have no effect at all on his line. His descendants are different people and would not be held accountable for his actions. They are considered the next people in line regardless of anything he does. Royal seniority is about position in the line, not about what people higher up the line do. Other examples of this having already happened include: 1. Edward II being deposed in favour of his son Edward III in 1327 2. James II being deposed in favour of his daughter Mary II (and her husband/cousin William III) in 1688/9 Also, if in 1936 Edward VIII had had a legitimate son or daughter when he abdicated, they would have become king or queen instead of his brother becoming George VI.

Reply

[-]

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

The last bit is not true

Reply

[-]

atticdoor@reddit

Sure it is, unless they had put a clause in the Instrument of Abdication barring the child from the throne too. The infant would have been the monarch, and George Duke of York would have been the regent.

Reply

[-]

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

That’s exactly what the act says.

Reply

[-]

atticdoor@reddit

*(1) Immediately upon the Royal Assent being signified to this Act the Instrument of Abdication executed by His present Majesty on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall have effect, and thereupon His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown, and accordingly the member of the Royal Family then next in succession to the Throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges, and dignities thereunto belonging.* They would have had to word that bit differently if he had a legitimate child.

Reply

[-]

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the M2Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.

Reply

[-]

atticdoor@reddit

Yeah, so if he had living descendants at the time he signed it, then Paragraph 1 would have contradicted Paragraph 2, so they would have worded it differently.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

That is one scenario The other is that the Counsellors of State petition Parliament to pass a new law installing a different Regent (I’d like to see an Anne/Edward co-regency)

Reply

[-]

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

We could have a competition. Regent idol.

Reply

[-]

atticdoor@reddit

Oh I know, but I still think Anne would be better, and a likelier pick. They could frame it as equalizing the genders- Anne is older than Andrew.

Reply

[-]

Gymrat1010@reddit

That's a very possible justification for the act. I remember the laws around male primogeniture were only passed while George was in the womb because it became a real possibility that a first born daughter wouldn't inherit the crown

Reply

[-]

20dogs@reddit

Would Harry decline?

Reply

[-]

silver-fusion@reddit

No, doing so would end the Royal Family. All the rags would fall in line or be made to fall in line. Critical articles would disappear overnight. Multiple articles lauding the return of the prince, bigging him up. All the shit he gets is because he's in a nothing position. The second that changes the boots would be licked clean.

Reply

[-]

atticdoor@reddit

He doesn't seem to be digging the whole Royal vibe at the moment, but I don't claim to know for certain anyone else's intention.

Reply

[-]

ianjmatt2@reddit

I can see Parliament passing a law disqualifying Andrew pretty quickly.

Reply

[-]

SnapDragon2525@reddit

Daily Heil wouldn't know what to do. Imagine Harry, who they hate turned it down then it was Andrew..

Reply

[-]

purte@reddit

He’d be Prince Regent.

Reply

[-]

AdRealistic4984@reddit

[Edward VI famously had a (bad) regent just fyi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Seymour,_1st_Duke_of_Somerset)

Reply

[-]

aurordream@reddit

I'd argue Edward V had an even worse regent, given as he was probably murdered by his (Edward was one of the Princes in the Tower, and his "Lord Protector" was his uncle Richard of Gloucester. Who promptly declared Edward and his brother illegitimate, imprisoned them, and crowned himself as King Richard III)

Reply

[-]

cgknight1@reddit

\[Prince Andrew has entered the chat\].

Reply

[-]

Slyspy006@reddit

Your objection is incorrect. George would still be king.

Reply

[-]

Bugsmoke@reddit

In fairness it’s not like the royals really rule so much as exist for ceremony anyway.

Reply

[-]

BuriedInRust@reddit

Very true. They're just a photo opp for actual world leaders

Reply

[-]

Boldboy72@reddit

precedent in the common law becomes nullified if there is a statute. There have been statutes that codify the succession in law. This is the case here as they passed laws to prevent a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic from becoming monarch, they used this to place a Regent in place in the event that the next in line was under 18.

Reply

[-]

bigbrother2030@reddit

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removed the provision that marrying a Catholic disqualified one from succeeding to the throne

Reply

[-]

Boldboy72@reddit

I know that but the first statutes were to make sure that didn't happen so the precedent of Edward VI was no longer in place.

Reply

[-]

Howtothinkofaname@reddit

Henry VI was 9 months iirc, look how well that worked out for everyone…

Reply

[-]

michaelisnotginger@reddit

Return Gascony to its rightful place

Reply

[-]

cgknight1@reddit

Some of the answers here suggest people think they would make it up as they go along! 😂

Reply

[-]

niffydroid@reddit

I'd hope George would become king while Catherine did the real job

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

The throne would pass to George and the next adult in the order of succession (currently Prince Harry) would become the Prince Regent. It's all laid out in the Regency Act 1937, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

Reply

[-]

ApolloLoon@reddit

I suspect Parliamwnt might very quickly cobble together the Regency (Special Provisions) Act 2025 to make Anne or Edward the regent.

Reply

[-]

DanS1993@reddit

They’d probably make Catherine the regent as mother of the king.

Reply

[-]

Annyjay59@reddit

She has no royal blood, that would never happen. If Harry refused, then Princess Beatrice would take over until George is an adult.

Reply

[-]

fortyfivepointseven@reddit

I agree with this - assuming Queen Mother Catherine survived whatever took out Wills and his father. However, given that she's quite ill, I suspect that the Act would also establish the succession after Catherine, excluding Harry & successors, and Andrew. So the regency succession would run: * Queen Mother Catherine * Princess Beatrice * Princess Eugenie * The Duke of Edinburgh (Edward, youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II) * Earl of Wessex (his son) *Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (his daughter) * Princess Royal (Anne, daughter of Queen Elizabeth II)

Reply

[-]

DarthMori@reddit

If William never became king, Catherine would never be queen. Ergo, she would be Princess Dowager. Also, in this country, the title Queen Mother would be reserved for the mother of a queen regnant. It has only happened once with Elizabeth, and even then it was because both of them were named Elizabeth, and Mary was still alive. Should Catherine ever become William's queen and somehow Charlotte were to inherit the throne, Catherine would likely then be Queen Mother.

Reply

[-]

StirlingS@reddit

Wouldn't she still be Queen Catherine? I thought the Queen Mother thing was because they were both named Elizabeth. Unless Charlotte took Catherine as her regnant name.

Reply

[-]

DarthMori@reddit

Queen Catherine, Queen Dowager, and Queen Mother would all be on the table in that hypothetical scenario. Looking back at all the Queens Regnant, there has only been one instance where their mother was still alive and was herself a queen. Victoria's mother was only a princess.

Reply

[-]

bowak@reddit

Surely she'd be King Mother?

Reply

[-]

StatlerSalad@reddit

Nope, Queen Mother. Although - possibly only if Charles III predeceased Prince William. The title is 'Queen' appended with 'Mother' to show that she is not \*the\* Queen. So if she survives (King) William and sees one of her children on the throne she'll be Queen Mother. *However*, the title is only really supposed to be used for the widows of Kings who were Queen Consort and are now the mother of reigning monarch (a widowed Queen Consort who is *not* the mother of the reigning monarch is a 'Queen Dowager'.) But - it's a courtesy title bestowed by the monarch. So if she was regent she'd probably be styled 'Queen Regent' and if she wasn't she'd probably be granted the 'Queen Mother' title by whoever was the Regent.

Reply

[-]

No-Jicama-6523@reddit

Queen Mary, grandmother of QEII was never known as Queen Mother, despite living until the mid fifties, the title only seems to get used if they share a name.

Reply

[-]

StatlerSalad@reddit

She chose not to use the title. Like all courtesy titles, it's entirely optional. Really, 'Queen Mother' is a descriptive term rather than a title - our monarchy has just chosen to also use it as a courtesy title! But yes, had she wanted to style herself 'Queen Mother' she could have done up until the death of George VI. She was still the Queen Mother, she just chose not to use the title (and she was still a Queen, even if not *the* Queen.) Queen Alexandra also chose not to use it, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was actually the first modern Queen Mother to actually style herself as such.

Reply

[-]

Ali_Strnad@reddit

The title "Queen Mother" means a Dowager Queen who is the mother of the current monarch, not just to someone is the mother of a queen. If in this scenario Charles were to die before William, then William would briefly become king in the gap between his father's death and his own, and thus Catherine would become Queen Consort in this gap and then a Dowager Queen after William's death. Since the new monarch, George, would be her son, she would be able to be called the Queen Mother. Meanwhile, if William were to die before Charles, then he would never get the chance to become king, and Catherine would never become Queen Consort. She would thus go from Princess of Wales to Dowager Princess of Wales upon William's death, and then when Charles subsequently died and the throne descended upon her son George, she would become the king's mother but not the Queen Mother since she would not be any kind of queen.

Reply

[-]

Horror-Kumquat@reddit

I think the 'Queen Mother' title was just invented for QEII's mother to avoid the confusion of there being two Queen Elizabeth's knocking about at once. Queen Mary was never known as the Queen Mother, for example. It wouldn't need to be revived for Catherine.

Reply

[-]

OriginalReporter590@reddit

Not just because there were two Queen Elizabeths, but two Queens. But even before that, Queen Mary (who was married to George V) became Queen Mother when QEII's father became King. But not when QEII's uncle (Edward VIII) became King as he was unmarried. There are articles from the 1930s referring to Mary as Queen Mother.

Reply

[-]

ApprehensiveElk80@reddit

No, the title Queen Mother has been used throughout history, entering the common lexicon in the 1500’s. Elizabeth is just the most famous to use it of modern times in the UK because she outlived her husband by fifty years and used it as her primary title so as not to cause confusion with her daughter. But it’s also a title used in other countries both presently and historically.

Reply

[-]

DoctorOctagonapus@reddit

It wasn't invented for her, it had always been a description. Elizabeth Sr. chose to stylise her name with that as a title so she wouldn't be confused with QEII.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

No If Willian died before Charles, she would never have been queen so would remain HRH The Princess of Wales If William died after Charles, then she would briefly have been Queen, so would be HM Queen Catherine and she would retain that title She would only need a different title if George married a Catherine and there arose a need to distinguish between the two Queen Catherines. It would be the dowager who changed, to whichever she preferred of Queen Mother (ie the Queen who is mother of the monarch) or Dowager Queen

Reply

[-]

fortyfivepointseven@reddit

No, the 'Queen' refers to _her_ as having been Queen. I suppose this assumes that Charles died before William, making her (briefly) Queen. I think even if William died before Charles, or they died in the same incident (making it ambiguous whether she was technically Queen) she'd still be called Queen Mother as a courtesy title. But, if William died before Charles, she'd either be Princess Dowager Regent Catherine of Wales or Princess Regent Dowager Catherine of Wales (not sure if the Dowager or Regent takes precedence).

Reply

[-]

SometimesMonkeysDie@reddit

How far down we go until we get King Ralph?

Reply

[-]

Whithorsematt@reddit

I doubt it, particularly if William hadn't succeeded at this point.

Reply

[-]

Beginning_Bet_4383@reddit

I really don't see that happening - she is only royal by marriage and I don't think she would be considered suitable to be regent. Obviously she would be in charge of George's wellbeing etc I think it would be Edward.

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Yeah and no one will want to even try to skip that because the next up is… Andrew.

Reply

[-]

KingThorongil@reddit

Andrew coming into power would be a win for Republicans because it will end the monarchy.

Reply

[-]

AlGunner@reddit

He would decline it. The damage it would do would be too much for the royalty to survive so he would have no choice

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Loss-2709@reddit

He'd be thinking Charley managed to get away with making Cammie queen, I can be king and salvage things

Reply

[-]

massive_delivery69@reddit

But she's not a queen per say, she's a queen "regent" big difference, there can never be a Full King title and Fully Queen title, as it would confuse who has true power, and Kings by succession hold higher rank then a queen from what I read. Im not English but do read up about royal culture.

Reply

[-]

Penhaligona@reddit

Nah. That man is oblivious. He would shoot his shot.

Reply

[-]

Antilles1138@reddit

I think he'd find himself on a one-way trip to "accepting" a post to the Caribbean like his great uncle Edward if he tried.

Reply

[-]

Onlyfriends0936@reddit

He might enjoy another trip to a Caribbean island

Reply

[-]

Weird1Intrepid@reddit

Giggity

Reply

[-]

The-Rambling-One@reddit

Isn’t that how he got in this mess in the first place

Reply

[-]

VillageHorse@reddit

He’s too honourable not to do his duty for his country.

Reply

[-]

SongsAboutGhosts@reddit

Uh.. What about his actions is *honourable*?

Reply

[-]

KalamariNights@reddit

Did you not hear? The accusations were dropped - he did nothing wrong. So much so that he paid the accusers 6 million to prove it.

Reply

[-]

riverscreeks@reddit

> he paid We paid

Reply

[-]

ParmigianoMan@reddit

His mum, but yeah, same thing.

Reply

[-]

Charyou_Tree_19@reddit

She also cancelled his birthday party.

Reply

[-]

VillageHorse@reddit

I’ve explained elsewhere that I was being sarcastic and referring back to when he said he was too honourable on the Newsnight interview.

Reply

[-]

SongsAboutGhosts@reddit

I was really hoping it was a reference to something ridiculous he said that I wasn't aware of, glad to find out it was.

Reply

[-]

Publish_Lice@reddit

Strange hill to die on.

Reply

[-]

VillageHorse@reddit

I was being sarcastic. Should have used the /s but oh well. Was referring back to when he said he was too honourable to notice his mate was a criminal.

Reply

[-]

AlGunner@reddit

Its reddit. If you dont put /s its not being sarcastic.

Reply

[-]

VillageHorse@reddit

I know you’re meant to but I genuinely thought people would clock on lol

Reply

[-]

21delirium@reddit

He _should_ decline it. But Andrew's defining character trait seems to be bumbling self-interest... Just think how many more deals with Chinese spies he'd be able to do if he were king!

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Regent. King isn’t really on the table. There are many people between him and the throne but most are children. There is only one adult between him and the throne which means in case of regency he comes after Harry.

Reply

[-]

Particular-Zone7288@reddit

which would send the gammon brigade into absolute spasms at the thought of Megan Markle as Queen regent

Reply

[-]

Johnnycrabman@reddit

Harry would be Prince Regent, so she’d not be Queen Regent. Did Blackadder teach you nothing?

Reply

[-]

Particular-Zone7288@reddit

apparently not

Reply

[-]

Strong_Muffin3941@reddit

The regent is king in all but name. If anything, the titular deficit would serve to mask his filthy, self-enriching deeds.

Reply

[-]

Dinoduck94@reddit

You're assuming too much of the pedophile's morality

Reply

[-]

AlGunner@reddit

No, I'm thinking there would be so much outrage and pressure put on him he wouldnt be able to go through with it.

Reply

[-]

KittyGrewAMoustache@reddit

Does he have any friends? I wonder what he does all day. He’s so disgraced I can’t imagine who wants to hang out with him.

Reply

[-]

Johnnycrabman@reddit

Fergie?

Reply

[-]

InfrangibleSexWizard@reddit

I imagine the unbelievable pressure from various establishment figures, the royal household, etc, would be pretty hard to resist. But if he refused, Parliament could always pass a new Bill changing the rules on how regents are appointed, or even just literally naming a specific individual for that particular circumstance. As it stands, Harry would only be eligible if he was domiciled in the UK, which I don't believe he is, so Andrew would be first in line. After him would be Beatrice. I can't imagine either of them would be hugely popular choices, so my guess is that they'd pass a quick act of parliament to make Princess Anne the regent. George turns 18 in 2031, so I guess they haven't bothered passing a law because it's very unlikely it would be needed.

Reply

[-]

Illustrious_Study_30@reddit

I was thinking the same, but Edward and Sophie would regent.

Reply

[-]

richdrich@reddit

Interesting that the regent must be domiciled in the UK but the monarch doesn't have to be.

Reply

[-]

ItIsRaf@reddit

The establishment would not let Andrew take it

Reply

[-]

ItsDominare@reddit

The "damage it would do" didn't stop him diddling underage girls, did it? Why would it stop him this time?

Reply

[-]

Cosimo_Zaretti@reddit

Bad monarchs have been removed before and the monarchy has survived.

Reply

[-]

chi-93@reddit

Au contraire, Republicans (in the US) are currently desperately trying to repress the Epstein files.

Reply

[-]

ClockOwn6363@reddit

You don't think it would happen with Harry?

Reply

[-]

KingThorongil@reddit

No, I think that a pedophile becoming the king would be more damaging.

Reply

[-]

Thingummyjig@reddit

I’m out of the loop here, why do American politicians benefit from the end of the British monarchy?

Reply

[-]

carl84@reddit

We're not being cunty, we're pointing out your cuntistry for assuming everything, even the English language, ultimately comes down to America. A world exists outside of your borders

Reply

[-]

Ginger_Tea@reddit

Sad part is, they said they are British, they've just never heard the term outside of the American political party.

Reply

[-]

colei_canis@reddit

America-brain is sweeping through the country, a devastating neurological condition that causes victims to spout star-spangled bollocks at alarmingly high rates. For just £5 a month you can help find the cure.

Reply

[-]

carl84@reddit

That's even sadder

Reply

[-]

ArthurWellesley1815@reddit

Downvoted specifically for the edit. If you don’t know what Republicanism is at a really basic level (i.e. in favour of a republic), and are unable to apply any context clues, you might just be really really thick.

Reply

[-]

Indoril_Nereguar@reddit

I didnt know until I was an adult. It's the school system's fault; I was never taught about alternatives to the monarchy because it was just seen as *the* way.

Reply

[-]

Jakio@reddit

Republican as someone who wants to not have a monarchy, not the American political party

Reply

[-]

Thingummyjig@reddit

Ah, first I’ve heard of them. I’d have called them Anti-monarchists or something, thanks for the info.

Reply

[-]

ampmz@reddit

The Americans co-opted the term, this is the original meaning of Republican.

Reply

[-]

Thingummyjig@reddit

Ah fair enough! The stuff you don’t learn about in the 8 years of being taught about WWII in history lessons at school I see.

Reply

[-]

shredditorburnit@reddit

The history curriculum includes plenty about the English civil war, republicanism, the whole Lord Protector thing...if you didn't bother paying attention that's on you.

Reply

[-]

joker_wcy@reddit

Nor did they pay attention to the little bit of unrest after WWII called the Troubles, where one side is called Irish Republican Army.

Reply

[-]

permanently-cold@reddit

Whilst they may have been republicans during the English Civil War, the terminology used was Royalists v Parliamentarians. Also, given that "Anti-monarchists" is more commonly used these days in the UK (probably to avoid confusion with the US political party), it's quite understandable that the other commenter didn't make the connection. There's no need to be a c*nt about it.

Reply

[-]

shredditorburnit@reddit

So calling out some obvious bullshit (nobody spent 8 years at school studying WW2) is bad, in your eyes, and an appropriate response is to call me a c*nt? I think you might want to check yourself there. A finger pointing at me has three pointing back at you.

Reply

[-]

permanently-cold@reddit

Don't twist it to be about WW2 The original question was about why republicans (US party) would benefit from the end of the monarchy because thingummyjig didn't know that anti monarchists are also called republicans. You then made a swipe about there being plenty of stuff about the English Civil War and "republicans" taught at school, and it's their fault for not paying attention. However, as I pointed out, they were known as royalists and parliamentarians (or cavaliers and roundheads) during the ECW, and republicans is rarely used in the UK. Yes, your answer (and subsequent reply) is very c*ntish behaviour. You could have just given an informative, factual answer without the c*ntish undertones. I suspect being behind a keyboard gives is adding to this behaviour. For the avoidance of any doubt on your part; you're a c*nt 👍🏼

Reply

[-]

shredditorburnit@reddit

Wow, aren't we a treat? The comment said "spending 8 years learning about ww2". Not sure how that's me twisting it, it's literally in the comment. Your whole argument basically reads as "blessed are the ignorant". And you have terrible manners.

Reply

[-]

fastestman4704@reddit

Idk I think it reads as "just answer the question and don't be so rude".

Reply

[-]

WritesCrapForStrap@reddit

"It's very important to me that you know that I think I'm better than you." Always the top 1% commenters.

Reply

[-]

Frescadeedle@reddit

maybe in England..

Reply

[-]

Arsewhistle@reddit

I think the downvotes on your other comments are maybe a tad unfair, but blaming your ignorance on the history lessons you had at school is ridiculous

Reply

[-]

Arsewhistle@reddit

It's not a specific movement, it's just what the word 'republican' means. Any anti-monarchist is a republican, regardless of what country they're in.

Reply

[-]

JamJarre@reddit

Probably shouldn't accuse other people of having shit to brains when you just shat yourself in public over a really easy word mate

Reply

[-]

KingThorongil@reddit

Sorry about the downvotes you're getting, but easy mistakes to make when you're not used to the original meaning of the term. It's interesting how words lose their meaning in popular context over time. That applies to parties too. The GoP used to be the party credited with ending slavery, and Democrats used to be the one favoured by Southern States, but they gradually (although pretty quickly around LBJ era I guess) flipped views and voter base over time. To think that Abe and Satsuma are from the same party is just crazy.

Reply

[-]

sock_cooker@reddit

Downvoted for being a fragile cunt

Reply

[-]

ThereAndFapAgain2@reddit

Downvoted because of the edit because it’s funny lol

Reply

[-]

EdmundTheInsulter@reddit

It'd be 'republican' since they weren't talking about a named party, so you were never wrong to think he meant the US Republican party, capitalised.

Reply

[-]

Infinite_Crow_3706@reddit

r/americandefaultism

Reply

[-]

Thingummyjig@reddit

The correct sub is r/USdefaultism <3

Reply

[-]

Hugh_Stewart@reddit

Republicans in the ideological sense, rather than the US Republican party. Republicanism means believing that the state should be run as a republic, as opposed to a monarchy

Reply

[-]

Throatlatch@reddit

And also for american republicans, they could have a little pedo party together

Reply

[-]

GourangaPlusPlus@reddit

*Andrew furiously not sweating*

Reply

[-]

I_want_roti@reddit

*Hey Google, directions to Pizza Express Woking*

Reply

[-]

massive_delivery69@reddit

Andrew could not become king and has no titles and was stripped by the king. So even if there was a fateful accident and william and Charles die at same time, it would go to George he would assume king title but no duties till he's 18, and regent would step in to act on his behalf till he is of age at 2031. "Andrew" doesn't count t since he's renounced. I could imagine it goes to Harry if he came back to England to take over temporarily until George of age. Only way I see it. I think haha 😄

Reply

[-]

DotComprehensive4902@reddit

Or the Privy council could be regents

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

It’s such a ceremonial role these days I think they’d want a person. And a person at least technically barred from politics.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

I know this is anecdotal but unfortunately I know and work with more than a few weirdos who think that Harry is just as bad, if not worse than Andrew because of Meghan. I genuinely believe that it’s a mental illness to think that a man who married a woman of questionable likability is worse than a man who very clearly raped a minor/minors who were victims of an international sex trafficking ring. For the sake of clarity, I’m not commenting on whether should be regent or how his marriage may affect his suitability for the role. Just purely on their individual perceptions amongst the public.

Reply

[-]

s_dalbiac@reddit

On that point, call me a conspiracy theorist but there's probably another very glaring reason why people give Harry a hard time for his choice of wife that has absolutely nothing to do with Meghan's perceived questionable likability.

Reply

[-]

SuboptimalOutcome@reddit

I was very confused when people started calling others racist over not liking Meghan, I had no idea she wasn't white.

Reply

[-]

Dasy2k1@reddit

Honestly the fact she is an American "celebrity" with all of the cult of celebrity nonsense that seems to follow them and that she seems to revel in is much more of an issue than her racial heratage

Reply

[-]

ThePevster@reddit

Meghan Markle was not a big enough celebrity before her relationship with Harry for the cult of celebrity stuff to apply to her. Unless you were a fan of Suits, most people didn’t know who she was. Almost all of her celebrity status is derived from being a member of the royal family and thus much closer to the cult of celebrity around the royal family rather than being an American cult of celebrity.

Reply

[-]

PreparationWorking90@reddit

I think one of the most deranged media narratives in the UK was that Meghan Markle is an out-of-touch Hollywood Diva who didn't know what the life of normal people was like, while Prince Harry was just a normal, man-of-the-people.

Reply

[-]

KittyGrewAMoustache@reddit

I honestly don’t get how anyone could identify that a stranger is ‘revelling’ in something unless they specifically said they were. I also don’t get why someone revelling in something like ‘celebrity status’ is that bad? I’m trying to imagine a film where the plot is that a nobody, someone who’s had one acting part on a not that well known tv series, gets swept off her feet by a prince and marries him. I can totally imagine a film like that showing the actress ‘revelling’ in the attention and being wowed but because they’re the protagonist this would be seen as only normal and natural, like it’s a fantasy come true. It’s not like Kate didn’t ‘revel’, she deliberately sought to snag a prince and good for her she did. Personally I think it would be horrendous to be part of the royal family but these two women wanted it and got it and if either of them ‘revel’ in it, well good for them! Be happy they’re happy. I don’t get this attitude that people who like attention are awful for enjoying it when it comes from something they did that is good or normal, like acting or getting married.

Reply

[-]

Johnnycrabman@reddit

The first paragraph roughly describes the plot of a whole range of Hallmark Christmas films.

Reply

[-]

Lorezia@reddit

Very few had any notion she was mixed race. The public became aware when the tabloids started up their racist rabble rousing, and left-wing media talked about it non-stop in response. I don't think if I asked around I could find anyone in my vicinity who has heard of the American one drop rule. People will make a quick, subconscious assessment based appearance, and that is it.

Reply

[-]

SuboptimalOutcome@reddit

Her almost total whiteness made the dramatic Oprah "what shade will the baby be?" moment ridiculous, as though the baby's going to come out like Yaphet Kotto.

Reply

[-]

Lorezia@reddit

My guess has always been Philip, who asked such a stupid question 😭

Reply

[-]

TsundokuAfficionado@reddit

Harry confirmed after the interview that it wasn’t the Queen or Philip. My guess is Kate and/or William.

Reply

[-]

Lorezia@reddit

Fair, you know what, I wouldn't put it past the majority of that family, stupidity or malice depending on the person 😭 Funny, I did forget about that interview... still don't buy it. Man must've been one foot from the grave by that point, died a few weeks later. I'm sure Harry wanted to stop the rumours, whether he was innocent or guilty, so that wasn't the final story about his grandfather.

Reply

[-]

AttackOwlFibre@reddit

No it didn't. She doesn't have to look Black to draw out racism from English people - trust me.

Reply

[-]

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

Well indeed - it is absolutely down to racism and how the right wing red tops treated her - absolutely vile !

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

You're a conspiracy theorist. You've forgotten that Meghan's initial reception, from both the media and the public, was open-armed and gushing. It's her own mis-steps that have poisoned it.

Reply

[-]

Amrywiol@reddit

Yes - at the start the Royal family were delighted to have her on board as a marker of how modern and enlightened they were to have a mixed race daughter in law. It's her own actions that turned that into what we have now.

Reply

[-]

Nice_Back_9977@reddit

What actions? Not enjoying racism from her in laws?

Reply

[-]

TurbulentBullfrog829@reddit

Recollections may vary

Reply

[-]

Nice_Back_9977@reddit

Sorry, and being harassed and maligned by the press.

Reply

[-]

Illustrious_Study_30@reddit

I cannot cope with people writing platitudes on bananas for sex workers. I don't care who you are, or where you're from. Our relationship ends if you do something this asinine, embarrassing and tone deaf. I've been side eyeing her ever since.

Reply

[-]

Nice_Back_9977@reddit

You do know you don’t have a relationship with her right? The press went from fawning to brutal in the space of about a few months, she might be a bit cringey and very American but people are really weird about how much they hate her.

Reply

[-]

Illustrious_Study_30@reddit

Yeah, I'm tongue in cheek about it. I don't read the tabloids tbh, the banana thing was on the news .

Reply

[-]

blimping@reddit

I think it is up for extreme debate to what extent the royal family were actually on board in reality and also to what extent it was the media & culture war exaggeration of Meghan’s missteps vs anything she actually did.

Reply

[-]

s_dalbiac@reddit

I’m very clearly not talking about the Royal Family, but about some (by no means all, or even a majority) sections of the public.

Reply

[-]

KittyGrewAMoustache@reddit

Even the worst things she’s supposedly done are just so tame and don’t actually hurt anyone and are at most deserving of an eye roll, yet people act like she’s worse than child sex offender Andrew.

Reply

[-]

Appropriate-Divide64@reddit

It definitely was not. Certain people have been spewing hate from the start.

Reply

[-]

laudable_lurker@reddit

It would be glaring if her actual appearance matched common descriptions of her. I think most people wouldn't have even realised she was half black if she didn't constantly claim how racist the monarchy is. It was never about his choice of wife as well--Meghan wasn't really a problem when they first married. You can see that they only start being unpopular when they leave the UK (even the Oprah interview actually boosted their popularity overall for a while). If anything, her being American was more controversial. Interracial marriages are so common and normal in the UK (e.g. compared to the US) that I don't think many people commented on it. Her frequent expression of political views also likely a factor in any immediate dislike. People mostly think poorly of her now because of everything she's done since. * Her declarations of wanting privacy despite all the TV shows and interviews and books and events (the Sussexes' 'Worldwide Privacy Tour') * The way she seems to view British culture and traditions as old-fashioned, redundant, and worthless (e.g. comments about Kensington Palace, wanting 'Happy Birthday' for Archie to be sung at the coronation) * The way she presents herself (wants to be a 'normal person' but everything in 'With Love, Meghan' shows that clearly isn't--her presentation seems very fake--also see the selling vegetables thing) * How she is as a '''famous celebrity''' (twerking on the maternity ward) * How she and Harry seem to want the benefits of royal life (admiration--to a certain extent, security, free things) without the downsides (public service, commitment to family Personally, I would frame it as a dumb American celebrity not being able to adjust to actually working and not always being in the limelight so she constructs several sprawling (fake) narratives and then proceeds to do whatever she can to maintain popularity. It's a 'poor me', 'oh look I'm completely normal and just like you' scenario in which she doesn't seem to realise that she is married to literal royalty, lives in Montecito, and has a net worth of $60 million.

Reply

[-]

KittyGrewAMoustache@reddit

See I don’t know any of this stuff about her. It’s possible to not know it but some people seem to get obsessed specifically so they can hate her which is just weird and wrong. But none of it even seems that bad, nowhere near bad enough to deserve the vitriol she receives. Expressing political views, not bad in itself unless the views are cruel about a particular group based on arbitrary characteristics. Not liking the royal traditions, totally fair enough, what’s wrung with wanting happy birthday sang for your child, they’re just a kid, you think they would enjoy it. Ok so it’s a ‘faux pas’ for the stuffy royal traditions but it’s not exactly being a bitch is it? I think most people would find a lot of the traditions weird and old fashioned. Wants to be seen as normal while doing tv interviews. I don’t get why this is so awful. You can be treated like a normal person and be famous. Getting all hatey about her for something like this is an example of not being treated normally. Says she sells vegetables, ok if they sell vegetables so what? If she made it up to try to make her and her kids seem more relatable so what? It’s hardly some egregious lie that requires all the dissecting and rage that it elicited, with people analysing photos of their vegetables etc. If she lied about it if anything it makes me feel sad for her, like she’s desperately trying to be liked. Twerking on a maternity ward? Oh heavens no! Quick let’s have teams of Facebook comment castigating her and people ranting about her and she should definitely receive death threats for this etc. Come on who cares!?! People are just way over the top about her and get into this hatey ragey state about her that far far outweighs anything she’s actually done. The worst she’s done js maybe be a bit annoying.

Reply

[-]

DamnitGravity@reddit

I mean, I hate her because Mike was the best part of Suits and they had to write him out because she had to go marry a damn Prince.

Reply

[-]

Worried-Penalty8744@reddit

It’s his ginger hair isn’t it

Reply

[-]

OP_Scout_81@reddit

Every time I read that name, I hear Miiiigan.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

True. The Spencer gene means he has no soul.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

I completely agree with you but I cba with dogpiling from those whose life mission is to spread hate about Meghan. So my pc dog whistle term is questionable likability.

Reply

[-]

GnomeMnemonic@reddit

I think you're probably not helping matters with the really ambiguous phrasing you're going for in order to try to ward off the anti-Meghan brigade. Just say what you mean and then leave the idiots to argue in the comments by themselves (since they'll do that anyway, whatever you wrote).

Reply

[-]

DeliciousLiving8563@reddit

I suspect the overlap between Andrew critics and people who dislike Megan isnt enormous.

Reply

[-]

ExArdEllyOh@reddit

It's interesting, all of the evidence against Andrew is kind of based on hearsay, innuendo and supposition. If he did what he is alleged to have done then it's obviously much worse and he is a bit of a knob by all accounts anyway but it remains an IF. Harry on the other hand clearly fucked off his duty, tried to monetise himself in the crassest possible way and told untrue or embellished stories that were likely to hurt his grandparents for a combination of profit and pettiness. He also broke the Oath of Allegiance that he must have made at least once (at Sandhurst) to the late queen, her heirs and successors. Whether his missus is quite as bad as made out is debateable (although she doesn't seem to have liked real "princessing" very much, too few A-listers to many grubby poor kids) but irrelevant because the boy is responsible for his own conduct. In short Harry is a self-evident cock by his own actions but Andrew is worse if the allegations are true.

Reply

[-]

Particular-Zone7288@reddit

I dont think you need to pathogise it, when it can be explained by casual mysogyny and a bit of racism.

Reply

[-]

UmlautsAndRedPandas@reddit

It's a hereditary monarchy. The general public do not get to choose who is regent or king, that's the whole point. I remember reading a conversation on here while Liz was still alive where somebody genuinely hadn't realised that Camilla would be queen, and by the looks of it it blew their mind. If the braindead Meghan Sussex haters want to remove Harry then they will have to organise a revolution.

Reply

[-]

HighlandsBen@reddit

Exactly. All the talk about "whether we should skip Charles and have William as the next monarch" was annoying. That's not how this system works.

Reply

[-]

Albert_Herring@reddit

Yes, the traditional procedure would have been to invite Willem-Alexander van Oranje to take over instead.

Reply

[-]

EldritchCleavage@reddit

Yes please. I love Willex.

Reply

[-]

OldTimeConGoer@reddit

Abdication is a thing and Charles is getting on a bit. He seems to be holding up physically and mentally and his family has a good record for longevity, if genetics has anything to do with it. He's also subject to the sort of medical oversight that would not disgrace a farmer's prize cow. Elizabeth held out to the bitter end, probably because of the memory of Edward VII's shenanigans but Charles might decide to "retire" some time in the future.

Reply

[-]

Dasy2k1@reddit

But by convention If Charles was to abdicate Andrew would be the next king, and William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry, Archie, and Lillibet would all be cut from the line of succession completely Not exactly a good idea!

Reply

[-]

OldTimeConGoer@reddit

That's not how it works, but good try. The order of succession is fixed by statute, not by fantasy football rules and make-believe. Next up after Charles, regardless of how he goes, is William and his successors.

Reply

[-]

teh_maxh@reddit

When Edward VIII abdicated, his descendents were excluded from the line of succession.

Reply

[-]

OldTimeConGoer@reddit

Edward VIII had no (officially recognised) children before and during his reign. After his abdication any recognised offspring would not be considered to be in the official order of succession since he was no longer the ruling monarch when they were born and his original position in the line of succession had been, well, used up. If Edward VIII had had a child within marriage before or during his reign then that child would have been the rightful heir after his abdication regardless of the reasons for that happening. Since he didn't have any children at the time of his abdication, his younger brother became King George VI and the line of succession moved over to depend from the ruling monarch's family, resulting in his eldest daughter Elizabeth becoming Queen in 1952. Parliament is supreme and, as you say, they can change the order of succession if they choose to do so. They would not do so without good reason. Probably.

Reply

[-]

AutomaticInitiative@reddit

Abdication goes to the next in line. The last abdication went to his brother because the brother was the next in line as he had no children!

Reply

[-]

DogtasticLife@reddit

Well it’s not like we don’t have an extremely long history of upending royal custom when the situation demands it

Reply

[-]

No_Coyote_557@reddit

I'm up for another Charles l scenario.

Reply

[-]

Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit

In practice, it turns out that politics, religion, the best interest of the state or of the people in power, etc. can have a big influence on who the next monarch is.

Reply

[-]

richdrich@reddit

Or at least an act of all 15 commonwealth monarchical parliaments. Same applies to Andrew.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

He cannot be removed from the line of succession, but he need not be appointed as regent

Reply

[-]

Dasy2k1@reddit

Correct. And the regency act actually has somone before Harry who isn't actually in the direct line of succession... Princess Catherine/Kate is eligible to be regent as the mother/non ruling parent of an underage monarch This would be significantly easier if William officially dies after Charles even by 1 second as she would also then have the rank of Queen Dowager but as I understand the act there is nothing to prevent it in either case

Reply

[-]

saigon2010@reddit

Actually, Harry isn't in line to be regent as he's not domiciled in the UK, you're correct, it would be Catherine Section 3(2): > "The Regent shall be that person who, being of full age and a British subject domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom, is next in the line of succession to the Crown."

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

Catherine isn't in line of succession to the Crown, so no, it wouldn't be her. Although she would be George's guardian for all other purposes.

Reply

[-]

saigon2010@reddit

the Regency Act 1953 This Act was passed after the birth of Prince Charles, to cover the scenario that Queen Elizabeth II might die while he was still a minor. His father, Prince Philip, was not in the line of succession, so he couldn’t have been regent under the 1937 Act. To fix that, Parliament added a special clause: > “If the Sovereign dies leaving issue under the age of eighteen years, the Regent shall be that person who is the parent of the Sovereign and is qualified under section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 to be Regent.” In other words, it made the parent of a minor monarch (so long as they’re over 21, a British subject, and domiciled in the UK) automatically the regent — even if they aren’t in the line of succession. --- 🧭 How that applies today If King Charles III and Prince William both died while Prince George was under 18: The Regency Act 1953 clause would activate. His mother, Catherine, Princess of Wales, would become regent, provided she remains a British subject domiciled in the UK. The earlier 1937 Act rule (picking the next adult in line) would only apply if no qualifying parent existed.

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

\> “If the Sovereign dies leaving issue under the age of eighteen years, the Regent shall be that person who is the parent of the Sovereign and is qualified under section 3(2) of the Regency Act 1937 to be Regent.” I can't see that wording in the 1953 Act. ( [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/1](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/1) ) Can you clarify if I've misssed something, as it appears to \*specifically\* reference the former Duke of Edinburgh only?

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

Catherine isn't in line of succession to the Crown, so no, it wouldn't be her. Although she would be George's guardian for all other purposes.

Reply

[-]

Kinitawowi64@reddit

I had to remind my Dad about Camilla the other day when the BBC ran stories about "Queen pays tribute after Jilly Cooper dies". On the other hand, the BBC knew exactly what they were doing with that sort of headline.

Reply

[-]

cyberllama@reddit

My immediate thought was that they were talking about Brian May

Reply

[-]

Kinitawowi64@reddit

That was my second joke to him.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

I’m a republican so maybe it would work out in my favour that the Sussex haters and Sussex squad go at it French style.

Reply

[-]

UmlautsAndRedPandas@reddit

Same, haha. But I'm always amazed at the Royalists who don't seem to have ever taken a minute to think about how what they support works.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

It’s quite interesting how in the UK we can be critical of very hierarchical societies like India or South Korea where “knowing your place” is quite deeply ingrained. But in the same breath fail to acknowledge just how deep the class system goes over here. If people still had forelocks, I imagine more than a few would still tug them when “betters” crossed their paths.

Reply

[-]

LittleSadRufus@reddit

In my experience it's only Daily Mail readers (or others of that type) who seem to have this feverish hatred of both Harry and Meghan. My assumption is that certain parts of the right wing press have run a very hard black PR campaign against them. Those I question about it cannot even reasonably articulate why they hate them both so much, saying things like "Well it's just obvious" and "all they do is try to undermine the royals". I don't know if this is true, I don't follow the subject at all, but it's hard to imagine why they would be trying to undermine the royals completely unprovoked. And it's interesting to me that those who don't follow the gutter press don't seem to hold such strong opinions.

Reply

[-]

CaterpillarLoud8071@reddit

Eh, what I usually hear is that she's a whiny American who married into the famously corporate Royal Family and now spends her time complaining they're mean and racist and everyone gossips about her. My mother hates her because she lacks the stiff upper lip attitude that you expect from the Royal family.

Reply

[-]

HaraldRedbeard@reddit

Honestly I do think the kindest interpretation of the story they themselves tell - That she wasn't prepared for the reality of living and working in the modern Royal Family - is mostly a damning indictment of Harry. Like, you grew up in this system and have frequently spoken about its negative impact on your life and you just...didn't tell your future wife any of that? Yes the Daily Mail and others were unrelentingly fueled by racism towards her but they also aren't great ambassadors for their own cause IMO.

Reply

[-]

EldritchCleavage@reddit

Exactly!

Reply

[-]

gerrineer@reddit

I'm not a fan of meghan I dont care about her colour she just seems trashy what with the shite books and Netflix docs.

Reply

[-]

TheZZ9@reddit

I blame Harry for not warning Meghan what she was letting herself into. I think she had a Disney Princess image of what it would be like and Harry didn't tell her that most of the job would be opening community centers in Doncaster on wet Tuesday mornings. He didn't even tell her she'd have to curtsey to the Queen when they met. She thought that was just stuff they did in public. She only found out minutes before meeting her and Fergie had to show here what to do. Basically Harry's an idiot. Being "the spare" is the best of both worlds. He was close enough to the throne to get all the status and fancy roles but out of the line of succession so he could live his own life and choose what he wanted to do. William has his entire life planned out for him.

Reply

[-]

AlmightyRobert@reddit

It’s not so much a conspiracy as negative stories sell better. The papers tend to lay off the king and next inline because they don’t think it will play well with their audience but a minor royal, particularly one who has differences with the king, is fair game.

Reply

[-]

21delirium@reddit

They also get their royal gossip via a network of 'unnamed source from within The Household' which they wouldn't get if they started briefing too heavily against the central players. The fact that they were clearly phone tapping several royals (not just Harry) and he gets garbage PR because he's the only one who hasn't come to some kind of behind the scenes gentlemen's handshake agreement isn't a coincidence.

Reply

[-]

Pristine_Poem7623@reddit

"questionable likability" - most of the country actively dislikes or hates Camilla.

Reply

[-]

Ok-Albatross-1508@reddit

20 years ago maybe. Not so much now. She hasn’t really put a foot wrong since she married Charles.

Reply

[-]

Norphus1@reddit

I would imagine that most of the country is utterly ambivalent towards her. I don't give enough of a crap about her to actively dislike or hate her, tbh, and I suspect most people think the same. Same for most of the rest of them.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

I guess so. I’ve never heard anyone say that Camilla is just as bad or as worse than Andrew though. Perhaps in circles I’m not aware of.

Reply

[-]

KittyGrewAMoustache@reddit

There’s been a weird push on social media against meghan and Harry. Yes everyone hates Andrew and thinks he’s a creep but there’s no particular effort to constantly malign him, like with posts and articles critiquing what he did or said or wore on every other day of the week. Social media is extremely effective at driving intense vitriol and making people focus more on something they otherwise wouldn’t have been that interested in to the point they start hating someone or something to a weird degree.

Reply

[-]

No-Astronomer-1@reddit

It’s not just questionable likeability but issues linked to her personal characteristics that many don’t like and/or specific people in parts of the media who have used this to basically brainwash half the nation. Just do a count of the daily headlines on tabloids. It’s hard to still view someone positively when that’s stuffed down people’s throats daily.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

I have yet to see one headline about Meghan that’s even on the somewhat similar as the Andrew and Virginia stuff. But that’s just my opinion I guess.

Reply

[-]

No-Astronomer-1@reddit

Agree but what I’m trying to say is a personal characteristic linked to how she was born equals people hating her as much as Andrew both inside the RF and with the great British public and a lot of the west

Reply

[-]

KatanaMac3001@reddit

Questionable though Andrew's actions were; under UK law he didn't have sex with a minor and you would also have to prove he knew she'd been trafficked. It's also more than a little strange that the FBI in all these years have only had 2 Brits in the gunsights while Clinton and his 26 trips on that plane has gone in scrutinised, never mind all the other Americans.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

Under UK law, Meghan hasn’t done anything wrong. So it’s highly bizarre to me that people will do the most to defend Andrew whereas a woman that sent some emails in the morning or whatever is treated as the actual anti christ.

Reply

[-]

alangcarter@reddit

What's wrong with Meghan? She was in Fringe ffs how cool is that!

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

She’s a “funny tinge”, some people find that personally offensive.

Reply

[-]

BeccasBump@reddit

It's nothing to do with "questionable likability", let's face it.

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

I know, I responded to another comment saying I know exactly where it’s coming from but I cba with the dog pile. So “questionable likability” is my euphemism for that.

Reply

[-]

BeccasBump@reddit

Totally fair enough.

Reply

[-]

Exotic-Knowledge-243@reddit

He didn't rape a minor though. I'm disgusted by it but she was over the age of consent and I'm sure as a Prince he was used to women wanting to shag him

Reply

[-]

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

So because she was over the age of consent and he’s a prince who never learned discernment, that makes it okay? I know this is Reddit and everyone has to be correct to the point of pedantry lest you get downvoted, but what is the crux of your argument here? Sometimes it’s okay to realise that something is slightly wrong and move on because fundamentally the point is still the same. Now you’re here defending a rapist.

Reply

[-]

Delduath@reddit

People who are trafficked aren't consenting

Reply

[-]

newbathgrad@reddit

Are we really splitting semantic hairs over this? Okay so she was a teenager over the age of consent who was raped by a fully grown man. He’s a just a regular rapist but not quite a child rapist. Good for him, but how does this fundamentally change anything that the person you’re replying to said? Given the company he kept, and probably still keeps, it’s not a hard stretch of the imagination to believe he also raped minors trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. I’m not sure what you meant by the part of your comment saying he was a prince and was used to women wanting to sleep with him. But dear lord I hope you’re not trying to insinuate that the blame placed on Andrew is somehow lessened because of his title or some other such nonsense Imagine being a rapist on the taxpayers dime and still having people rush to defend you in various ways. This is exactly was op was getting at.

Reply

[-]

CASIOWATCHFAN2000@reddit

Would it not be Anne? I thought they changed the male female rule a few years ago?

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Not retrospectively unfortunately.

Reply

[-]

Evieveevee@reddit

Having just finished reading ‘Entitled’, the biography of the Yorks, that would be the worst thing imaginable. Couldn’t believe what I was reading.

Reply

[-]

EldritchCleavage@reddit

Ditto.

Reply

[-]

TheresNoHurry@reddit

Can you offer us a little sneak peek?

Reply

[-]

Evieveevee@reddit

Setting the whole Epstein list to one side (it’s documented in detail in the book as well as he penchant for young women), I couldn’t believe about the dodgy deals he made with different countries, business relationships with a Chinese spy, and money raised for his charities that mysteriously didn’t reach the charity. His ex wife came off just as bad, if not worse. I’m normally one to take these things with a pinch of salt, but evidence backed it all up. The overriding message is that the royal family absolutely loathe him.

Reply

[-]

pawntoc4@reddit

That he was the Queen's favourite child still blows my mind...

Reply

[-]

Evieveevee@reddit

In the book, the author says he was known as Baby Grumpling as all he did was whine. He was thoroughly spoilt and given what ever he wanted. He was Philip’s favourite too. The book is quite an eye opener as to just how unbelievably arrogant he is and apparently, incredibly stupid. This is how so much corruption could take place as he didn’t realise he was being used. He just lapped up all their attention and took their money without thinking of the consequences as he was so dumb.

Reply

[-]

LibraryOfFoxes@reddit

"He just lapped up all their attention and took their money without thinking of the consequences as he was so dumb." This sounds remarkably like... someone else.

Reply

[-]

lady_faust@reddit

He was their 'make up' baby

Reply

[-]

Evieveevee@reddit

He was also the first baby born when she was Queen and she wanted to make sure he didn’t feel he wasn’t getting as much attention as Charles and Anne would have received so she mollycoddled him.

Reply

[-]

abfgern_@reddit

Realistically parliament would be able to appoint a different regent, most likely Camilla, Edward or Anne in that order imo

Reply

[-]

Loose_Acanthaceae201@reddit

I mean, we haven't had a monarch needing a regent since the development of the monarchy into a position that has no day-to-day decision-making power. That is, hundreds of years ago the king was the law, but nowadays his signature on the paperwork is chiefly symbolic. So yes we probably want that signature to come from a legal adult, but it has been a very long time since it has really mattered what they think of it in any real way.

Reply

[-]

chmath80@reddit

>we haven't had a monarch needing a regent since the development of the monarchy into a position that has no day-to-day decision-making power 1811-1820 in fact. George IV was Prince Regent, for his father George III. That period of history is even known as the "Regency" era.

Reply

[-]

intlteacher@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/8tiuosjjlguf1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14d0bac6633152d0a9a7fe42f9c564283eee4db2

Reply

[-]

Minimum_Possibility6@reddit

While the monarch is technically a figurehead the power of parliament is from the monarch and the privy council technically is where decisions are made and they can act without parliament and have done even in living memory. We would need a regent to ensure the mechanisms of government still turn

Reply

[-]

Exotic-Knowledge-243@reddit

It would never be camilla. Katherine if anything at this point

Reply

[-]

spsammy@reddit

No I don’t think he is. Harry exists.

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Harry is that that I said they wouldn’t want to skip.

Reply

[-]

spsammy@reddit

Harry and his children- so three options after Wales and before Andrew.

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Like seriously why do I apparently think they’d skip George, both his siblings, land on Harry and yet his own underage children are in the game? What is poor George, let alone Charlotte and then Louis supposed to have done that we’re all talking about leapfrogging William’s entire spawn rather than, as per the comment above, talking about the regency?

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

For. Regent. Adults in the line as per the comment I responded to. Bloody hell…

Reply

[-]

KPS-UK77@reddit

No next up it Charlotte

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Next regent. Come on. Did I really think Andrew was next in line to George, who has two siblings, an uncle and two cousins before Andrew? The that to which I was referring was Harry’s regency.

Reply

[-]

Complex_Professor412@reddit

How far down is John Goodman?

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Fairly.

Reply

[-]

Free_Umpire_801@reddit

Would it not be Anne since the 2013 act? Or did that only apply to births after that date?

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Only after.

Reply

[-]

TheDaemonette@reddit

Wouldn’t it now be Anne as they got rid of the rule of primogeniture? Did they do it retroactively or only for future generations?

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

It’s still primogeniture. It’s no longer male preference primogeniture from the time of the act but it’s not retrospective. This means that Charlotte comes before Louis in the line, but Anne still comes after Edward.

Reply

[-]

Haircut117@reddit

>because the next up is… Andrew. The next up is Charlotte…

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

If you look at the comment I’m responding to, it’s about Harry being the automatic regent when George is King if he is underage. The next adult on is Andrew. I’m saying they wouldn’t want to skip Harry because if not Harry, the next adult is Andrew. George becoming King as a child is automatic. The regency is in that case handed down the adults in the line. So in line for the throne: George Charlotte Louis Harry Archie Lillibet. In line for the regency if George becomes King as a child: Harry Andrew Edward Anne.

Reply

[-]

Haircut117@reddit

Three of those possible regents are a terrifying thought. Honestly, we should probably just ignore all of that and put Anne in charge instead. She's the only sensible one in the bunch. Although we could probably at least rely on Sophie to keep Edward in check.

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

I agree Anne is the most logical choice based on serving record. If the order of regency hadn’t been codified she’d be the logical choice. If they’d made the removal of male preference from the line of succession retrospective it would be easier because Harry could say ‘no thanks’ without putting Andrew in that position of prominence.

Reply

[-]

ThatArsenalFan7@reddit

The British public would happily choose Andrew over Harry IMO

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

They won’t be asked. And no government would put Andrew in that position.

Reply

[-]

truearse@reddit

Fuck me

Reply

[-]

MarrV@reddit

Archie first, then Andrew

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

You think the six year old Archie would be regent for the twelve year old George?

Reply

[-]

MarrV@reddit

Well no, if you follow the line of thinking in this thread George was already discounted... Perhaps read the whole thread again?

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

‘The throne would pass to’ means George would be King. Were you thinking pass over? And according to current law, the regent - ruling on behalf of George till he’s an adult - would be ‘the next adult in the line of sucession’. Adults in line to be regent are: Henry, Andrew, Edward etc. Did you confuse regent with regnant?

Reply

[-]

Brilliant_Ad2120@reddit

Why isn't Ann before Andrew?

Reply

[-]

RDT_Reader_Acct@reddit

Wouldn't it be Anne? Isn't she older than Andrew?

Reply

[-]

HenryHarryLarry@reddit

They didn’t change the gender rules for current adult royals only new offspring. So Andrew gets it for being a bloke. That’s my understanding anyway.

Reply

[-]

MobiusNaked@reddit

Would he renounce or renonce the throne?

Reply

[-]

LensmanUK@reddit

Wouldn't it be the Princess Royal, Anne?

Reply

[-]

grogipher@reddit

Harry is 5th in line currently. Anne is 18th in line currently.

Reply

[-]

LensmanUK@reddit

I meant for the Regent, rather than the Monarch.

Reply

[-]

grogipher@reddit

Yes, but the Regency rules say the next adult in line? What's the argument for Anne over her brothers, or Kate?

Reply

[-]

mangonel@reddit

The argument for Anne over Edward and Andrew is that had the 2013 succession act been backdated, to include royals born before 2011, Anne would come before her younger brothers, making her the 3rd adult in line. Harry having "stepped back" doesn't take him out of the line if succession, but it could give him or others an excuse not to have him as prince regent.

Reply

[-]

grogipher@reddit

> had the 2013 succession act been backdated, But it wasn't? So it's moot..

Reply

[-]

Mejiro84@reddit

If push came to shove, it could always be revised in a hurry - 'oh shit, we don't want that guy in charge, let's just change the rules'. I doubt there'd be any particular objections or pushback, even if it's a little administratively iffy shuffling the rules on the fly

Reply

[-]

dave_gregory42@reddit

>'oh shit, we don't want that guy in charge, let's just change the rules' This approach has been used maaaany times over the centuries. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes things get a bit civil war-y. At this point, I'm not entirely against the latter.

Reply

[-]

Cerulean_IsFancyBlue@reddit

The last time push came to actual shoves, the monarchy was a much more powerful office. I don’t see people fighting a civil war over it at this point.

Reply

[-]

grogipher@reddit

> If push came to shove, it could always be revised in a hurry - Of course, and I agree. Most of these things are a bit of a fudge. But if they were going to change it, the monarch's great Aunt is a bit of a random choice, especially given the two great Uncles and an actual Uncle or a million cousins before them in the line of succession. Their own mum might be a more logical choice too?

Reply

[-]

LensmanUK@reddit

Ah right. I'd missed the "in line" bit. I was thinking about Charles' siblings. Guess I'm more a QE2 thinker rather than C3 😀

Reply

[-]

Katharinemaddison@reddit

In terms of right for the job I agree.

Reply

[-]

Dasy2k1@reddit

They could always pass a new regency act to allow any queen Dowager to also perform the duties of regent which would allow them to appoint Kate as Princess Regent This would be the most pragmatic solution that the public would accept

Reply

[-]

cer1978@reddit

In Entitled it says that a psychic told Fergie that Charles would die in an avalanche (before he actually nearly did) so Andrew would be regent for a then very young William (although the queen was alive at that point, maybe Fergie assumed she'd die of grief)

Reply

[-]

Bantabury97@reddit

He'd knight all his stuffed toys and then throw a fit and scream at everyone who so much as looks at them funny.

Reply

[-]

Gravitani@reddit

If William died and Harry didn't want to become regent I could see us passing it to Kate to be regent whilst George grows up. It definitely wouldn't go to Andrew, there would be uproar

Reply

[-]

JamJarre@reddit

That's not how it works unfortunately. Andrew would also have to decline and then it would keep going down the line of succession

Reply

[-]

Gravitani@reddit

Can be anything Parliament decides it'll be

Reply

[-]

JamJarre@reddit

Oh yeah sure, if we're going down that route then the regent would be Mr Blobby

Reply

[-]

Bubbly-Tank-6286@reddit

Would it be Anne now with the 2013 act, or isn’t it retrospective?

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Barnacle-200@reddit

It's not retrospective, and only applies to kids born after 2013. For example, Lady Louisa Windsor (Prince Edward's eldest child) is behind her younger brother, James, Earl of Wessex

Reply

[-]

Bubbly-Tank-6286@reddit

Thanks, I appreciate the detailed answer.

Reply

[-]

JustAnSJ@reddit

It's not retroactive, unfortunately

Reply

[-]

VariousGuest1980@reddit

But didn’t Prince Harry renounce anything his royal family status ( American here )

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

No, Prince Harry and his wife agreed that they would no longer be "working royals" (those who carry out official royal engagements) and they would no longer use the style "His (or Her) Royal Highness" and that they would be financially independent from the royal family. Harry is still a prince, his children are still a prince and a princess (though they don't use those titles), he's still the Duke of Sussex, his wife still uses the courtesy title Duchess of Sussex, his son can still call himself the Earl of Dumbarton (but doesn't), all of them can still use the style HRH (but have agreed not to) and Harry and his children are still in the line of succession to the throne.

Reply

[-]

VariousGuest1980@reddit

Thank you very much for explaining it.

Reply

[-]

santas-ass-pimple@reddit

Fuck no princess Harry as regent? Snipers bullet to the eye before that ever fucking happens

Reply

[-]

Nim008@reddit

Would the Regent not be one of the Counsellors of State?

Reply

[-]

quartersessions@reddit

Section 3(2) of the Regency Act: "A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and *domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom*". That's Prince Harry out.

Reply

[-]

intergalacticspy@reddit

Domicile is not the same as residence. Temporary residence doesn’t change domicile. And he can always move back.

Reply

[-]

quartersessions@reddit

Yeah, but he's definitely domiciled in the United States by any estimation.

Reply

[-]

intergalacticspy@reddit

Maybe. But it would be trivially easy in any case for him to reclaim his domicile of birth by taking up residence in the UK. He could do it within a day.

Reply

[-]

Psyk60@reddit

It could skip Harry because the Regent has to live in the UK. He lives in the US now. Of course he could move back to the UK if that happened, but as things stand it would skip him.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

As others have pointed out, the next in line is Andrew, which might be considered in ... well, poor taste. I think there might be some hurried legislation in this case.

Reply

[-]

TheProfessionalEjit@reddit

"Others" are incorrect; Andrew is not next in line. The line goes: 1. Cambridge 2. Sussex 3. York If you're talking about who would be regent, it would be the next adult in the line. in this hypothetical situation, it would be Harry.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

GGP already noted that Harry would be excluded because he doesn't live in the UK. Yay for reading comprehension.

Reply

[-]

joehonestjoe@reddit

I mean he has to live in the UK, we could just ship him off somewhere.

Reply

[-]

Normal-Height-8577@reddit

They don't need much in the way of legislation. Contrary to what most people seem to be assuming, I don't think it's actually a line of succession thing. The Counsellors of State were created in 1937(?) so that Parliament didn't have to come up with "oh shit what do we do now?" decisions at short notice. Any of the Counsellors can be asked to carry out official business for the monarch when they're abroad/busy/ill, and any of them could be tapped to act as Recent if the necessity arose. That's why we have other members of the family who are able to carry out the handling out of medals, knighthoods, etc for the Honours Lists. The Duke of York and Duke of Sussex can't be taken out of that group, but since both are inactive (the Palace states merely that *"In practice, only working Members of the Royal Family are called upon to act as Counsellors of State"*) the group was expanded after Charles' accession to fit Anne and Edward back in (they'd been part of the group until Harry and Beatrice were old enough). The current line up is: the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, the Duke of Edinburgh, the ~~Duke of Sussex~~, the ~~Duke of York~~ and Princess Beatrice. If Charles and William were both taken out, the regency would likely go to one of the four remaining people in that list.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

Parliament has to follow the existing Regency Acts (the key one being that of 1937) or pass a new one (as they did in 1953 appointing Prince Phillip) Harry is excluded as he’s not UK resident (and it just wouldn’t be fair to expect him to uproot his family who are happily overseas) and Andrew is unacceptable, so I think there would need to be a new Act

Reply

[-]

EmergencyEntrance28@reddit

Does the regent in question not need to "accept"? I would imagine that it might be pointed out to Andrew that he probably doesn't want the increased media scrutiny that would come with the role, so some reason might be created for him "not being able to accept the role".

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

Yes, you can’t force anyone in to it. But I suspect any wrangling would be behind closed doors, and then what the public would see would be the installation of a Regent in accordance with the 1937 Act or Parliament passing a new Regency Act to install someone else pdq

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

I don't think this is actually true. There is no provision in law to allow someone to decline the position. the only way to avoid it would be to renounce your position in the line of succession - but there's also no law allowing for that, either. So I think in any case legislation would be required. Such legislation would be passed pretty swiftly - the state needs to function and clearly someone acting as regent who doesn't want to do it is not going to help with that. If the regent refused to give assent to an act which removed them from the line of succession but also refused to otherwise carry out the duties of the sovereign, we would be in uncharted territory. Possibly it would be necessary to appeal to the precedent of the Glorious Revolution, where refusal to carry out the duties was judged to amount to abdication.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

The Line of Succession and the installation as Regent are totally separate things. You would not be excluded from the Succession for declining the role of Regent It’s not the same as abdication

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

You are simply wrong on this one. Go and read section 3 of the Regency Act 1937, which ties them together. You can only be regent if you are next in line to the throne (with a few exceptions) and you can only escape being regent by not being in line to the throne (or being one of the exceptions). The only exception is if the person is not a British subject, not 18 years of age or not domiciled in the UK. (The section lists a couple of others, but they are also things which disqualify someone from the line of succession. You also didn't understand the comment. The point is not that you would be excluded from the succession for declining the regency, but that the only way of avoiding the regency would be to be removed from the line of succession (or to leave the country - see above). The point about abdication was not that it is the same but that being removed from the line of succession requires legislation in the same way that abdication does.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

That's not regency, that's acting on the sovereign's behalf on the sovereign's request. Section 6 of the Regency Act 1937 limits counsellors of state to: >In the event of illness not amounting to such infirmity of mind or body as is mentioned in section two of this Act, or of absence or intended absence from the United Kingdom In the case that the sovereign is under 18 (s1 of the Act) or is "by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions or that they are satisfied by evidence that the Sovereign is for some definite cause not available for the performance of those functions" (s2) then the regency is fixed by s3: >(1) If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown. >(2) A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom, or is a person who would, under section two of the [M1](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/section/3#commentary-c588471)Act of Settlement, be incapable of inheriting, possessing, and enjoying the Crown \[[F1](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/section/3#commentary-key-82504b37694d506fceb3f48d435e0430), or is a person disqualified from succeeding to the Crown by virtue of section 3(3) of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013\]; and section three of the Act of Settlement shall apply in the case of a Regent as it applies in the case of a Sovereign. TL;DR: Counsellors of state can only act on the sovereign's behalf at the sovereign's request, not as a regent.

Reply

[-]

leemc37@reddit

Because the monarchy is utterly fucking insane, but it's also well organised.

Reply

[-]

tcpukl@reddit

Wow 2013 is recent. What changed in that act?

Reply

[-]

HarissaPorkMeatballs@reddit

Changed the gender rule so men don't get preference (so Charlotte comes before Louis in the line of succession), got rid of a rule about marrying Catholics meaning you can't succeed to the throne and changed requirements to ask the sovereign for consent to marry.

Reply

[-]

Loose_Acanthaceae201@reddit

You still can't *be* Catholic yourself iirc, but it doesn't matter what your spouse's religion is.

Reply

[-]

tcpukl@reddit

So their child couldn't be Catholic? Would be strange because aren't they the head of the church of England?

Reply

[-]

GypsySnowflake@reddit

My understanding (as a Catholic but not a Brit) is that if a British royal marries a Catholic, they now remain eligible for the throne so long as they don’t convert. If their child were baptized a Catholic I believe that would make said child ineligible to inherit the throne.

Reply

[-]

ThinkAboutThatFor1Se@reddit

Well it didn’t work out well with Queen Mary. Aka Bloody Mary.

Reply

[-]

Loose_Acanthaceae201@reddit

Meet [Lord Downpatrick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Windsor,_Lord_Downpatrick), second cousin once removed of Charles III. Interestingly, the changes to the law meant that his father (the Earl of St Andrews) was restored to the line of succession, having previously been excluded for marriage to a Catholic. The new law meant quite a reshuffle in the crown queue, but most of it so far down that it will never matter.

Reply

[-]

EdmundTheInsulter@reddit

Yes cos it violated EU law and UK law probably.

Reply

[-]

mantolwen@reddit

It got changed across all the countries who follow the British monarchy, so we don't get any weird situations where Canada has a different monarch to the UK because of different succession laws

Reply

[-]

tcpukl@reddit

I've never thought before that each country has to also implement the laws. So all these laws are mirrored that follow the monarchy?

Reply

[-]

mantolwen@reddit

Yes, every country that shares the British monarchy as theirs too updated their laws at the same time.

Reply

[-]

QBaseX@reddit

Some didn't, because in some the local law was just that whoever was monarch of the UK was also monarch there, so they didn't need to actively change anything. But yes, most places had to. In Canada and Australia, the monarch is also directly monarch of each province or state, so I think some of them had to change their laws too.

Reply

[-]

TheProfessionalEjit@reddit

Performative nonsense & virtue signalling by Cameron when there were more pressing things that should have taken up parliaments time.

Reply

[-]

tcpukl@reddit

Please keep politicians out of it. I've enjoyed reading the replies and learning. At least he didn't waste time forcing digital ID cards needed for work to fight immigration.

Reply

[-]

pajunior@reddit

Kate was pregnant and they wanted to change the rules so that if a girl was the eldest she would inherit over a younger brother.

Reply

[-]

Jolly-Minimum-6641@reddit

And after all that kerfuffle, Kate's first child is a boy anyway.

Reply

[-]

fortyfivepointseven@reddit

The Act only applies to future children even though it was the _perfect_ opportunity to pop Anne above Andrew in the succession.

Reply

[-]

fictionaltherapist@reddit

Well you see they knew he was a sex offender then but we didn't know they knew.

Reply

[-]

fortyfivepointseven@reddit

If half of the testimony in the Andrew Lownie book is to be believed, they also knew (or at least, the Queen knew) he was wildly corrupt. Even aside from the _allegedly_ criminal sexual behaviour, he was _allegedly_ enriching himself from the British state from the lowly position of Duke of York. Andrew as King or Prince Regent would be something else.

Reply

[-]

Puzzled-Barnacle-200@reddit

It changed the order of succession from "male preference primogeniture" to "absolute primogeniture". Essentially, from eldest son being the heir, to eldest child. But it only applies to children born after the introduction, and didn't change the order of succession for those already born.

Reply

[-]

AutomaticInitiative@reddit

Can you imagine the people who'd come out of the woodwork all of a sudden if it was retrospective? "My great great grandma was Alice, third child of Queen Victoria and as the eldest survivor of that line I claim the throne." It'd be bedlam lol

Reply

[-]

PositivelyAcademical@reddit

Three changes. Section 1 reformed the order of succession such that persons born after that Act came into force succeed by absolute primogeniture, rather than male-preference primogeniture, but persons born prior to the Act continue to succeed by male-preference primogeniture. (So Charlotte succeeds before Louis, but Anne cannot succeed before Andrew and Edward.) Section 2 retrospectively removed the disqualification of heirs who married Roman Catholics, provided they themselves don’t convert to Catholicism. (E.g. The Duke of Kent’s eldest son, the Earl of St Andrews, now succeeds before the Earl’s youngest daughter, Lady Amelia Windsor; his two older children are still disqualified Catholics.) Section 3 relaxed the sovereign’s consent rules for royal marriages. Prior to the Act, all descendants of George II needed the sovereign’s consent to marry (unless they were descended from princesses who had married into foreign royal families); alternatively, a person over 25 could bypass the sovereign by giving 12 months notice to parliament; if consent was not obtained or if parliament objected in the 12 month period, any attempted marriage was void. Now, only the first 6 persons in the line of succession need the sovereign’s consent to marry; if consent is not granted, they can nonetheless marry, but any children of the marriage are excluded from succession.

Reply

[-]

wosmo@reddit

They got rid of the male-first, but timed it carefully (after William's first child) so that it didn't have huge changes for anyone who already existed. So it means Charlotte is George's "spare" but otherwise has no real-world affect (tragedy excepting) until the next generation.

Reply

[-]

Marzipan_civil@reddit

It was put into motion before George was born, but as he is a boy it didn't affect his position in the line anyway.

Reply

[-]

BobbyP27@reddit

It does mean, though, that Charlotte did not lose her position to Louis when he was born.

Reply

[-]

Marzipan_civil@reddit

Yes - and if the first child had been a girl, she wouldn't have been overtaken by any younger brothers

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

This is not totally correct The Act was passed in 2013 on Britain, and parallel legislation was passed in all the realms and dominions at about the same time. But these laws were all enshrining the agreement reached in October 2011 at the CHOGM in Australia, and that is the date from which the change took effect. So even though it took varying lengths of time for each country’s parliament to pass the necessary legislation, the effective date everywhere was the one on which the agreement was made. And it was before any of the then Cambridge children were born

Reply

[-]

A_Right_Eejit@reddit

I think it was to allow first born girls to gain the throne.

Reply

[-]

GypsySnowflake@reddit

For some reason I thought his mother would become the regent

Reply

[-]

JohnCasey3306@reddit

Surely Harry having resigned it'd be whomever is after him to pick up the Prince Regent role? ... Mind you the whiff of fame and attention I guess he'd be straight back in

Reply

[-]

Skyskyskysword@reddit

Just curious. Didn’t harry resigned from his crown duties?

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

That's not necessarily relevant here. What is relevant is that he is excluded from being regent because he doesn't live in the UK.

Reply

[-]

Skyskyskysword@reddit

Oh thank you for explaining.

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

He ceased to be a "working royal" in 2020.

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

The next adult \*resident in the UK\* becomes Regent. So if Harry moved back to the UK he's Regent, otherwise it's Andrew. Unless we can previously persuade Andrew to go on holiday or become Governor General of a small unmanned iceberg.

Reply

[-]

emmjaybeeyoukay@reddit

The Regency Act 1937, section 3 (2) A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom So as Harry isn't domiciled in the UK I don't think he would be next in line. Assuming that other royals are around, the Regency Act would appoint Andrew. Leading to some rather strained family and political wrangling.

Reply

[-]

Jolly-Minimum-6641@reddit

I think someone like Princess Anne would be a better choice of regent.

Reply

[-]

No-Astronomer-1@reddit

Suspect the RF would much prefer Andrew than Harry though

Reply

[-]

lovelylonelyphantom@reddit

That's actually just a technicality and not a requirement to follow. They can name whoever they want as Regent. Queen Victoria was almost forced to make her mother's boyfriend be her Regent if she became Queen when she was still underaged. When King Charles was young, Prince Philip was named to be Regent in the event Queen Elizabeth passes away before Charles was an adult, instead of Princess Margaret who was the next adult in the succession line.

Reply

[-]

Anubis1958@reddit

As Harry is non-resident, non-working royal, could Anne take over as Pricess Regent? I suspect that might go down better with British public.

Reply

[-]

TroubleMakerParis@reddit

Why is Anne not next in line? Charlotte is about Louis.

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 changed the rules so that males no longer had precedence over females but it didn't retroactively change the order of succession to Anne (and her children) are still behind her younger brothers (and their children).

Reply

[-]

FireWhiskey5000@reddit

I thought that a regency council could be appointed (could be wrong), I would imagine that they would want someone “of the blood”. But I could see them looking to Princess Kate, Edward and Anne to chip in. But history tells us regency councils just end in squabbling, infighting and general chaos.

Reply

[-]

Chesterfieldraven@reddit

Harry is not in succession at all anymore.

Reply

[-]

jesus_stalin@reddit

He is no longer a working royal but he is still in the line of succession. There are thousands of people in the line of succession, the vast majority of whom have no royal duties.

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

Do you have a source for that?

Reply

[-]

Chesterfieldraven@reddit

He left the royal family mate. It was kind of big news. He has no official royal duties or requirements. He is not officially a royal.

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

Most members of the royal family have no official royal duties or requirements but they're still members of the royal family and they are still in the order of succession. [The royal family's own website lists Harry and his children in the order of succession.](https://www.royal.uk/encyclopedia/succession) It might feel, to you, like he's no longer a royal and perhaps he would refuse to be a regent in OP's scenario but legally he still is.

Reply

[-]

WoodSteelStone@reddit

Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are ahead of Prince Harry in the Line od Succession.

Reply

[-]

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

The regent has to be "of full age" ie 18.

Reply

[-]

Gone_For_Lunch@reddit

If George is too young and needs a regent, I doubt they’d be using his even younger siblings.

Reply

[-]

WoodSteelStone@reddit

Your edit to add the word 'adult' makes more sense.

Reply

[-]

Gone_For_Lunch@reddit

Wasn’t my edit.

Reply

[-]

halenda06@reddit

He says adult specifically.

Reply

[-]

WoodSteelStone@reddit

Not in their original comment. The word adult was added after I posted my comment.

Reply

[-]

Appropriate-Draw1878@reddit

Out of curiosity, in a purely theoretical case, would the Prince Regent change if someone behind the new King/Queen in the succession but ahead of the PR turned 18 before the new King/Queen.

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

Yes, that's section 3 (3) of the Regency Act: >If any person who would at the commencement of a Regency have become Regent but for the fact that he was not then of full age becomes of full age during the Regency, he shall, if he is not otherwise disqualified under this section, thereupon become Regent instead of the person who has theretofore been Regent.

Reply

[-]

Appropriate-Draw1878@reddit

Thanks! Nice to know they’ve actually thought about this.

Reply

[-]

gameofgroans_@reddit

Opinions aside on them as I’m genuinely interested, but I thought Harry had removed himself from the family? Does that not stand as far as overcoming this act?

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

The fact that he's not living in the UK would disqualify him I think but there's no requirement for a regent to be a working royal and Harry is still fifth in the order of succession.

Reply

[-]

JMol87@reddit

Does that change because Harry and Andrew have both been removed from Royal duties!?

Reply

[-]

GaryJM@reddit

The law states that the regent will be the next person in the line of succession who is not disqualified due to being (a) not a British subject or (b) not an adult or (c) not domiciled in the United Kingdom or (d) Catholic or (e) having married without the monarch's consent. Harry might be disqualified for not living in the UK (though if he moved back here then he would qualify again) and there's nothing to disqualify Andrew.

Reply

[-]

tom56@reddit

So George would be King but not head of state? Or he wouldn't be King either?

Reply

[-]

Gone_For_Lunch@reddit

He’d be King and the Head of State in name, but all of the expected duties would be done by the regent.

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

But wouldn’t that be like asking a child if they did or didn’t want veggies with their tea? He’s not going to be able to answer

Reply

[-]

StatlerSalad@reddit

\>all of the expected duties would be done by the regent on his behalf

Reply

[-]

Psyk60@reddit

He would be king, and the official head of state. A Prince Regent is a sort of acting king/head of state. They would be the one actually doing the job, but on paper it would be on behalf of the actual king. Kind of like how other Commonwealth Realms like Canada and Australia have a Governor General, who does all the head of state duties, but the official head of state is the king.

Reply

[-]

fortyfivepointseven@reddit

This is technically correct but I suspect that Parliament would pass the Regency Act 2025 in a single day sitting declaring Queen Mother Catherine to be the regent on an ad hoc basis. Prince Regent Henry's only act would likely be flying to the UK to sign the Bill. I also suspect that this Act would remove Andrew from the regency succession.

Reply

[-]

Neefew@reddit

Well that sounds all well and good so long as George doesn't go into any towers and 'disappears'

Reply

[-]

afcote1@reddit

lol long live Queen Harry

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

Did you know that none of the them(the ones in the direct line of succession) are actually allowed to travel on the same aircraft. Just in case it comes down and leaves the UK in a constitutional crisis.

Reply

[-]

bowak@reddit

It does seem a bit over the top as a rule considering they knew the line of succession to hundreds if not thousands of places.

Reply

[-]

Unique_Agency_4543@reddit

It's not that they couldn't find a successor, they just don't want the crown moving in an unexpected direction

Reply

[-]

bowak@reddit

No real King Ralph for shame.

Reply

[-]

JJY93@reddit

Oh, bloody hell, it’s gonna be Pascal Sauvage, isn’t it?!

Reply

[-]

WowzersTrousers0@reddit

No, you're thinking of the American president/vice president.

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

No, I’m definitely not. My work used to directly involve in Royal Protection, not that matters it’s information that’s in the public domain. Will and Kate have even come in for criticism for all going only holiday together. [Daily Mirror Article](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/strict-rules-royal-family-follow-33938246)

Reply

[-]

WowzersTrousers0@reddit

That backs me up - It's a self imposed rule they follow, not some sort of actual law imposed upon them.

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

😂

Reply

[-]

Jack_Kegan@reddit

I love the sheer confidence that someone has to correct another person based on nothing ahahah

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

It made my chuckle a little.

Reply

[-]

FuyoBC@reddit

An old company of mine had a rule that a whole team could not travel together, they had to split the team into 2 groups to travel separately, so not just heads of state either!

Reply

[-]

No_Reference_9640@reddit

Its pretty standard for example if all a company’s senior execs were travelling to same event they would not all be on same plane as it would be Armageddon for their stock price and continuity

Reply

[-]

BoopingBurrito@reddit

Nope, that rule applies to the royals as well.

Reply

[-]

LAcasper@reddit

So George never travels with his dad?

Reply

[-]

Glum_Football_6394@reddit

As I understand it, the monarch and whoever's first in the line of succession can't travel together - which at the moment means Charles and William. William and George can travel together until William becomes king. (Someone will undoubtedly correct me if I'm wrong).

Reply

[-]

crb11@reddit

The protocol as I understand it is that "direct heirs" cannot travel together once they get to the age of 12, so William and George can't, and couldn't have even if Queen Elizabeth II was still alive.

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

The royal protocol kicks in when they turn 12. Kate and Will are keen for them to still have a “normal” life and travel as a family. If they are to travel as a family like that it would be shrouded in secrecy.

Reply

[-]

whovian25@reddit

I believe that was suspended when the queen died as I seem to remember they put a lot of royals in the first available plane up Scotland

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

Your source?

Reply

[-]

whovian25@reddit

https://news.sky.com/story/queen-under-medical-supervision-as-doctors-are-concerned-for-her-health-12692805 Charles, Anna and Camilla were already in Scotland while Prince William, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex all flew together from London though reportedly only arrived after the queen had died.

Reply

[-]

Chance-Beautiful-663@reddit

So Prince William was first in line to the throne, Prince Andrew eighth, Prince Edward thirteenth, and Sophie not at all.

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

Did you know that none of the them**(the ones in the direct line of succession)** are actually allowed to travel on the same aircraft. Just in case it comes down and leaves the UK in a constitutional crisis. source: My old job

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

Two people can die on the same day without being on the same aircraft.

Reply

[-]

BaBaFiCo@reddit

Yes, but not having them in the same plane reduces the risk.

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

Sure. But the risk of dying in a plane crash are so miniscule, it makes really no statistical difference in the grand scheme of things. A father and son are likelier to die of natural causes on the same day than they are in a plane crash. Especially when one of them is a 70 something recovering from cancer.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Adhesiveness_8637@reddit

Unless of course the father and son we are talking about are the royal fucking family. It's really easy for a terrorist organisation to use ground to air missiles on that plane. We aren't talking about a Ryanair flight from Liverpool to tenerife here.

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

In this history of aviation, how many Heads of State, or Heads of Government have ever been hurt or killed either in a plane crash? Or in a terrorist incident. PS it's nine, and three (maybe 4) were assassinations. You can do the maths on how many ordinary Joes have been killed in aircraft crashes whether terrorists are involved or not. I get the risk perception is higher, and I don't object to the common sense of not having the line of succession travelling together, but let's not pretend that the risk of dying on a Royal plane is higher than flying from Liverpool to Tenerife on a low cost airline. Use some critical thinking.

Reply

[-]

HugeEstablishment835@reddit

This could actually be THE worst take on Reddit.

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

The truth is a bad take these days? The risk profile means a VIP jet is much safer and better guarded than average planes.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Adhesiveness_8637@reddit

By your stats and your stats alone, they dont need to be more protected, so why are they? Oh thats right, cause they see the need for it. Bros following the Terrence Howard logic pool.

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

Nope, I'm saying that the**increased** risk of two members of the Royal family dying in the same plane crash is pretty **negligible** because of how well protected they are.

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

Doesn’t change the fact that they are literally not allowed to travel together on the same aircraft by as per royal protocol. They rarely travel in the same car.

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

Yes, but given they are not permitted to travel together, it's not really a factor in this unlikely made up scenario.

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

So what’s your point then stranger? My comment was purely expanding on the discussion. I was attempting to answer OPs question.

Reply

[-]

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

>My comment was purely expanding on the discussion. I wasn’t attempting to directly answer OPs question. Ha and I called out that you made no attempt to answer the question.

Reply

[-]

FamSender@reddit

You didn’t.

Reply

[-]

redds56101@reddit

OK?

Reply

[-]

Studio_Ambitious@reddit

King Charles won't pass until next year. William will have a long reign. His eldest won't be king. Based on nothing.

Reply

[-]

EUskeptik@reddit

Anyone but Harry. Never, ever Harry. 🤬

Reply

[-]

cazzo_di_testa@reddit

Pass what? The doorway?

Reply

[-]

ExpectedBehaviour@reddit

Yes, that's how it works.

Reply

[-]

more-sarahtonin-plss@reddit

Yes of course, why wouldn’t he?

Reply

[-]

Additional_Egg_6685@reddit

You are going to look mighty suspicious if somehow that happens now….

Reply

[-]

KollyKibber39@reddit

I'm surprised Prince George is allowed on Reddit

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

I borrowed James phone.

Reply

[-]

volodymyroquai@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/b908q8je6cuf1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=040343dd9e0b6033fedd2a1568db856ea8b2a44f

Reply

[-]

derpyfloofus@reddit

CLARKSON!!!!!!!

Reply

[-]

PIStaker984@reddit

HAMMOND!!!!!

Reply

[-]

ThoseHappyHighways@reddit

Quickly, everyone: ‘we hail Prince George’, ‘we hail Prince George’.

Reply

[-]

Marilliana@reddit

We hate Prince George sir, we HATE Prince George.

Reply

[-]

DuckyMcQuackatron@reddit

King George!

Reply

[-]

Unusual_Entity@reddit

George would officially be crowned as King George VII. As he's under 18, the next adult in line (that's Harry) would become Prince Regent until the King turns 18. If Harry declines, it then falls to Andrew. Expect mourning for the King, Prince and Princess to be tempered with public outcry over having either of those two effectively on the throne until 2031.

Reply

[-]

BuriedInRust@reddit

An old sock could be king for all the use he is

Reply

[-]

Greedy_Heron_3034@reddit

George would be king. Then parliament would set up a regency council until he’s 18 years old. The regent might not necessarily be Harry.

Reply

[-]

FreedomMammoth7738@reddit

why do you need a King ?

Reply

[-]

mikpgod@reddit

Give Anne the role, if she wants it(doubtful). A safe pair of competent hands in the interim.

Reply

[-]

SalParadise100@reddit

You would hope at that point we’d just sack it all off

Reply

[-]

FederalSquirrel1361@reddit

If game of thrones has taught me anything it’s the crown would pass to Harry until George is of age, unless Harry hatches an elaborate murder to siege control for himself.

Reply

[-]

Puzzleheaded_Gold698@reddit

Little Georgie strutting his stuff over us filthy peasants. 🤣

Reply

[-]

Least-Amphibian2538@reddit

The funny thing about this conversation is people think their opinion matters. The Royals will defend the firm at all costs. George will be made King (cue another £74 million wasted on a nonsense coronation) and they will appoint a Regent till he turns 18. The key is they will do everything to maintain the succession and stop any debate their utility.

Reply

[-]

National_Average1115@reddit

If that scenario looked at all likely, Parliament would bump Anne and Edward up the succession immediately, and a spot of light blackmail from MI5 would ensure no objections from York and Sussex.

Reply

[-]

DangerousDisplay7664@reddit

If they were to pass what? Pass their driving test? Pass wind? Pass the salt?!

Reply

[-]

bloodandglory31@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/8vyivzeorduf1.jpeg?width=1085&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df626c664cd9fd48d4635df1e0d63873425ad62b Time for the true heir

Reply

[-]

richdrich@reddit

You mean if they die? Yes, there would be a regent. If George dies, it will be Andrew. It would need an act of parliament in every commonwealth monarchy to remove him from succession, even if he abdicated voluntarily.

Reply

[-]

wombles2@reddit

What is this medieval Game of Thrones shit?

Reply

[-]

Dizzy_Beach_3743@reddit

Yeah but I wouldn't take him seriously

Reply

[-]

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

Yes. There would be advisors and regents, possibly Kate would be the queen regent most likely. But George would be king and it happens by law instantly upon the death of his father (presuming his grandfather also dies)

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

So, George would be king alongside his mother who would be queen. That’s a lot to unpack.

Reply

[-]

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

No no. Not technically. Kate would be queen because her husband would have been king but she wouldn't actually be monarch. Think cercy Lannister. She had no actual claim to the throne but her children were too young to rule, but was queen regent because she had been Roberts wife and has his children so far as everyone knew. She did their day to day duties while every now and then her children, the actual kings, were wheeled out to make big decisions that needed some theatrics. Someone would do the daily tasks of monarch while George grew up, Kate just makes sense to be that person as future queen and George's mother, though she may have a different title.

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

That may be the most sensible comment. I will read up on Cercy Lannister. Thank you kind Reddit person

Reply

[-]

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

Someone else is also saying Harry might be the regent, but that seems super dumb to me. "Afternoon spare. Want to be responsible for running the kingdom while your only barrier to becoming king is a small helpless boy." Really doesn't seem like good management to me.

Reply

[-]

OverlordOfTheBeans@reddit

Not quite. Both Charlotte and Louie are ahead of Harry too. It would take a pretty major catastrophe for us to end up with King Henry IX!

Reply

[-]

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

Oh yeah forgot about the other kids. Fair point. I doubt bucks palace has enough staircases.

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

It's how the legislation is set up, primarily because they were more concerned with senile kings than underage ones. It's also important to note the Regent isn't the same as the underage King's guardian.

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

Game of Thrones rules do not apply here.

Reply

[-]

WaterEarthFireAlex@reddit

There’s not really a precedent for someone not of the royal blood to be regent. This isn’t game of thrones. Britain has never done that. Kate doesn’t have royal blood, she married into it. The regent would be Anne.

Reply

[-]

Esky01@reddit

Britain's had non-dynastic regents plenty of times, particularly before the Acts of Union but also a couple since then. It's been very common for the Queen or a politician/council to rule as regent(s) when the king is away or underage. From the sounds of things from other comments in this thread though it seems the case nowadays that by law the regent has to be the next in line

Reply

[-]

WaterEarthFireAlex@reddit

Well, I misspoke. There hasn’t been precedent for non-royals to rule as regent. And when I say that, I mean commoners before they married into the royalty. There has been non-windsor royals ruling as regent.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

The Regency Act 1953 made provision for the Duke of Edinburgh to be Regent, and he wasn’t of the ruling house, nor a prince at that stage (he renounced his foreign titles before his marriage, and wasn’t created as a British Prince until 1957

Reply

[-]

WaterEarthFireAlex@reddit

The Duke of Edinburgh was royalty prior to the marriage and did not marry into royalty.

Reply

[-]

grogipher@reddit

> Kate would be queen because her husband would have been king but she wouldn't actually be monarch. Depends on the order of the deaths in the hypothetical!

Reply

[-]

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

Yeah having lots of royals suddenly die really complicated things. Like I said, she may be given a different title than queen. She is dutchess of Cambridge so she may be dutchess regent.

Reply

[-]

grogipher@reddit

Princess Regent, surely? Since that's higher?

Reply

[-]

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

I'm not actually sure she is actually a princess. We don't tend to use that term for the wives of princes. I don't recall anyone calling her princess Kate.

Reply

[-]

grogipher@reddit

"Princess Kate" is literally what the headline writers call her. Officially she is Katherine, Princess of Wales

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

No, that’s the style of a divorced one She is HRH The Princess of Wales But yes, loads of people refer to her as Princess Catherine, even though it’s wrong

Reply

[-]

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

I stand corrected.

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

Nope. Catherine isn't in line to the throne, so she doesn't become regent - although she would be his guardian for all other purposes.

Reply

[-]

4thGenTrombone@reddit

If such a thing happened, Princess Catherine would be the power behind the throne.

Reply

[-]

EscapefromRapaNui@reddit

What are you planning exactly?

Reply

[-]

InterestedObserver48@reddit

Yes that’s how hereditary monarchy works

Reply

[-]

Dasy2k1@reddit

George would be king. There would then be a regency until he is 18 Any of the current councillors of state plus Princess Kate would be eligible to be Prince/Princess Regent and the rest of them would form a regency counci Most likely Kate would be princess regent and the regency council would consist of Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Princess Beatrice (potentially princess Eugene too) It's the next 4 people in the line of succession but skipping any who have resigned as working royals

Reply

[-]

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

No, the regent is set in law. The next adult in the line of succession is regent unless incapable or non-resident. So that's \*currently\* Andrew as Harry is non-resident. Catherine isn't in line to be regent at all.

Reply

[-]

Dasy2k1@reddit

You appear correct. There was a regency act that specifically allowed the parent of the sovereign to be regent but there has been another regency act passed since then that has replaced it and no longer has that provision

Reply

[-]

LatelyPode@reddit

It’s happened before, King Edward VI was 9

Reply

[-]

docju@reddit

In Scotland, James VI was king at the age of 1 so 12 seems geriatric by comparison!

Reply

[-]

Snoo_85887@reddit

James VI's mother Mary Queen of Scots was *six days old*. Also there was Henry III of England who was 9, and Henry VI who was nine months old.

Reply

[-]

docju@reddit

Yeah I’d forgotten about Mary!

Reply

[-]

Snoo_85887@reddit

Alfonso XIII of Spain (the great-grandfather of Spain's current King) was King *from birth*. His father (Alfonso XII) died when his mother was pregnant with him, so he was officially King the moment he was King. His mother was the regent until he reached adulthood. So you literally had Spanish coins in the 1880s and 1890s with the his head on them...as a baby.

Reply

[-]

BigManLikeBarey@reddit

Such a crazy thing to thing about

Reply

[-]

AstroBlush8715@reddit

You can say "die", you know. You're bit going to be silenced by the anti-death goblins

Reply

[-]

HurkertheLurker@reddit

Why doesn’t anyone say die anymore? It’s not like we’re American is it? Passed what? A rather taxing stool? Their cycling proficiency badge at Beavers? If they died. Go on say it!! I dares ya!

Reply

[-]

Frequent_Creme3175@reddit

Yeah George would technically become king right away but since he’s a minor there’d be a regent ruling in his place until he turns 18 most likely Prince Edward or someone appointed by Parliament

Reply

[-]

goodknight97@reddit

Boy George as a king? Nice

Reply

[-]

JRR92@reddit

Under the law there's no actual way to stop it, George would become king automatically under the rules of succession Now I'm sure there would be many conversations had about how logical this is in the 21st century and there would be a lot of talk of abolishment, abdication and even regency, but whatever happens he would be counted as a King

Reply

[-]

Snoo_85887@reddit

No more or less logical than Richard Nixon resigning at more or less the same time as his Vice President, and the Americans as a result ending up with Gerald Ford bloke who literally looked, behaved and sounded like Homer Simpson, in the top office. I just think humans are inherently illogical, whatever the system of government.

Reply

[-]

LaurelEssington76@reddit

I think the absurdity of that would probably be a nail in the coffin of the monarchy.

Reply

[-]

Snoo_85887@reddit

Nah, surprisingly it's happened quite a few times before. Henry III was nine years old when he became King, as was Edward IV, and Henry VIII's son Edward VI was 12 when he became King. Henry VI was all of *nine months old* when he became King. And in Scotland, James VI was a year old, and his mother Mary Queen of Scots was the grand old age of *six days old* when she became Queen. In all cases, an adult family member, usually their mother or an uncle or cousin, ruled as regent in their name until they became an adult. And not Britain, but in Spain, King Alfonso XIII, whose father died when his mother was pregnant with him, was King *from birth*, and his mother was regent for him until he entered adulthood. It's not that much of a big deal, if a monarch succeeds the previous monarch while still a child, they simply have a family member act as regent in their name until they're old enough to do it themselves.

Reply

[-]

APlatypusBot@reddit

How many bank holidays would we get from that? Asking for a friend.

Reply

[-]

Liliosis@reddit

An older member of the family would become Regent until George is old enough to rule.

Reply

[-]

jeebojeeb@reddit

Found Prince George's reddit...don't do it buddy

Reply

[-]

Unusual_Purpose_7185@reddit

We know it's you, George.

Reply

[-]

Waste_Ad9015@reddit

No I would put my hat in the ring, and I am confident I could be king.

Reply

[-]

whovian25@reddit

George would be king though a regent would be appointed until he turned 18

Reply

[-]

Dreadheaddanski@reddit

And ice cream would be free for everyone

Reply

[-]

docju@reddit

Scotland had a 1-year-old king (James VI) so not unheard of on this island!

Reply

[-]

jesus_stalin@reddit

And his mother became Queen at 6 days old!

Reply

[-]

docju@reddit

Can’t believe I forgot that!

Reply

[-]

rollo_read@reddit

No, Harry and ironically Andrew would oversee the next 6 years with assistance with the Privvy Council.

Reply

[-]

goingpt@reddit

Found Price George's burner account. I just can't prove it. https://preview.redd.it/ukwbk4s949uf1.png?width=393&format=png&auto=webp&s=abc3ac18150fcb9433088f10bfb2b038348c4fb1

Reply

[-]

Glittering_Habit_161@reddit

He would have gone to school when this was posted since he doesn't have a phone.

Reply

[-]

Bitter-Limit-5759@reddit

r/whoosh

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

Motherfucker

Reply

[-]

RoyskiPoyski@reddit

Why, what are you planning?

Reply

[-]

squigs@reddit

George would be king. A regent would be appointed. Fortunately there's a process for selecting the regent (essentially next adult in line; which I think would be Prince Harry). Before the 1937 Regency Act, parliament passed specific regency laws if the heir apparent was under age. For example, When William IV came to the throne, Princess Victoria was only 11. The 1830 Regency Act established who would be regent before the Queen came of age, and what would happen in the event that the Queen bore a child (not impossible she was considerably younger than the king).

Reply

[-]

Angel_Omachi@reddit

And William was then absolutely determined to live until Victoria was 18 as he hated her mother and didn't want her ending up as regent. He succeeded.

Reply

[-]

TRDPorn@reddit

He would be King but would have a regent (most likely his mother) until he was of age

Reply

[-]

RevolutionaryEgg1312@reddit

No one likes any of the ones in line especially not the rapist paedophile parts of the family. So, fingers crossed, the death of Charlie and William would mean we finally end the monarchy and become a Republic.

Reply

[-]

Real-Adeptness7176@reddit

Ok George. Back to school now please.

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

It’s break time. I also stole James phone haha 😜

Reply

[-]

Real-Adeptness7176@reddit

Just don’t look at Andrew’s.

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

According to “find my friends” it’s in Woking at a pizza establishment

Reply

[-]

ihatethis2022@reddit

Dont blame them!

Reply

[-]

Nielips@reddit

No, he'd be 13 by the time his coronation happened.

Reply

[-]

pinpoint321@reddit

It would pass to an American named Ralph and hi-jinks would ensue.

Reply

[-]

Glass_Assistant_1188@reddit

Given the issue with both Harry and especially Andrew.. it's likely princess Kate or princess Anne would be seated as regent. It wouldn't be that difficult either a simple act of parliament.

Reply

[-]

Least-Importance-900@reddit

The next one after Harry would be Anne not Andrew!

Reply

[-]

EUskeptik@reddit

Anyone but Harry. Never, ever Harry.

Reply

[-]

Investigator516@reddit

Yes. It’s happened at a young age, too.

Reply

[-]

Icy_Contact4325@reddit

I think someone would storm and take over just like the olden days

Reply

[-]

Everyones_Dead_Dave@reddit

We usually have a 12 year old PM so why not a king...

Reply

[-]

dazedan_confused@reddit

OP about to get a visit from the authorities if anything happens...

Reply

[-]

Historical-Track539@reddit

“Realistically”…do you know something we don’t?

Reply

[-]

Appropriate-Draw1878@reddit

Thanks! Nice to know they’ve actually thought about this.

Reply

[-]

IainMCool@reddit

Yes. Because that's how the silly rules work. Have you not seen King Ralph?

Reply

[-]

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

No, I am intrigued though.

Reply

[-]

IainMCool@reddit

It's a fucking awful film off of the 90s involving a terrible accident with the Royal Family and John Goodman becoming King because of the rules of succession.

Reply

[-]

Ok_Teacher6490@reddit

Eh, I'm ready to see what the little guy has to bring to the table. Barney as the national anthem and lucky charms as our national dish? I'm open to change.

Reply

[-]

Impossible_Theme_148@reddit

I'm continually baffled by people thinking things like this might just be decided on the spot if they happened rather than their being a legal process to follow

Reply

[-]

notouttolunch@reddit

I didn’t realise that today was a test.

Reply

[-]

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

Yes And a regent would be appointed Prince Harry is not resident in the UK, which rules him out (unless he wished to return, but I don’t think his family should be disrupted like that) Andrew just No So the Counsellors of State could (and I think should) petition Parliament to install Anne and Edward as co-Regents, with the Princess of Wales retaining all responsibility for George’s upbringing and education

Reply

[-]

max1304@reddit

Pass?! ‘Pass away’ is a reasonable if somewhat soft euphemism for dying, but ‘pass’ on its own is a dreadful American affectation.

Reply

[-]

cgknight1@reddit

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-regent-william-king-charles-died-1758619

Reply

[-]

Normal-Height-8577@reddit

I suspect the Royal family would utilise their delicate phrasing over the Counsellors of State that "in practice only working members of the Royal Family are called upon..." to save us all from an Andrew regency if Harry refused to come home. In which case the job would go to Princess Beatrice.

Reply

[-]

Seanacles@reddit

Yeah George would be king but he'd have a regent till he was of age.

Reply

[-]

GhostPantherNiall@reddit

We have to kill a lot of the bastards before we end up with no monarch. It would get difficult to find claimants after we’ve hanged 300 or so of them.

Reply

[-]

Exotic-Knowledge-243@reddit

Yes of course. He would have someone as regent, it would previously been harry. Though we don't except traitors doing this job so it will be someone else

Reply

[-]

Dennyisthepisslord@reddit

I want a child king. If we are going with this nonsense let's go full idiotic

Reply

[-]

mmoonbelly@reddit

No. Both of them would just continue waving as they pass you.

Reply

[-]

googooachu@reddit

I expect George would have Edward or Anne as a regent. Parliament can easily arrange for this. Harry is abroad and keeps trying to sue the UK and Andrew is umm himself. Plus neither are active Royals.

Reply

[-]

AnUdderDay@reddit

I love how people post to Reddit when a simple Google search reveals the answer.

Reply

[-]

AthleteAdmirable6720@reddit

Pass what? Their driving tests? "GO" on a Monopoly board?

Reply

[-]

WaterEarthFireAlex@reddit

George would be our king and Anne would likely rule as regent.

Reply

[-]

WeightConscious4499@reddit

Your king maybe. None of those nonces is my king

Reply

[-]

Gullflyinghigh@reddit

That's what a regent, or governing council, is for. George would be King but it would be more in name until he hits adulthood.

Reply

[-]

OnlymyOP@reddit

The throne would pass to George but a Regent would be appointed in place until he reached 18.

Reply

[-]

martzgregpaul@reddit

Princess Anne as regent probably. Until hes 18.

Reply

[-]

MattDubh@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/fkwa5mncz8uf1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=35515a88a8f38f83be81d2ec001933ce0ce99993 I'm sure if we'd got rid of those two, we'd have got rid of all the others too.

Reply

[-]

AskUK-ModTeam@reddit

A top level comment (one that is not a reply) should be a good faith and genuine attempt to answer the question.

Reply

[-]

hhfugrr3@reddit

OP, what are you planning?? Get back from the brink, there's still time to choose a different path.

Reply

[-]

PatserGrey@reddit

Why not? It's tourist attraction, not like they actually do anything. . .

Reply

[-]

Rasty_lv@reddit

George will be king, yes. Though next adult in the order of succession aka ginger (and if he refuses/doesnt do that, then we are having official pedo andrew in charge), would become prince regent until George is 18.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

**Your post on /r/AskUK has been removed.** AskUK is a “catch-all” subreddit for questions about the UK, but this does not mean we accept any and all questions. We may remove posts which are best answered in more specialised or active subreddits. Your post has appeared on our "common questions" list. There are lots of keywords which could have triggered this removal. Please make sure that you are [searching the subreddit](https://reddit.com/r/AskUK/search?q=your%20topic%20here&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all), using search enginges, and contacting any relevant organisations to find an answer to your question. *If you are sure* your question is a unique question which will create an informative, good to read, insightful, helpful, or light-hearted discussion, you can [click here to message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AskUK&subject=Post Review - Common Topic) for review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply