TheaterFire

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

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.
View on Reddit #68527822

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.
View on Reddit #68527977

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.
View on Reddit #68528473

midsizedopossum@reddit

Yes, well done. They were replying to someone who said we might not need a regent in this day and age.
View on Reddit #86568681

Exotic-Knowledge-243@reddit

He betrayed the Queen and his grandpa and his dad. He will never be regent
View on Reddit #68533741

cgknight1@reddit

You understand that if he was not regent for some reason it would be *Prince Andrew...*
View on Reddit #68536235

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

Based on this person’s reply to one of my comments, I don’t think they have an issue with that.
View on Reddit #68539004

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.
View on Reddit #68534322

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
View on Reddit #68532795

cgknight1@reddit

It is still a case a regent would be appointed and that would be Prince Harry.
View on Reddit #68527890

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
View on Reddit #68536953

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.
View on Reddit #68529146

_Daftest_@reddit

Even though you only put part of it in bold, we can still see the other part.
View on Reddit #68528909

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. 
View on Reddit #85617769

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.
View on Reddit #68527891

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. 
View on Reddit #85617400

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.
View on Reddit #68528329

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.
View on Reddit #68529177

Onlyfriends0936@reddit

If Anne (or Beatrice) got the gig, would she be the Relady?
View on Reddit #68725181

atticdoor@reddit

Only if a male midwife is called a midhusband.
View on Reddit #68731946

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.
View on Reddit #68532906

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

If Andy declines, does it not stop his line? 
View on Reddit #68584218

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.
View on Reddit #68585978

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

The last bit is not true 
View on Reddit #68605663

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.
View on Reddit #68607259

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

That’s exactly what the act says. 
View on Reddit #68628453

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.
View on Reddit #68628696

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.
View on Reddit #68636491

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.
View on Reddit #68638561

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)
View on Reddit #68536534

Jolly-Outside6073@reddit

We could have a competition. Regent idol. 
View on Reddit #68584238

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.
View on Reddit #68535037

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
View on Reddit #68552838

20dogs@reddit

Would Harry decline?
View on Reddit #68532370

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.
View on Reddit #68535732

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.
View on Reddit #68535102

ianjmatt2@reddit

I can see Parliament passing a law disqualifying Andrew pretty quickly.
View on Reddit #68535574

SnapDragon2525@reddit

Daily Heil wouldn't know what to do. Imagine Harry, who they hate turned it down then it was Andrew.. 
View on Reddit #68532612

purte@reddit

He’d be Prince Regent.
View on Reddit #68529676

AdRealistic4984@reddit

[Edward VI famously had a (bad) regent just fyi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Seymour,_1st_Duke_of_Somerset)
View on Reddit #68530490

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)
View on Reddit #68540438

cgknight1@reddit

\[Prince Andrew has entered the chat\].
View on Reddit #68530526

Slyspy006@reddit

Your objection is incorrect. George would still be king.
View on Reddit #68529230

Bugsmoke@reddit

In fairness it’s not like the royals really rule so much as exist for ceremony anyway.
View on Reddit #68529075

BuriedInRust@reddit

Very true. They're just a photo opp for actual world leaders
View on Reddit #68645079

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.
View on Reddit #68529360

bigbrother2030@reddit

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removed the provision that marrying a Catholic disqualified one from succeeding to the throne
View on Reddit #68535739

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.
View on Reddit #68536832

Howtothinkofaname@reddit

Henry VI was 9 months iirc, look how well that worked out for everyone…
View on Reddit #68528829

michaelisnotginger@reddit

Return Gascony to its rightful place
View on Reddit #68529492

cgknight1@reddit

Some of the answers here suggest people think they would make it up as they go along! 😂
View on Reddit #68528509

niffydroid@reddit

I'd hope George would become king while Catherine did the real job
View on Reddit #79134207

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.
View on Reddit #68527807

ApolloLoon@reddit

I suspect Parliamwnt might very quickly cobble together the Regency (Special Provisions) Act 2025 to make Anne or Edward the regent.
View on Reddit #68529537

DanS1993@reddit

They’d probably make Catherine the regent as mother of the king. 
View on Reddit #68530159

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. 
View on Reddit #78050124

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)
View on Reddit #68532555

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.
View on Reddit #68540442

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. 
View on Reddit #68587126

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.
View on Reddit #68681914

bowak@reddit

Surely she'd be King Mother?
View on Reddit #68532903

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.
View on Reddit #68533996

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.
View on Reddit #68540625

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.
View on Reddit #68542303

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.
View on Reddit #68534028

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.
View on Reddit #68536180

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.
View on Reddit #68537189

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.
View on Reddit #68537149

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.
View on Reddit #68536820

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
View on Reddit #68535874

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).
View on Reddit #68534078

SometimesMonkeysDie@reddit

How far down we go until we get King Ralph?
View on Reddit #68540765

Whithorsematt@reddit

I doubt it, particularly if William hadn't succeeded at this point.
View on Reddit #68562327

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.
View on Reddit #68560897

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Yeah and no one will want to even try to skip that because the next up is… Andrew.
View on Reddit #68528274

KingThorongil@reddit

Andrew coming into power would be a win for Republicans because it will end the monarchy.
View on Reddit #68529423

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
View on Reddit #68537677

Conscious-Loss-2709@reddit

He'd be thinking Charley managed to get away with making Cammie queen, I can be king and salvage things
View on Reddit #68545598

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.
View on Reddit #76671298

Penhaligona@reddit

Nah. That man is oblivious. He would shoot his shot.
View on Reddit #68538655

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.
View on Reddit #68545972

Onlyfriends0936@reddit

He might enjoy another trip to a Caribbean island
View on Reddit #68724832

Weird1Intrepid@reddit

Giggity
View on Reddit #68600798

The-Rambling-One@reddit

Isn’t that how he got in this mess in the first place
View on Reddit #68597337

VillageHorse@reddit

He’s too honourable not to do his duty for his country.
View on Reddit #68544404

SongsAboutGhosts@reddit

Uh.. What about his actions is *honourable*?
View on Reddit #68546259

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.
View on Reddit #68547406

riverscreeks@reddit

> he paid We paid
View on Reddit #68553506

ParmigianoMan@reddit

His mum, but yeah, same thing.
View on Reddit #68567664

Charyou_Tree_19@reddit

She also cancelled his birthday party.
View on Reddit #68578701

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.
View on Reddit #68563688

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.
View on Reddit #68569149

Publish_Lice@reddit

Strange hill to die on.
View on Reddit #68549458

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.
View on Reddit #68563612

AlGunner@reddit

Its reddit. If you dont put /s its not being sarcastic.
View on Reddit #68565515

VillageHorse@reddit

I know you’re meant to but I genuinely thought people would clock on lol
View on Reddit #68568482

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!
View on Reddit #68538782

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.
View on Reddit #68568848

Particular-Zone7288@reddit

which would send the gammon brigade into absolute spasms at the thought of Megan Markle as Queen regent
View on Reddit #68610658

Johnnycrabman@reddit

Harry would be Prince Regent, so she’d not be Queen Regent. Did Blackadder teach you nothing?
View on Reddit #68681435

Particular-Zone7288@reddit

apparently not
View on Reddit #68682800

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.
View on Reddit #68665856

Dinoduck94@reddit

You're assuming too much of the pedophile's morality
View on Reddit #68558376

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.
View on Reddit #68559035

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.
View on Reddit #68598831

Johnnycrabman@reddit

Fergie?
View on Reddit #68681488

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.
View on Reddit #68555057

Illustrious_Study_30@reddit

I was thinking the same, but Edward and Sophie would regent.
View on Reddit #68599868

richdrich@reddit

Interesting that the regent must be domiciled in the UK but the monarch doesn't have to be.
View on Reddit #68581875

ItIsRaf@reddit

The establishment would not let Andrew take it
View on Reddit #68559084

ItsDominare@reddit

The "damage it would do" didn't stop him diddling underage girls, did it? Why would it stop him this time?
View on Reddit #68556338

Cosimo_Zaretti@reddit

Bad monarchs have been removed before and the monarchy has survived.
View on Reddit #68643312

chi-93@reddit

Au contraire, Republicans (in the US) are currently desperately trying to repress the Epstein files.
View on Reddit #68589829

ClockOwn6363@reddit

You don't think it would happen with Harry?
View on Reddit #68576635

KingThorongil@reddit

No, I think that a pedophile becoming the king would be more damaging.
View on Reddit #68586262

Thingummyjig@reddit

I’m out of the loop here, why do American politicians benefit from the end of the British monarchy?
View on Reddit #68530258

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
View on Reddit #68533206

Ginger_Tea@reddit

Sad part is, they said they are British, they've just never heard the term outside of the American political party.
View on Reddit #68533464

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.
View on Reddit #68580970

carl84@reddit

That's even sadder
View on Reddit #68533480

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.
View on Reddit #68536947

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.
View on Reddit #68567764

Jakio@reddit

Republican as someone who wants to not have a monarchy, not the American political party
View on Reddit #68530313

Thingummyjig@reddit

Ah, first I’ve heard of them. I’d have called them Anti-monarchists or something, thanks for the info.
View on Reddit #68530339

ampmz@reddit

The Americans co-opted the term, this is the original meaning of Republican.
View on Reddit #68530613

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.
View on Reddit #68530671

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.
View on Reddit #68532332

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.
View on Reddit #68543328

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.
View on Reddit #68533591

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.
View on Reddit #68533989

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 👍🏼
View on Reddit #68534575

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.
View on Reddit #68534989

fastestman4704@reddit

Idk I think it reads as "just answer the question and don't be so rude".
View on Reddit #68535144

WritesCrapForStrap@reddit

"It's very important to me that you know that I think I'm better than you." Always the top 1% commenters.
View on Reddit #68533850

Frescadeedle@reddit

maybe in England..
View on Reddit #68533624

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
View on Reddit #68536313

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.
View on Reddit #68536218

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
View on Reddit #68542483

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.
View on Reddit #68537972

sock_cooker@reddit

Downvoted for being a fragile cunt
View on Reddit #68535530

ThereAndFapAgain2@reddit

Downvoted because of the edit because it’s funny lol
View on Reddit #68532930

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.
View on Reddit #68531854

Infinite_Crow_3706@reddit

r/americandefaultism
View on Reddit #68531472

Thingummyjig@reddit

The correct sub is r/USdefaultism <3
View on Reddit #68531489

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
View on Reddit #68530359

Throatlatch@reddit

And also for american republicans, they could have a little pedo party together
View on Reddit #68564631

GourangaPlusPlus@reddit

*Andrew furiously not sweating*
View on Reddit #68529912

I_want_roti@reddit

*Hey Google, directions to Pizza Express Woking*
View on Reddit #68530158

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 😄
View on Reddit #76671119

DotComprehensive4902@reddit

Or the Privy council could be regents
View on Reddit #68758965

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.
View on Reddit #68761220

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.
View on Reddit #68530657

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.
View on Reddit #68531519

SuboptimalOutcome@reddit

I was very confused when people started calling others racist over not liking Meghan, I had no idea she wasn't white.
View on Reddit #68536794

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
View on Reddit #68546849

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.
View on Reddit #68557278

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.
View on Reddit #68684303

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.
View on Reddit #68599302

Johnnycrabman@reddit

The first paragraph roughly describes the plot of a whole range of Hallmark Christmas films.
View on Reddit #68681779

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.
View on Reddit #68539543

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.
View on Reddit #68539992

Lorezia@reddit

My guess has always been Philip, who asked such a stupid question 😭
View on Reddit #68540164

TsundokuAfficionado@reddit

Harry confirmed after the interview that it wasn’t the Queen or Philip. My guess is Kate and/or William.
View on Reddit #68544175

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.
View on Reddit #68545387

AttackOwlFibre@reddit

No it didn't. She doesn't have to look Black to draw out racism from English people - trust me.
View on Reddit #68545258

Mental_Body_5496@reddit

Well indeed - it is absolutely down to racism and how the right wing red tops treated her - absolutely vile !
View on Reddit #68640959

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.
View on Reddit #68531778

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.
View on Reddit #68532076

Nice_Back_9977@reddit

What actions? Not enjoying racism from her in laws?
View on Reddit #68537258

TurbulentBullfrog829@reddit

Recollections may vary
View on Reddit #68544220

Nice_Back_9977@reddit

Sorry, and being harassed and maligned by the press.
View on Reddit #68549252

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.
View on Reddit #68600083

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.
View on Reddit #68600149

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 .
View on Reddit #68600695

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.
View on Reddit #68533078

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.
View on Reddit #68532889

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.
View on Reddit #68599870

Appropriate-Divide64@reddit

It definitely was not. Certain people have been spewing hate from the start.
View on Reddit #68533325

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.
View on Reddit #68561724

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.
View on Reddit #68599794

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.
View on Reddit #68560331

Worried-Penalty8744@reddit

It’s his ginger hair isn’t it
View on Reddit #68534548

OP_Scout_81@reddit

Every time I read that name, I hear Miiiigan.
View on Reddit #68543607

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

True. The Spencer gene means he has no soul.
View on Reddit #68535262

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.
View on Reddit #68531710

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).
View on Reddit #68540894

DeliciousLiving8563@reddit

I suspect the overlap between Andrew  critics and people who dislike Megan isnt enormous.
View on Reddit #68533320

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.
View on Reddit #68622028

Particular-Zone7288@reddit

I dont think you need to pathogise it, when it can be explained by casual mysogyny and a bit of racism.
View on Reddit #68610782

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.
View on Reddit #68533858

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.
View on Reddit #68534765

Albert_Herring@reddit

Yes, the traditional procedure would have been to invite Willem-Alexander van Oranje to take over instead.
View on Reddit #68594611

EldritchCleavage@reddit

Yes please. I love Willex.
View on Reddit #68609653

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.
View on Reddit #68541077

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!
View on Reddit #68547071

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.
View on Reddit #68549719

teh_maxh@reddit

When Edward VIII abdicated, his descendents were excluded from the line of succession.
View on Reddit #68551056

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.
View on Reddit #68555047

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!
View on Reddit #68552980

DogtasticLife@reddit

Well it’s not like we don’t have an extremely long history of upending royal custom when the situation demands it
View on Reddit #68540236

No_Coyote_557@reddit

I'm up for another Charles l scenario.
View on Reddit #68552112

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.
View on Reddit #68549851

richdrich@reddit

Or at least an act of all 15 commonwealth monarchical parliaments. Same applies to Andrew.
View on Reddit #68582159

ODFoxtrotOscar@reddit

He cannot be removed from the line of succession, but he need not be appointed as regent
View on Reddit #68535427

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
View on Reddit #68547409

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."
View on Reddit #68556060

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.
View on Reddit #68563125

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.
View on Reddit #68563502

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?
View on Reddit #68565302

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.
View on Reddit #68563139

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.
View on Reddit #68542260

cyberllama@reddit

My immediate thought was that they were talking about Brian May
View on Reddit #68555641

Kinitawowi64@reddit

That was my second joke to him.
View on Reddit #68557263

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.
View on Reddit #68534909

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.
View on Reddit #68535701

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.
View on Reddit #68535989

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.
View on Reddit #68533479

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.
View on Reddit #68541947

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.
View on Reddit #68545417

EldritchCleavage@reddit

Exactly!
View on Reddit #68609585

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.
View on Reddit #68554464

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.
View on Reddit #68554289

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.
View on Reddit #68537822

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.
View on Reddit #68538960

Pristine_Poem7623@reddit

"questionable likability" - most of the country actively dislikes or hates Camilla.
View on Reddit #68533772

Ok-Albatross-1508@reddit

20 years ago maybe. Not so much now.  She hasn’t really put a foot wrong since she married Charles.
View on Reddit #68603146

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.
View on Reddit #68550208

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.
View on Reddit #68534095

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.
View on Reddit #68599035

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.
View on Reddit #68557448

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.
View on Reddit #68566235

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
View on Reddit #68566556

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.
View on Reddit #68550272

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.
View on Reddit #68566333

alangcarter@reddit

What's wrong with Meghan? She was in Fringe ffs how cool is that!
View on Reddit #68541443

NoLove_NoHope@reddit

She’s a “funny tinge”, some people find that personally offensive.
View on Reddit #68542522

BeccasBump@reddit

It's nothing to do with "questionable likability", let's face it.
View on Reddit #68538411

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.
View on Reddit #68538640

BeccasBump@reddit

Totally fair enough.
View on Reddit #68539989

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
View on Reddit #68533518

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.
View on Reddit #68535021

Delduath@reddit

People who are trafficked aren't consenting
View on Reddit #68534888

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.
View on Reddit #68534009

CASIOWATCHFAN2000@reddit

Would it not be Anne? I thought they changed the male female rule a few years ago?
View on Reddit #68613913

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Not retrospectively unfortunately.
View on Reddit #68614469

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.
View on Reddit #68528860

EldritchCleavage@reddit

Ditto.
View on Reddit #68609819

TheresNoHurry@reddit

Can you offer us a little sneak peek?
View on Reddit #68529246

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.
View on Reddit #68530994

pawntoc4@reddit

That he was the Queen's favourite child still blows my mind...
View on Reddit #68537107

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.
View on Reddit #68538561

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.
View on Reddit #68544137

lady_faust@reddit

He was their 'make up' baby
View on Reddit #68537958

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.
View on Reddit #68538675

abfgern_@reddit

Realistically parliament would be able to appoint a different regent, most likely Camilla, Edward or Anne in that order imo
View on Reddit #68531896

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. 
View on Reddit #68534110

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.
View on Reddit #68546225

intlteacher@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/8tiuosjjlguf1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14d0bac6633152d0a9a7fe42f9c564283eee4db2
View on Reddit #68609264

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 
View on Reddit #68574877

Exotic-Knowledge-243@reddit

It would never be camilla. Katherine if anything at this point
View on Reddit #68533587

spsammy@reddit

No I don’t think he is. Harry exists.
View on Reddit #68563226

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Harry is that that I said they wouldn’t want to skip.
View on Reddit #68563875

spsammy@reddit

Harry and his children- so three options after Wales and before Andrew.
View on Reddit #68580662

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?
View on Reddit #68581022

Katharinemaddison@reddit

For. Regent. Adults in the line as per the comment I responded to. Bloody hell…
View on Reddit #68580781

KPS-UK77@reddit

No next up it Charlotte
View on Reddit #68576989

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.
View on Reddit #68577812

Complex_Professor412@reddit

How far down is John Goodman?
View on Reddit #68570807

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Fairly.
View on Reddit #68570867

Free_Umpire_801@reddit

Would it not be Anne since the 2013 act? Or did that only apply to births after that date?
View on Reddit #68570601

Katharinemaddison@reddit

Only after.
View on Reddit #68570740

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?
View on Reddit #68568503

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.
View on Reddit #68568685

Haircut117@reddit

>because the next up is… Andrew. The next up is Charlotte…
View on Reddit #68566038

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.
View on Reddit #68566866

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.
View on Reddit #68567447

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.
View on Reddit #68567912

ThatArsenalFan7@reddit

The British public would happily choose Andrew over Harry IMO
View on Reddit #68563088

Katharinemaddison@reddit

They won’t be asked. And no government would put Andrew in that position.
View on Reddit #68566081

truearse@reddit

Fuck me
View on Reddit #68559158

MarrV@reddit

Archie first, then Andrew
View on Reddit #68546740

Katharinemaddison@reddit

You think the six year old Archie would be regent for the twelve year old George?
View on Reddit #68550546

MarrV@reddit

Well no, if you follow the line of thinking in this thread George was already discounted... Perhaps read the whole thread again?
View on Reddit #68553282

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?
View on Reddit #68556247

Brilliant_Ad2120@reddit

Why isn't Ann before Andrew?
View on Reddit #68552995

RDT_Reader_Acct@reddit

Wouldn't it be Anne? Isn't she older than Andrew?
View on Reddit #68542377

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.
View on Reddit #68552301

MobiusNaked@reddit

Would he renounce or renonce the throne?
View on Reddit #68551607

LensmanUK@reddit

Wouldn't it be the Princess Royal, Anne?
View on Reddit #68532215

grogipher@reddit

Harry is 5th in line currently. Anne is 18th in line currently.
View on Reddit #68532526

LensmanUK@reddit

I meant for the Regent, rather than the Monarch.
View on Reddit #68532750

grogipher@reddit

Yes, but the Regency rules say the next adult in line? What's the argument for Anne over her brothers, or Kate?
View on Reddit #68532817

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.
View on Reddit #68533580

grogipher@reddit

> had the 2013 succession act been backdated, But it wasn't? So it's moot..
View on Reddit #68533789

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
View on Reddit #68536520

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.
View on Reddit #68537278

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.
View on Reddit #68550780

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?
View on Reddit #68539817

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 😀
View on Reddit #68532921

Katharinemaddison@reddit

In terms of right for the job I agree.
View on Reddit #68536253

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
View on Reddit #68548345

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)
View on Reddit #68546480

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.
View on Reddit #68544705

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
View on Reddit #68533665

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
View on Reddit #68542622

Gravitani@reddit

Can be anything Parliament decides it'll be
View on Reddit #68543243

JamJarre@reddit

Oh yeah sure, if we're going down that route then the regent would be Mr Blobby
View on Reddit #68543430

Bubbly-Tank-6286@reddit

Would it be Anne now with the 2013 act, or isn’t it retrospective?
View on Reddit #68530733

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
View on Reddit #68531508

Bubbly-Tank-6286@reddit

Thanks, I appreciate the detailed answer.
View on Reddit #68533349

JustAnSJ@reddit

It's not retroactive, unfortunately
View on Reddit #68531446

VariousGuest1980@reddit

But didn’t Prince Harry renounce anything his royal family status ( American here )
View on Reddit #72989886

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.
View on Reddit #72990772

VariousGuest1980@reddit

Thank you very much for explaining it.
View on Reddit #72993878

santas-ass-pimple@reddit

Fuck no princess Harry as regent? Snipers bullet to the eye before that ever fucking happens
View on Reddit #68654179

Nim008@reddit

Would the Regent not be one of the Counsellors of State?
View on Reddit #68640613

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.
View on Reddit #68532416

intergalacticspy@reddit

Domicile is not the same as residence. Temporary residence doesn’t change domicile. And he can always move back.
View on Reddit #68532878

quartersessions@reddit

Yeah, but he's definitely domiciled in the United States by any estimation.
View on Reddit #68533032

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.
View on Reddit #68621268

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.
View on Reddit #68530941

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.
View on Reddit #68531891

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.
View on Reddit #68570532

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

GGP already noted that Harry would be excluded because he doesn't live in the UK. Yay for reading comprehension.
View on Reddit #68576839

joehonestjoe@reddit

I mean he has to live in the UK, we could just ship him off somewhere.
View on Reddit #68566841

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.
View on Reddit #68533622

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
View on Reddit #68536393

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".
View on Reddit #68536519

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
View on Reddit #68537246

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.
View on Reddit #68537920

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
View on Reddit #68538443

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.
View on Reddit #68542699

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.
View on Reddit #68535654

leemc37@reddit

Because the monarchy is utterly fucking insane, but it's also well organised.
View on Reddit #68575475

tcpukl@reddit

Wow 2013 is recent. What changed in that act?
View on Reddit #68529893

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.
View on Reddit #68530153

Loose_Acanthaceae201@reddit

You still can't *be* Catholic yourself iirc, but it doesn't matter what your spouse's religion is.
View on Reddit #68534178

tcpukl@reddit

So their child couldn't be Catholic? Would be strange because aren't they the head of the church of England?
View on Reddit #68535348

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.
View on Reddit #68571741

ThinkAboutThatFor1Se@reddit

Well it didn’t work out well with Queen Mary. Aka Bloody Mary.
View on Reddit #68539841

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. 
View on Reddit #68535899

EdmundTheInsulter@reddit

Yes cos it violated EU law and UK law probably.
View on Reddit #68531962

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
View on Reddit #68532268

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?
View on Reddit #68535299

mantolwen@reddit

Yes, every country that shares the British monarchy as theirs too updated their laws at the same time.
View on Reddit #68543415

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.
View on Reddit #68554025

TheProfessionalEjit@reddit

Performative nonsense & virtue signalling by Cameron when there were more pressing things that should have taken up parliaments time.
View on Reddit #68569975

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.
View on Reddit #68570431

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.
View on Reddit #68530053

Jolly-Minimum-6641@reddit

And after all that kerfuffle, Kate's first child is a boy anyway.
View on Reddit #68561396

fortyfivepointseven@reddit

The Act only applies to future children even though it was the _perfect_ opportunity to pop Anne above Andrew in the succession.
View on Reddit #68532701

fictionaltherapist@reddit

Well you see they knew he was a sex offender then but we didn't know they knew.
View on Reddit #68536895

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.
View on Reddit #68549214

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.
View on Reddit #68531627

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
View on Reddit #68553991

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.
View on Reddit #68547327

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.
View on Reddit #68530785

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.
View on Reddit #68531086

BobbyP27@reddit

It does mean, though, that Charlotte did not lose her position to Louis when he was born.
View on Reddit #68531838

Marzipan_civil@reddit

Yes - and if the first child had been a girl, she wouldn't have been overtaken by any younger brothers
View on Reddit #68537832

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
View on Reddit #68536238

A_Right_Eejit@reddit

I think it was to allow first born girls to gain the throne.
View on Reddit #68530065

GypsySnowflake@reddit

For some reason I thought his mother would become the regent
View on Reddit #68571394

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
View on Reddit #68570551

Skyskyskysword@reddit

Just curious. Didn’t harry resigned from his crown duties?
View on Reddit #68535803

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.
View on Reddit #68542981

Skyskyskysword@reddit

Oh thank you for explaining.
View on Reddit #68569004

GaryJM@reddit

He ceased to be a "working royal" in 2020.
View on Reddit #68536049

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.
View on Reddit #68562988

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.
View on Reddit #68561635

Jolly-Minimum-6641@reddit

I think someone like Princess Anne would be a better choice of regent.
View on Reddit #68561061

No-Astronomer-1@reddit

Suspect the RF would much prefer Andrew than Harry though
View on Reddit #68557299

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.
View on Reddit #68555835

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.
View on Reddit #68554561

TroubleMakerParis@reddit

Why is Anne not next in line? Charlotte is about Louis.
View on Reddit #68548118

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).
View on Reddit #68548413

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.
View on Reddit #68547032

Chesterfieldraven@reddit

Harry is not in succession at all anymore.
View on Reddit #68542761

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.
View on Reddit #68546065

GaryJM@reddit

Do you have a source for that?
View on Reddit #68543213

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.
View on Reddit #68543286

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.
View on Reddit #68543543

WoodSteelStone@reddit

Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis are ahead of Prince Harry in the Line od Succession.
View on Reddit #68530713

Conscious-Ball8373@reddit

The regent has to be "of full age" ie 18.
View on Reddit #68543019

Gone_For_Lunch@reddit

If George is too young and needs a regent, I doubt they’d be using his even younger siblings.
View on Reddit #68530974

WoodSteelStone@reddit

Your edit to add the word 'adult' makes more sense.
View on Reddit #68532179

Gone_For_Lunch@reddit

Wasn’t my edit.
View on Reddit #68534546

halenda06@reddit

He says adult specifically.
View on Reddit #68530930

WoodSteelStone@reddit

Not in their original comment. The word adult was added after I posted my comment.
View on Reddit #68533234

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.
View on Reddit #68537763

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.
View on Reddit #68538209

Appropriate-Draw1878@reddit

Thanks! Nice to know they’ve actually thought about this.
View on Reddit #68542373

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?
View on Reddit #68540696

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.
View on Reddit #68541590

JMol87@reddit

Does that change because Harry and Andrew have both been removed from Royal duties!?
View on Reddit #68540081

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.
View on Reddit #68540745

tom56@reddit

So George would be King but not head of state? Or he wouldn't be King either?
View on Reddit #68530275

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.
View on Reddit #68530915

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
View on Reddit #68532547

StatlerSalad@reddit

\>all of the expected duties would be done by the regent on his behalf
View on Reddit #68534027

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.
View on Reddit #68531055

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.
View on Reddit #68532260

Neefew@reddit

Well that sounds all well and good so long as George doesn't go into any towers and 'disappears'
View on Reddit #68528778

afcote1@reddit

lol long live Queen Harry
View on Reddit #68532081

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.
View on Reddit #68527952

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.
View on Reddit #68532961

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
View on Reddit #68833525

bowak@reddit

No real King Ralph for shame.
View on Reddit #68835238

JJY93@reddit

Oh, bloody hell, it’s gonna be Pascal Sauvage, isn’t it?!
View on Reddit #68601631

WowzersTrousers0@reddit

No, you're thinking of the American president/vice president.
View on Reddit #68528458

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)
View on Reddit #68528580

WowzersTrousers0@reddit

That backs me up - It's a self imposed rule they follow, not some sort of actual law imposed upon them.
View on Reddit #68609729

FamSender@reddit

😂
View on Reddit #68610113

Jack_Kegan@reddit

I love the sheer confidence that someone has to correct another person based on nothing ahahah 
View on Reddit #68529132

FamSender@reddit

It made my chuckle a little.
View on Reddit #68529173

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!
View on Reddit #68535264

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
View on Reddit #68543129

BoopingBurrito@reddit

Nope, that rule applies to the royals as well.
View on Reddit #68528632

LAcasper@reddit

So George never travels with his dad?
View on Reddit #68532749

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).
View on Reddit #68549137

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.
View on Reddit #68574675

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.
View on Reddit #68532941

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
View on Reddit #68548130

FamSender@reddit

Your source?
View on Reddit #68548531

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.
View on Reddit #68550631

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.
View on Reddit #68567022

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
View on Reddit #68550768

Cultural_Tank_6947@reddit

Two people can die on the same day without being on the same aircraft.
View on Reddit #68528097

BaBaFiCo@reddit

Yes, but not having them in the same plane reduces the risk.
View on Reddit #68528153

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.
View on Reddit #68528460

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.
View on Reddit #68532106

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.
View on Reddit #68534156

HugeEstablishment835@reddit

This could actually be THE worst take on Reddit.
View on Reddit #68542177

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.
View on Reddit #68543824

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.
View on Reddit #68550238

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.
View on Reddit #68562194

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.
View on Reddit #68528281

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.
View on Reddit #68528503

FamSender@reddit

So what’s your point then stranger? My comment was purely expanding on the discussion. I was attempting to answer OPs question.
View on Reddit #68528722

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.
View on Reddit #68531941

FamSender@reddit

You didn’t.
View on Reddit #68532573

redds56101@reddit

OK?
View on Reddit #68530126

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.
View on Reddit #68830507

EUskeptik@reddit

Anyone but Harry. Never, ever Harry. 🤬
View on Reddit #68746429

cazzo_di_testa@reddit

Pass what? The doorway?
View on Reddit #68688879

ExpectedBehaviour@reddit

Yes, that's how it works.
View on Reddit #68666527

more-sarahtonin-plss@reddit

Yes of course, why wouldn’t he?
View on Reddit #68663394

Additional_Egg_6685@reddit

You are going to look mighty suspicious if somehow that happens now….
View on Reddit #68528439

KollyKibber39@reddit

I'm surprised Prince George is allowed on Reddit
View on Reddit #68530653

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

I borrowed James phone.
View on Reddit #68531366

volodymyroquai@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/b908q8je6cuf1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=040343dd9e0b6033fedd2a1568db856ea8b2a44f
View on Reddit #68570147

derpyfloofus@reddit

CLARKSON!!!!!!!
View on Reddit #68612175

PIStaker984@reddit

HAMMOND!!!!!
View on Reddit #68656386

ThoseHappyHighways@reddit

Quickly, everyone: ‘we hail Prince George’, ‘we hail Prince George’.
View on Reddit #68538629

Marilliana@reddit

We hate Prince George sir, we HATE Prince George.
View on Reddit #68607279

DuckyMcQuackatron@reddit

King George!
View on Reddit #68540176

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.
View on Reddit #68653660

BuriedInRust@reddit

An old sock could be king for all the use he is
View on Reddit #68644906

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.
View on Reddit #68636566

FreedomMammoth7738@reddit

why do you need a King ?
View on Reddit #68635976

mikpgod@reddit

Give Anne the role, if she wants it(doubtful). A safe pair of competent hands in the interim.
View on Reddit #68616608

SalParadise100@reddit

You would hope at that point we’d just sack it all off
View on Reddit #68611934

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.
View on Reddit #68609958

Puzzleheaded_Gold698@reddit

Little Georgie strutting his stuff over us filthy peasants. 🤣
View on Reddit #68609848

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.
View on Reddit #68609463

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.
View on Reddit #68607386

DangerousDisplay7664@reddit

If they were to pass what? Pass their driving test? Pass wind? Pass the salt?!
View on Reddit #68603050

bloodandglory31@reddit

https://preview.redd.it/8vyivzeorduf1.jpeg?width=1085&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df626c664cd9fd48d4635df1e0d63873425ad62b Time for the true heir
View on Reddit #68588528

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.
View on Reddit #68581460

wombles2@reddit

What is this medieval Game of Thrones shit?
View on Reddit #68580060

Dizzy_Beach_3743@reddit

Yeah but I wouldn't take him seriously
View on Reddit #68575461

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)
View on Reddit #68531308

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

So, George would be king alongside his mother who would be queen. That’s a lot to unpack.
View on Reddit #68531584

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.
View on Reddit #68531823

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

That may be the most sensible comment. I will read up on Cercy Lannister. Thank you kind Reddit person
View on Reddit #68532219

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.
View on Reddit #68532338

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!
View on Reddit #68573401

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

Oh yeah forgot about the other kids. Fair point. I doubt bucks palace has enough staircases.
View on Reddit #68573957

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.
View on Reddit #68563945

DreadLindwyrm@reddit

Game of Thrones rules do not apply here.
View on Reddit #68563760

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.
View on Reddit #68532875

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
View on Reddit #68554485

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.
View on Reddit #68555569

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
View on Reddit #68536822

WaterEarthFireAlex@reddit

The Duke of Edinburgh was royalty prior to the marriage and did not marry into royalty.
View on Reddit #68537988

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!
View on Reddit #68532699

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.
View on Reddit #68532759

grogipher@reddit

Princess Regent, surely? Since that's higher?
View on Reddit #68532829

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.
View on Reddit #68532892

grogipher@reddit

"Princess Kate" is literally what the headline writers call her. Officially she is Katherine, Princess of Wales
View on Reddit #68533090

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
View on Reddit #68536661

WayGroundbreaking287@reddit

I stand corrected.
View on Reddit #68533165

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.
View on Reddit #68563628

4thGenTrombone@reddit

If such a thing happened, Princess Catherine would be the power behind the throne.
View on Reddit #68570512

EscapefromRapaNui@reddit

What are you planning exactly?
View on Reddit #68569495

InterestedObserver48@reddit

Yes that’s how hereditary monarchy works
View on Reddit #68568457

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
View on Reddit #68546621

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.
View on Reddit #68564284

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
View on Reddit #68566966

LatelyPode@reddit

It’s happened before, King Edward VI was 9
View on Reddit #68529659

docju@reddit

In Scotland, James VI was king at the age of 1 so 12 seems geriatric by comparison!
View on Reddit #68538538

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.
View on Reddit #68556323

docju@reddit

Yeah I’d forgotten about Mary!
View on Reddit #68558444

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.
View on Reddit #68561909

BigManLikeBarey@reddit

Such a crazy thing to thing about
View on Reddit #68549811

AstroBlush8715@reddit

You can say "die", you know. You're bit going to be silenced by the anti-death goblins
View on Reddit #68560953

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!
View on Reddit #68559042

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
View on Reddit #68558399

goodknight97@reddit

Boy George as a king? Nice
View on Reddit #68557324

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
View on Reddit #68549744

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.
View on Reddit #68556946

LaurelEssington76@reddit

I think the absurdity of that would probably be a nail in the coffin of the monarchy.
View on Reddit #68539110

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.
View on Reddit #68556751

APlatypusBot@reddit

How many bank holidays would we get from that? Asking for a friend.
View on Reddit #68555441

Liliosis@reddit

An older member of the family would become Regent until George is old enough to rule.
View on Reddit #68555006

jeebojeeb@reddit

Found Prince George's reddit...don't do it buddy
View on Reddit #68554667

Unusual_Purpose_7185@reddit

We know it's you, George.
View on Reddit #68553173

Waste_Ad9015@reddit

No I would put my hat in the ring, and I am confident I could be king.
View on Reddit #68552531

whovian25@reddit

George would be king though a regent would be appointed until he turned 18
View on Reddit #68546909

Dreadheaddanski@reddit

And ice cream would be free for everyone
View on Reddit #68546373

docju@reddit

Scotland had a 1-year-old king (James VI) so not unheard of on this island!
View on Reddit #68538653

jesus_stalin@reddit

And his mother became Queen at 6 days old!
View on Reddit #68546301

docju@reddit

Can’t believe I forgot that!
View on Reddit #68546333

rollo_read@reddit

No, Harry and ironically Andrew would oversee the next 6 years with assistance with the Privvy Council.
View on Reddit #68546115

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
View on Reddit #68530205

Glittering_Habit_161@reddit

He would have gone to school when this was posted since he doesn't have a phone.
View on Reddit #68530442

Bitter-Limit-5759@reddit

r/whoosh
View on Reddit #68545899

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

Motherfucker
View on Reddit #68530615

RoyskiPoyski@reddit

Why, what are you planning?
View on Reddit #68545480

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).
View on Reddit #68531444

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.
View on Reddit #68545419

TRDPorn@reddit

He would be King but would have a regent (most likely his mother) until he was of age
View on Reddit #68544908

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.
View on Reddit #68544836

Real-Adeptness7176@reddit

Ok George. Back to school now please.
View on Reddit #68530474

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

It’s break time. I also stole James phone haha 😜
View on Reddit #68531660

Real-Adeptness7176@reddit

Just don’t look at Andrew’s.
View on Reddit #68531714

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

According to “find my friends” it’s in Woking at a pizza establishment
View on Reddit #68531775

ihatethis2022@reddit

Dont blame them!
View on Reddit #68544276

Nielips@reddit

No, he'd be 13 by the time his coronation happened.
View on Reddit #68543731

pinpoint321@reddit

It would pass to an American named Ralph and hi-jinks would ensue.
View on Reddit #68543591

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.
View on Reddit #68543396

Least-Importance-900@reddit

The next one after Harry would be Anne not Andrew!
View on Reddit #68543105

EUskeptik@reddit

Anyone but Harry. Never, ever Harry.
View on Reddit #68542669

Investigator516@reddit

Yes. It’s happened at a young age, too.
View on Reddit #68541897

Icy_Contact4325@reddit

I think someone would storm and take over just like the olden days 
View on Reddit #68541027

Everyones_Dead_Dave@reddit

We usually have a 12 year old PM so why not a king...
View on Reddit #68539423

dazedan_confused@reddit

OP about to get a visit from the authorities if anything happens...
View on Reddit #68539000

Historical-Track539@reddit

“Realistically”…do you know something we don’t? 
View on Reddit #68538915

Appropriate-Draw1878@reddit

Thanks! Nice to know they’ve actually thought about this.
View on Reddit #68538309

IainMCool@reddit

Yes. Because that's how the silly rules work. Have you not seen King Ralph?
View on Reddit #68531094

Popular-History1015@reddit (OP)

No, I am intrigued though.
View on Reddit #68531270

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.
View on Reddit #68537237

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. 
View on Reddit #68537154

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
View on Reddit #68536349

notouttolunch@reddit

I didn’t realise that today was a test.
View on Reddit #68535443

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
View on Reddit #68535379

max1304@reddit

Pass?! ‘Pass away’ is a reasonable if somewhat soft euphemism for dying, but ‘pass’ on its own is a dreadful American affectation.
View on Reddit #68535084

cgknight1@reddit

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-harry-regent-william-king-charles-died-1758619
View on Reddit #68527851

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.
View on Reddit #68533948

Seanacles@reddit

Yeah George would be king but he'd have a regent till he was of age.
View on Reddit #68533931

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. 
View on Reddit #68533712

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
View on Reddit #68533467

Dennyisthepisslord@reddit

I want a child king. If we are going with this nonsense let's go full idiotic
View on Reddit #68533377

mmoonbelly@reddit

No. Both of them would just continue waving as they pass you.
View on Reddit #68533342

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.
View on Reddit #68533318

AnUdderDay@reddit

I love how people post to Reddit when a simple Google search reveals the answer.
View on Reddit #68533164

AthleteAdmirable6720@reddit

Pass what? Their driving tests? "GO" on a Monopoly board?
View on Reddit #68532755

WaterEarthFireAlex@reddit

George would be our king and Anne would likely rule as regent.
View on Reddit #68532754

WeightConscious4499@reddit

Your king maybe. None of those nonces is my king
View on Reddit #68532379

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.
View on Reddit #68530441

OnlymyOP@reddit

The throne would pass to George but a Regent would be appointed in place until he reached 18.
View on Reddit #68530283

martzgregpaul@reddit

Princess Anne as regent probably. Until hes 18.
View on Reddit #68529856

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.
View on Reddit #68529093

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.
View on Reddit #68529582

hhfugrr3@reddit

OP, what are you planning?? Get back from the brink, there's still time to choose a different path.
View on Reddit #68529572

PatserGrey@reddit

Why not? It's tourist attraction, not like they actually do anything. . .
View on Reddit #68529123

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.
View on Reddit #68528560

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.*
View on Reddit #68525616