The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #421  
Old 03-10-2013, 05:31 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
I admit I knew diddly about declaring a Regency.
According to Wikipedia (Regency Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the Regency Act of 1937 dacares the following will happen if the monarch is incapacitated or under the age of 21:
  • A regent is declared chosen as the next over 21 year old in line of succession, living in the UK and eligible under the Act of Settlement of 1701 (non RC, etc.)
  • The Regent gets the help of the Counselors of State. Current counselors are the adult spouse of the monarch and the next four adults in line of succession: The Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales and The Duke of York. See - The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Government > Counsellors of State
This was interesting. Does anyone know what happens in a regency if the spouse of the monarch is under 21? I know it won't happen, but I did wonder about this?
The Regency Act 1953 states the age of majority for the heir to the throne is 18 not 21.

Similarly, while the age at which Royals become eligible to be counsellors of state is usually 21, in the case of the heir to the throne it is, again 18.

Regency Act 1953

Regency Act 1943
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 03-10-2013, 05:33 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
I expect that the Regent would be the most senior royal available (that is position, experience and age). Existing examples would be Andrew or Anne.
But the act says that the regent is "the next over 21 year old in line of succession, living in the UK and eligible under the Act of Settlement of 1701," implying that the regent is not necessarily the most senior royal available, but the next person of age in the line of succession. Thus, were HM, Charles, and William to die before the Cambridge Baby is of age, the regent would be Harry, not Andrew or Anne, as Harry is the next in the line of succession. Andrew would only become regent if Harry were deceased, Anne if Harry, the Yorks, and Edward were deceased.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 03-10-2013, 05:38 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,586
thank you Ish.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 03-10-2013, 06:03 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,328
The 1953 act made Phillip the regent if the Queen died before Charles reached 18 instead of Princess Margaret, who would been regent per 1937 act. I would think if William some how came to the throne before baby cambridge was 18. Like in 1953, they would have to pass a new regency act to make Kate the regent until her child was old enough instead of Harry. Charles wouldn't need one since William is over 18 and would be able to take over if his father became ill.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 03-10-2013, 06:12 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
The 1953 act made Phillip the regent if the Queen died before Charles reached 18 instead of Princess Margaret, who would been regent per 1937 act. I would think if William some how came to the throne before baby cambridge was 18. Like in 1953, they would have to pass a new regency act to make Kate the regent until her child was old enough instead of Harry. Charles wouldn't need one since William is over 18 and would be able to take over if his father became ill.
This is totally getting off topic at this point, and might need to be moved to a different (or new?) thread, but would Catherine be the best person to be the regent? I would debate if Harry would be the best person himself (as the next person in line over 21). Not to demean Catherine's origins, but I would think that someone who was raised as a Royal would be more fitting as a regent than someone who is merely royal by marriage. In the case of the DoE, he was always a Royal, he just wasn't born into the BRF. In the case of Catherine, she wasn't a Royal prior to 2011, and as such is still very new to the Royal game, especially in comparison. And, as cepe pointed out, it seems like a more senior royal (i.e. Anne, Andrew, or even Edward) would be more suited to the role of regent than Harry, who is much younger, or Catherine, who is newer to being a Royal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 03-10-2013, 08:07 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
This is totally getting off topic at this point, and might need to be moved to a different (or new?) thread, but would Catherine be the best person to be the regent? I would debate if Harry would be the best person himself (as the next person in line over 21). Not to demean Catherine's origins, but I would think that someone who was raised as a Royal would be more fitting as a regent than someone who is merely royal by marriage. In the case of the DoE, he was always a Royal, he just wasn't born into the BRF. In the case of Catherine, she wasn't a Royal prior to 2011, and as such is still very new to the Royal game, especially in comparison. And, as cepe pointed out, it seems like a more senior royal (i.e. Anne, Andrew, or even Edward) would be more suited to the role of regent than Harry, who is much younger, or Catherine, who is newer to being a Royal.
Again, mods please feel free to move to an appropriate tread.

I agree Catherine should not act as Regent, but I also think it would have been wrong for the Duke of Edinburgh to be appointed Regent in place of the Princess Margaret. My personal opinion is that the Regent should be in the Order of Succession and the Dof E wasn't (or was so far down that it was not relevant).

Leaving aside the personalities (I happen to think the Duke would have been a more dutiful Regent than Margaret), there is a difference between taking family decisions such as on the welfare of the infant monarch, which the Duke was the right person to do, and fulfilling the constitutional role of the monarch.

I accept that the Monarch has few "real" powers nowadays but it just doesn't seem right that someone with no right to succeed to the throne is the defacto monarch for maybe 18 years. It would be like the First Lady taking on the powers of the President instead of the Vice President were the President to be incapacitated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 03-10-2013, 08:10 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,586
I've been told that some of you cannot see the article - it is quite long and it would take a long to abbreviate. The most interesting aspect is the results of a poll which accompanies the article.

There were 2 key questions:

Q1: If the Queen becomestoo ill to regularly carry out royal duties or appear in public, should ahe remain monarch or let the throne pass to her heirs:

Remain on the Throne: 51%
Step down: 41%
Don't know: 8%

Interestingly, it doesnt mention mental incapacity in which case, IMO, the government would step in and direct the appointment of a regent

Q 2: Who would you prefer eventually to succeed the Queen?

Prince Charles 44%; Prince William 37%; Dont know 7%; neither should be no monarch 12%

Apparently the same question in a poll last May was 38% Charles and 44% William, so it has changed over.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 03-10-2013, 08:16 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
I've been told that some of you cannot see the article - it is quite long and it would take a long to abbreviate. The most interesting aspect is the results of a poll which accompanies the article.

There were 2 key questions:

Q1: If the Queen becomestoo ill to regularly carry out royal duties or appear in public, should ahe remain monarch or let the throne pass to her heirs:

Remain on the Throne: 51%
Step down: 41%
Don't know: 8%

Interestingly, it doesnt mention mental incapacity in which case, IMO, the government would step in and direct the appointment of a regent

Q 2: Who would you prefer eventually to succeed the Queen?

Prince Charles 44%; Prince William 37%; Dont know 7%; neither should be no monarch 12%

Apparently the same question in a poll last May was 38% Charles and 44% William, so it has changed over.
The Charles vs. William thing seems to change regularly. Regardless, I doubt they'll skip Charles for William unless there's a clear majority - unless they have to change it to save the monarchy they'll avoid change in fear of losing the monarchy.

My understanding of the terms for a regent is that if the monarch is unable to carry out the role due to infirmity of body or mind, a regent is established. As such, if HM is to ill to carry out her function (and her illness lasts for a long time), she's going to be replaced by Charles in the name of regency, without an abdication.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 03-10-2013, 08:19 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,586
I agree but it was interesting that the question to the public never raised the issue of mental incapacity.

There is no way that Charles will be overlooked. If you have a constitutional monarchy, you cant just pick the bits you like. Its all or nothing, IMO
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 03-10-2013, 08:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,355
I think it's largely because people don't seem to realize that there is this contingency plan in place.

People seem to think that monarchy is this set thing; the king (or queen) rules until either they die, abdicate, or are deposed. They seem to think that there isn't a system in place to check a monarch who cannot - due to some form of infirmity in mind or body - rule. But there is, the regency.

The question of whether or not HM should abdicate or not stems out of the idea that 1) because of her age HM cannot do her job anymore, 2) there is no system in place to cover for HM in the case that she cannot so her job, and 3) Charles deserves to be king because he's been waiting for so long.

However, 1) HM clearly can do her job, regardless of her age, and is in a position where she can to a degree pick and chose what she does herself and what she delegates to Charles, Anne, and other younger royals, 2) there is a system, the regency, and 3) Charles can deal. This isn't the 14th century, we don't need monarchs who come to the throne by deposing their parents.

As to whether or not we can pick and chose what royals we like, I agree with you - we shouldn't be able to. But within the constitutional monarchy we have done exactly that, or at least Parliament has. Parliament chose not to accept Edward VIII (by choosing to not accept Wallis). Likewise, Parliament chose not to accept James II and James the Old Pretender, installing instead Mary II and William III. Parliament then chose not to accept any children that William III had from any marriage other than those born to Mary II until after the death of Anne (there were no such children, but they didn't know that at the time). And when it became apparent that Anne wasn't going to be succeeded by her own child, Parliament chose to seem a number of closer candidates (including James) who were deemed to be undesirable in favour of George I. We might think that you can't pick and chose - and I agree we shouldn't be able to, as it can be seen as a way to destabilize the monarchy - but it doesn't mean that it has 't happened.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 03-11-2013, 01:16 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Parliament then chose not to accept any children that William III had from any marriage other than those born to Mary II until after the death of Anne (there were no such children, but they didn't know that at the time).

That was actually logical as William's own right to the throne was behind that of Anne.

The line of succession before James II's son was born was: Mary, Anne, William.

So when parliament said that William's children with any other woman besides Mary were to come behind Anne's children it made sense as it returned them to their place in the line of succession based on their father's right.

Just imagine that The Queen had died while young with Charles becoming King say aged 18 and Philip had remarried - no one would expect Philip's children from that second marriage to be in the line of succession based on Philip being the husband of The Queen but on Philip's own right to the throne - difference of course is that Philip's personal claim is about 400th while William's was 3rd at the time he married.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 03-11-2013, 02:10 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

That was actually logical as William's own right to the throne was behind that of Anne.

The line of succession before James II's son was born was: Mary, Anne, William.

So when parliament said that William's children with any other woman besides Mary were to come behind Anne's children it made sense as it returned them to their place in the line of succession based on their father's right.

Just imagine that The Queen had died while young with Charles becoming King say aged 18 and Philip had remarried - no one would expect Philip's children from that second marriage to be in the line of succession based on Philip being the husband of The Queen but on Philip's own right to the throne - difference of course is that Philip's personal claim is about 400th while William's was 3rd at the time he married.
Except William was crowned in his own right. Yes, it was a co-monarchy, but he ruled in his own right and it's debatable as to whether or not the crown was given to him because Mary insisted on it or if it was given to Mary simply to legitimize the appearance of William's crown. William III was a usurper and measures regarding the succession of his offspring were made to lesson the blow of his being a usurper.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 03-11-2013, 02:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,599
William wasn't a usurper - he was given the job by parliament. His wife was the legitimate heir once parliament removed her father.

Parliament made sure that the rights of any children reflected the rights of the parents: Mary's offspring with William to follow them.
Anne's offsping to take precedence over William's because William's own personal claim was behind Anne but only just.

Yes William was crowned in his own right but that was as much because he headed an army, as it was because he was both married to Mary AND because he was the most senior male in the line of succession - being 3rd in his own right.

His children by anyone other than Mary was done to ensure that the line of succession followed the correct line - Mary, Anne, William - the only difference to that line was allowing William to be crowned in his own right.

You contradict yourself by saying that William's children were placed behind Anne's to placate him being a usurper as that is their correct place based on the line of succession before the Glorious Revolution began. If he was a usurper as you claim he would never have agreed to his children with someone other than Mary being behind his sister-in-law's children but would have insisted that they follow him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:34 AM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,213
The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests:
The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests - Telegraph

I think it's an fair argument.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:01 AM
Elly C's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worcester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,889
I have no strong feeling about the need for the Queen to stay the monarch until she dies. As one of her subjects, I wouldn't feel she had broken her vow to her country in anyway. The oath "to serve" for the rest of your days is surely not broken if she decides to abdicate. She can serve by being a help and support to Charles. As for concerns about the constitution, I think history teaches us this has a wonderful way of adapting to situations as they rise. I don't think the Queen would consider it right to abdicate, but that doesn't mean the matter shouldn't be aired, and I hope John Prescott's view isn't just dismissed as stirring up trouble.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:04 AM
Duchess of Durham's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Durham, United States
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests:
The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests - Telegraph

I think it's an fair argument.
While it may be a fair argument, I still don't believe she will abdicate.

She watched her uncle abdicate and the shame that accompanied that abdication. Granted, she would be abdicating for a very different reason than her uncle, nevertheless as a little girl watching what her family and country went through has no doubt left an impression on her. Things that happen to us as children effect us far differently than similar events do when we're adults.

As a 21 year old she pledged to serve her country her whole life whether it be long or short. As a woman with great honor, I think she would see abdicating as not living up to her word.

As a mother, I would think she would want to see her son in his role as King and could advise him until her death, much like Beatrix. Again, though, I don't think it will happen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 724
There is no need to abdicate. when the queen will feel not strong enough for job then Regency will be established. Easy and without any crisis.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 03-24-2013, 01:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ipswich, United Kingdom
Posts: 696
Simply have a regency if The Queen doesn't feel up to it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 03-24-2013, 01:43 PM
Dman's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 7,213
The odds of The Queen abdicating is probably slim but it may get to the point where she will be unable to carry out her duty as Monarch and make Charles regent.

He's ready to take over things now if he have to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 03-24-2013, 01:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Well, if the Queen is like her mother (and seems that she is), she will not be with a weak mind by the time she reaches one hundred years old, nor the Queen Mother was with a weak body.

I can see the Queen steping down from all the cerimonial duties, leaving them for Charles and Camilla. So, Her Majesty may stick only with her executive duties, like meetings with the Prime Minister and read the Red Boxes.

But, of course, I can't rule out the possibility of a Regency by the end of Her Majesty's reign.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, elizabeth ii, queen elizabeth ii, regency, retirement


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ABBA singing "Dancing Queen" for the Swedish King and Queen allison513 Royal House of Sweden 34 11-19-2011 02:24 AM
Queen Fawzia and Queen Soraya were they involved in their country's development ? FarahJoy The Imperial Family of Iran 15 12-15-2009 08:53 PM
Valdemar II the Victorious, Queen Dagmar and Queen Berengária norwegianne Danish Royal History 2 11-10-2007 05:54 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]