Prince Charles: Potential Prince Regent?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

lightningbearer

Commoner
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
28
City
Lincoln
Country
United Kingdom
Over the last few months the media has been full of speculation that QEII is cutting back her duties such as the Commonwealth H of Gov meeting and delegating to PoW, potentially setting in motion a "co-monarch", whilst I can't see that happening it did get me thinking - QEII is now 87 and at an age where health can seriously affect working life, should Charles assume a regency, how would this affect his and Camilla's position and how could this work?
 
Only time Charles would rule while his mother was still alive, would be if she was mentally incapacitated. This doesn't seem likely so he's stay POW until his mother passes.
 
I know that the Middle Ages don't really work as a precedent for now :), but at one time it was quite normal for monarchs' sons or brothers to do part of the job for them - the future Richard I ruling Aquitaine on behalf of Henry II and Eleanor, the future Richard III effectively ruling Northern England on behalf of Edward IV, etc. However, since the Glorious Revolution there has to be agreement from Parliament on who can carry out the monarch's duties. The heir to the throne can be named regent under the 1937 Regency Act if the monarch's "incapacitated", but AFAIK there's no provision for actually sharing duties.

I can't see anything being done in legal terms unless the Queen's health deteriorates significantly. In practice, I can't see that she and Philip will undertake any more long-term trips, so Charles and Camilla or William and Kate will take over those, and they'll probably take over more of her general engagements, but I think she'll keep on doing the "official" stuff like the State Opening of Parliament and holding meetings with the Prime Minister. Going through all the state papers in the red boxes does seem to be a lot of work for someone well past normal retirement age, though! Having said which, I think Prince Albert used to do some of the political stuff on Queen Victoria's behalf, so presumably it's OK to delegate it.
 
Prince Albert was the exception and not the rule as he shared the duties with Victoria, partly because she spent so much of their married life pregnant or recovering from pregnancy.

The law is very clear in the UK - a Regency is established if the monarch s either incapacitated or a minor and the Regent is the next in line to the throne over 21. That of course would be Charles.

That has happened in the late 18th C and again in the early 19th C with George III when his son was Regent and the second time has even given the word Regency to describe the period.

The Queen used to do around 600 public engagements a year with Philip at around 700 while now they are both at about 300 although Philip probably will come in around 160 this year after having these last 2 months off and for most of the next two months he will be on holiday.
 
Only time Charles would rule while his mother was still alive, would be if she was mentally incapacitated. This doesn't seem likely so he's stay POW until his mother passes.
Regency Act 1937 (which is still in force), established in law a procedure for determining the incapacity of the Sovereign due to infirmity of mind or body or due to the monarch's unavailability for another definite cause. (wiki)
 
Regency Act 1937 (which is still in force), established in law a procedure for determining the incapacity of the Sovereign due to infirmity of mind or body or due to the monarch's unavailability for another definite cause. (wiki)

Not speaking for Lumutqueen, but I think the intended thought is that Elizabeth II will not allow herself an a physical infrimity that incapacitates her. She will carry on through physical infirmity - heck she probably already has and we did not need to know about it. Stubborn, lovely Lillibet! :flowers:
 
I, too, believe, she will. She is a believes in her position, and will carry it until she is no longer, alive, IMHO.
 
Not speaking for Lumutqueen, but I think the intended thought is that Elizabeth II will not allow herself an a physical infrimity that incapacitates her. She will carry on through physical infirmity - heck she probably already has and we did not need to know about it. Stubborn, lovely Lillibet! :flowers:

While I agree that HM will continue on as long as she possibly can, I wouldn't rule out a regency due to physical infirmity. It may be easy to forget just how debilitating some age-related illnesses can be, or even how debilitating non-age related illnesses can be when you're HM's age. I have a grandmother who's a year older than HM and has been hugely incapacitated by age related illnesses, to the point that, while mentally she's still as sharp as a trap, physically even just going outside of her home is a challenge.

At the Queen's age it is considerably more likely that an illness is going to seriously disable her physically. We have to be open and prepared for that to happen, however much we hope it doesn't.
 
Oh, good grief. People become ill in tragic ways that subvert their will. God forbid, but people do get various leukemias and cancers and strokes and cannot "carry on." Ish (as usual) is on point.

Just because the Queen Mum did so well doesn't mean HM will do so (although I fervently hope she will do well). I live daily with a 96 year old father who is (more or less) still in health and in right mind, but am so aware how that could change tomorrow - and through no fault of will on his part. Or any other foreseeable reason - it could happen and although it seems foreign, I would have to step in and make decisions for him (as we did when my mom's leukemia suddenly caught up with her).

God bless the Queen and we all pray for her good health, but we all prayed for my mom's good health and that's not what happened. But, we had people in preparation (Mom prepared us) for her infirmity.

Apparently comas and so forth skip royalty? I think not - there are plenty of sad examples of illness incapacitating a royal. We all want to die in our sleep while still functional, doesn't always happen.

That being said, Charles is more than prepared to deal with this, if any of us are.
 
I can't fathom the day the guard changes! I wish Elizabeth could stay queen forever.
 
I found this on Facebook, is there any truth to it???? Linz Staffz Look at your English Monarchy History... ** William Will Be King in the not too distant future and Charles know's this, unless Mummy changes the Charter before she dies** - The King Of England Can Not Marry A Divorcee..!! Therefore, for Charles to be King of England he will have to get the S.A.S to kill off Mr Parker-Bowles who is still alive therefore Camilla is a Divorcee and Charles will have to Legally Abdicate... Why do you think Prince William is having hands on experience on behalf of his Grand-Mother The Queen Of England... Easy Math's... :eek:))
What do you all think??
 
I found this on Facebook, is there any truth to it???? Linz Staffz Look at your English Monarchy History... ** William Will Be King in the not too distant future and Charles know's this, unless Mummy changes the Charter before she dies** - The King Of England Can Not Marry A Divorcee..!! Therefore, for Charles to be King of England he will have to get the S.A.S to kill off Mr Parker-Bowles who is still alive therefore Camilla is a Divorcee and Charles will have to Legally Abdicate... Why do you think Prince William is having hands on experience on behalf of his Grand-Mother The Queen Of England... Easy Math's... :eek:)) What do you all think??

This is wrong.

First of all, Charles is not in line to be the King of England, he's in line to become the King of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and North Ireland, as well as the other Commonwealth Realms.

Second of all, the idea that Charles cannot become king because he married a divorced woman (or even is himself a divorced man) stems from a misunderstanding of the Abdication Crisis and the way Charles' marriage was established.

During the Abdication Crisis it was determined by the governments of the realms of Edward VIII that they would not accept as queen Wallis Simpson, the twice divorced American woman who was suspected of only being with Edward for the money and fame and of having affairs with other men, including significant German politicians who she was believed to have given British secrets to. They ultimately decided that Edward had to either abdicate or give up the idea of her as a wife. He chose the latter.

Wallis was not considered an acceptable woman as a consort. There were too many strikes against her, including her divorces, but personally I tend to think that one of the biggest was that Edward's family wasn't willing to accept her. Both his parents refused to meet her during their life times; had Edward had the support of the BRF on this one, things may have gone differently.

When Charles and Diana separated, then divorced, it was done with the approval - even insistence - of the Queen. When Charles announced that he wanted to marry Camilla it was already after she had been accepted into the family by his sons and his parents. The issue was brought up by the Queen's Privy Councils and was determined to be a non-issue. Thus, essentially the governments were saying that they would accept Charles as king even if he married a divorced woman. Had they not then Charles - and his sons - could have been removed from the succession.

As it stands now, Charles is and will remain the first in the line of succession - he will only lose that place on either his mother's death or his own, or in the very unlikely circumstances that he choses to convert to Catholicism. The training that William is receiving to be a monarch can be seen more as preparation for him to fill his father's current role - as the heir apparent to the throne - once his father fills the role of monarch. Charles has received the hands on tutorial for how to fulfill the role for many years now, and in many places acts for the Queen. What we're seeing is more Charles filling his mother's role so that she can do less owing to her age, and William filling the what has been Charles' role and learning how to one day do the big job when Charles dies.
 
Regency Act 1937 (which is still in force), established in law a procedure for determining the incapacity of the Sovereign due to infirmity of mind or body or due to the monarch's unavailability for another definite cause. (wiki)

With regard to the Regency Act 1937, could a British monarch him/herself make the request for a regency to be put in place even if they were not infirm of mind and body?
If, for instance, the monarch was of a certain age but was still reasonably fit and mentally sound but didn't want the bother of it all, yet didn't want to abdicate, could they request a regency? I suppose I am trying to understand what the "unavailability for another definate cause" might cover.
 
With regard to the Regency Act 1937, could a British monarch him/herself make the request for a regency to be put in place even if they were not infirm of mind and body? If, for instance, the monarch was of a certain age but was still reasonably fit and mentally sound but didn't want the bother of it all, yet didn't want to abdicate, could they request a regency? I suppose I am trying to understand what the "unavailability for another definate cause" might cover.

To answer the first part of your question: I don't know. I think a regency under such conditions would be possible - I believe it's happened elsewhere - but I don't know if the Regency Act itself would cover it.

For the "unavailable for another definite cause" I always read it as a reference to extended travel - like, if the monarch is on an extended trip to the Empire and unable to fulfill his/her duties to the point that a regent is required. Other possibilities would be like... If the monarch is abducted or taken hostage or if a disaster happens and they're involved - they're not infirm, but they're not available.
 
....

When Charles and Diana separated, then divorced, it was done with the approval - even insistence - of the Queen. When Charles announced that he wanted to marry Camilla it was already after she had been accepted into the family by his sons and his parents. The issue was brought up by the Queen's Privy Councils and was determined to be a non-issue. Thus, essentially the governments were saying that they would accept Charles as king even if he married a divorced woman. Had they not then Charles - and his sons - could have been removed from the succession.

...

I don't see how the government could remove William and Harry from the line of succession since they were born under a valid marriage act marriage. I can see Charles and any children from the second marriage without government approval, which is what happen sort with the abdication - Edward VIII gave up his rights and future children.

It's ironic that the CoE was founded for the purpose of giving the King a divorce
 
Last edited:
I don't see how the government could remove William and Harry from the line of succession since they were born under a valid marriage act marriage. I can see Charles and any children from the second marriage without government approval, which is what happen sort with the abdication - Edward VIII gave up his rights and future children. It's ironic that the CoE was founded for the purpose of giving the King a divorce

Skippy, you are correct. When I said that I was getting the information from a site that I was misreading.

When Charles wanted to marry Diana the Privy Councils met and gave permission; had they not he and his then-unborn children could have been excluded from the succession of the thrones of the nations that didn't give permission - so, hypothetically say Australia had given permission but Canada hadn't; then Charles and the boys would have been in the succession for the Australian throne but not the Canadian one, unless the situation was remedied in some way.

When Charles wanted to marry Camilla the issue was brought up again, and either the various Privy Councils met or they decided that it was a non-issue that didn't need to be discussed (I know that in Canada the latter happened; I'm unsure if any of the Privy Councils did actually meet). Regardless at this time all the realms gave their permission, ensuring that Charles remained in the succession.
 
My two cents: there is no way QEII will EVER give up the throne unless she becomes senile or something. Right now she has more energy than I do!!!
 
If she is senile she can't give up the throne - she has to be mentally competent to do so.
 
Does there.need to be a regency ? By this I mean even if the Queen is unable to carry out many official engagements, even such important occasions as the State Opening of Parliament, what would be the problem of Charles just deputising. The queen has always struck me as sensible as well as stoical; I think she has already shown signs of recognising some engagements such as longer overseas visits may no longer be possible. Even going back to choosing to use a carriage for Trooping the Colour showed her willingness to accept that things have to change over time. An occasional appearance at family gatherings would surely be accepted as the years go by. I can't see Charles pushing for a Regency either.
 
I don't think a Regency will be necessary, only if The Queen become senile.

If Her Majesty live as long as her mother - which I think it's very likely - she can do only her constitutional duties, like meetings with the Prime Minister, signing laws and receive new ambassadors, those things she'll be able to do even in a wheelchair.

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall can do the cerimonial duties. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think The Prince of Wales can perform the State Opening of the Parliament in the name of Her Majesty.
 
Unless QEII is mentally incapacitated, there is zero reason for C to be Prince Regent. He's going to have wait his turn, just as the heir to any other mentally fit sovereign of Britain has. Honestly, while the female line in BRF is extremely long lived; the same cannot be said of the males. Given that George V died at 70, George VI died at 56, Edward VIII died at 77, there exists the strong possibility that QEII may well outlive Charles.
 
Given that George V died at 70, George VI died at 56, Edward VIII died at 77, there exists the strong possibility that QEII may well outlive Charles.

Given that The Duke of Edinburgh is an active 92 years old man, I believe there's a strong possibility The Prince of Wales will outlive his mother, becoming the old and well-beloved King Charles III.
 
Only time will tell! May we have QEII for another 20 years at least!
 
Given that The Duke of Edinburgh is an active 92 years old man, I believe there's a strong possibility The Prince of Wales will outlive his mother, becoming the old and well-beloved King Charles III.

And HIS father lived to be 62.
 
Only time will tell! May we have QEII for another 20 years at least!

I hope so. But I have no problem with a 85 years old man becoming King.

And HIS father lived to be 62.

I'm not an expert in genetics, but I believe The Prince of Wales has more chances to inherit his father's longevity than health problems of his grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who were all heavy smokers. And His Royal Highness is a very health conscious man. In my opinion we'll have him around for a long time. And I thank God for such a blessing.

Sounds like you want him to die soon. If it's true, what a horrible desire.
 
Last edited:
Is this really a discussion about when Charles will die?? :ohmy:
 
Is this really a discussion about when Charles will die?? :ohmy:

It is about old age; mental health and physical health - the potential of a regency is not a comfortable subject.

I watched HMQ at the National Theatre today. Sadly, I can see that she is slowing down physically. Her steps were more hesitant and so much slower. I wasn't expecting it so it has taken me by surprise.

She once said that she needed to be seen to be believed (words to that effect - someone will correct me). I dont want a situation where she cannot be out there being seen and still ruling, and consigning Charles to carry out all the work without the status. That would be very harsh.

She needs to be realistic as time passes, and not blindly follow a 60+ year promise. The country, other realms and Commonwealth must be the priority
 
I hope so. But I have no problem with a 85 years old man becoming King.

I'm not an expert in genetics, but I believe The Prince of Wales has more chances to inherit his father's longevity than health problems of his grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who were all heavy smokers. And His Royal Highness is a very health conscious man. In my opinion we'll have him around for a long time. And I thank God for such a blessing.

Sounds like you want him to die soon. If it's true, what a horrible desire.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I do know something about genetics. And Charles has lived/spent every possible moment with a very heavy smoker for decades who in the last few years finally stopped . Are you acquainted with the research on second hand smoke?
 
And it begins...

Charles' ancestors were typically long lived, even those who didn't necessarily have the best lifestyles. A lot of the more recent younger deaths have been among individuals who didn't have healthy lifestyles and had often long histories of ill health. While Charles may not have always made the best decisions, he doesn't have a history of health problems himself and in a lot of ways he does tend to lead a healthy lifestyle.

As for if the Queen will ever need a regent, never say never. While we all may hope that the Queen has a longer and healthy life (she's already had a long one in my opinion), as none of us has a crystal ball we can't say that her health won't change and a regent won't be required. What I can say is that if Charles is required to become regent then he'll do a good job at it, although I hope it doesn't happen as I wouldn't wish the health problems necessary for the Queen to need a regent.
 
Back
Top Bottom