The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 08-07-2013, 09:53 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Lincoln, United Kingdom
Posts: 28
Prince Charles - potential Prince Regent?

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?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-07-2013, 10:17 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
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.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-07-2013, 10:20 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 57
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-07-2013, 04:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-07-2013, 06:12 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-07-2013, 06:35 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
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!
__________________
It feels like a place where no truth goes unquestioned and where there is much more discovering to be done in the world" The Duke of Cambridge, 12/9/14

"They are pretty, they are shiny, and they are more fun to look at than the shame that lives inside us all". John Stewart, The Daily Show
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-07-2013, 08:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,533
I, too, believe, she will. She is a believes in her position, and will carry it until she is no longer, alive, IMHO.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-07-2013, 09:55 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post

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!
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-07-2013, 10:44 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-20-2013, 10:39 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saginaw, United States
Posts: 129
I can't fathom the day the guard changes! I wish Elizabeth could stay queen forever.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-20-2013, 11:57 PM
Queen Shirley's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Amarillo, TX, United States
Posts: 26
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... :o))
What do you all think??
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-21-2013, 12:26 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Shirley View Post
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... :o)) 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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-21-2013, 01:33 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
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.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-21-2013, 01:53 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-21-2013, 03:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
....

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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-21-2013, 10:24 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-21-2013, 10:51 PM
Andolini's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 749
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!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,667
If she is senile she can't give up the throne - she has to be mentally competent to do so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-21-2013, 11:17 PM
Andolini's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If she is senile she can't give up the throne - she has to be mentally competent to do so.
You are right - God I am brain dead LOL
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-22-2013, 10:41 AM
Elly C's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Worcester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,911
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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





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 fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:31 PM.

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]