The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/)
-   -   Prince Charles - potential Prince Regent? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/prince-charles-potential-prince-regent-35610.html)

lightningbearer 08-07-2013 09:53 AM

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?

Lumutqueen 08-07-2013 10:17 AM

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.

Alison H 08-07-2013 10:20 AM

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.

Iluvbertie 08-07-2013 04:56 PM

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.

Spheno 08-07-2013 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1586327)
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)

AdmirerUS 08-07-2013 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno (Post 1586463)
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:

COUNTESS 08-07-2013 08:30 PM

I, too, believe, she will. She is a believes in her position, and will carry it until she is no longer, alive, IMHO.

Ish 08-07-2013 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdmirerUS (Post 1586467)

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.

PrincessKaimi 08-07-2013 10:44 PM

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.

Loyalist 09-20-2013 10:39 PM

I can't fathom the day the guard changes! I wish Elizabeth could stay queen forever.

Queen Shirley 10-20-2013 11:57 PM

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??

Ish 10-21-2013 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley (Post 1610606)
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.

Jacknch 10-21-2013 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spheno (Post 1586463)
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.

Ish 10-21-2013 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 1610617)
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.

Skippyboo 10-21-2013 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1610611)
....

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

Ish 10-21-2013 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippyboo (Post 1610784)
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.

Andolini 10-21-2013 10:51 PM

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!!!

Iluvbertie 10-21-2013 11:16 PM

If she is senile she can't give up the throne - she has to be mentally competent to do so.

Andolini 10-21-2013 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1610878)
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

Elly C 10-22-2013 10:41 AM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises