The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Mbruno]

How do you define justified, though? If it was passed by the elected House of Commons, how can an unelected body delaying it be justified? And one person's definition of "justified" is always going to be different from another's.

I wish they'd just abolished it in 1911, but that would have caused an uproar!

By "justified" I meant that the House of Lords nowadays normally uses its veto power only to block legislation that is unconstitutional or violates fundamental civil rights. For example, the House of Lords , if I recall it correctly, recently held up legislation that restricted trial by jury or extended the amount of time a person can be detained without being formally charged with a criminal offence.


Keep in the mind that the UK, unlike for example the US and Canada, does not have a written constitution or a Supreme Court that is capable of striking down unconstitutional legislation. The suspensive veto power of House of Lords therefore fulfills in part the role which the (equally unelected) courts play in other countries.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder how younger children would have continued to be addressed if the line of Queen Anne had continued.

Convention only changed because of the Hanoverian succession. The traditional native custom may well have survived to the present.

I'm not sure it can be faulted on the succession of foreigners to the throne. No other European monarchy surviving into this era held out against the inflation of princely titles, no matter the family origins of their monarchs. And the Hanoverian-born British monarchs conformed to native practices such as the bestowal of dukedoms on royal princes or the use of Princess Royal for the oldest daughter.

It was not an exclusively British practice. Sons of the French King (Fils de France) did not routinely use the title of Prince prefixed to their names either. They were referred instead by their peerages.

"Prince" was at the outset a European title for monarchs, so the routine use of it for children of European monarchs was comparatively recent.

Legally, at the time, Diana and Hewitt's love affair was a dire crime in the UK. It very well possibly could have been if the law was enforced, that Hewitt could have been arrested, tried and convicted of high treason. The law states:

"Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom

Needless to say, this was not enforced and Hewitt lived without being hung, drawn and quartered. The Crime and Disorder Act was amended in 1998, a year after Diana's death.

absurd to think that Hewitt was going to be convicted of high treason.

In this day and age, nobody would be convicted of high treason for that.

When the British Parliament amended the Treason Act in conjunction with the Succession to the Crown Act in 2013, it made the conscious choice not to eliminate the charge of high treason for "if a Man do violate the King’s [X3Companion,] or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife (X4) the King’s eldest Son and Heir". Indeed, it was their choice not to so much as amend the Treason Act to be gender-neutral. It will remain high treason for a man to violate Prince George's future wife, but not for a woman to do the same, and if George's heir is a daughter, it will not be high treason for any person to violate her spouse, as it would have been if she had been a man married to a woman.

It was mentioned upthread that some British royal experts argue that this lack of modernization makes the British monarchy "unique", but I wonder if an individual charged with high treason pursuant to these regulations post-2013 would view it in the same way.

 

[Durham]

I'm not sure it can be faulted on the succession of foreigners to the throne. No other European monarchy surviving into this era held out against the inflation of princely titles, no matter the family origins of their monarchs.

You're probably right although it wouldn't have been surprising if a continuing Stuart dynasty (via Anne) had resisted such inflation under parliamentary (especially Whig) pressure. I think in the context of C18th Britain it would have made sense to avoid royal title inflation.

I think it makes even more sense now.

 

[EllieCat]

Just wondering... IF Princes Charles and William had died of Covid(God forbid), and the Queen died while Prince George still a child, I wonder who would have been Regent. The next adult in the line of succession is Prince Harry (hmmmm) and following him Prince Andrew (even more hmmmmm)... so I just wonder...

 

[Osipi]

Just wondering... IF Princes Charles and William had died of Covid(God forbid), and the Queen died while Prince George still a child, I wonder who would have been Regent. The next adult in the line of succession is Prince Harry (hmmmm) and following him Prince Andrew (even more hmmmmm)... so I just wonder...

My guess, in this scenario, is that Catherine, George's mother would be appointed as Regent with a very inclusively named panel of advisors and lawyers and guardians to oversee George's reign until he reached his majority.

Just my guess anyways. ?

 

[Curryong]

Under the Regency Act a Regent would be the next adult in the line of succession. That isn't Kate, who is not in the line of succession, but Harry. Kate would of course have a great deal of input. However, I believe there would be no worry about Harry. I think he would discharge his duties to his nephew with love and care. Regencies aren't popularity contests.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

Just wondering... IF Princes Charles and William had died of Covid(God forbid), and the Queen died while Prince George still a child, I wonder who would have been Regent. The next adult in the line of succession is Prince Harry (hmmmm) and following him Prince Andrew (even more hmmmmm)... so I just wonder...

As the law is right now, it would indeed be Harry. Unless he refused/ was encouraged to refuse, then Andrew - same story, then Beatrice. So I would say realistically, it would have been Beatrice or the law could have been changed to make Catherine regent.

 

[miss whirley]

They would have done the same thing they did in 1953, when Philip was named potential regent over Margaret. They would have put the 2020 act naming Catherine, George's regent. If Margaret was deemed an inferior choice, there is no way in Hades that Harry or Andrew would be green lighted.

 

[Princess_Eleanor]

They would have done the same thing they did in 1953, when Philip was named potential regent over Margaret. They would have put the 2020 act naming Catherine, George's regent. If Margaret was deemed an inferior choice, there is no way in Hades that Harry or Andrew would be green lighted.

I agree that there is no way that Harry or Andrew would be given this task. I don't think anyone at the palace nor the government would have been in favor.

I'm sure all this was discussed when Charles and William fell ill. William surely made his personal wishes for who should act on behalf of his son known as well, and I cannot see him choosing Harry or Andrew either.

 

[AC21091968]

They would have done the same thing they did in 1953, when Philip was named potential regent over Margaret. They would have put the 2020 act naming Catherine, George's regent. If Margaret was deemed an inferior choice, there is no way in Hades that Harry or Andrew would be green lighted.

Agree. Personally, if not Catherine, I prefer Beatrice over Harry and Andrew to become a Regent for George. I do think it's better (just to be safe) to have a "regency plan" in place. I said "plan" rather than act, because George is currently not first in line like Charles is in 1953.

Under the Regency Act a Regent would be the next adult in the line of succession. That isn't Kate, who is not in the line of succession, but Harry. Kate would of course have a great deal of input. However, I believe there would be no worry about Harry. I think he would discharge his duties to his nephew with love and care. Regencies aren't popularity contests.

Section 1 of Regency Act 1953 has the heading, H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh to be Regent in certain circumstances. It was especially put in place so that The Duke of Edinburgh would be the Regent for his (and Elizabeth II) children, rather than Princess Margaret (who was 3rd in-line, behind Charles and Anne).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/1/section/1

 

[Mbruno]

As the law is right now, it would indeed be Harry. Unless he refused/ was encouraged to refuse, then Andrew - same story, then Beatrice. So I would say realistically, it would have been Beatrice or the law could have been changed to make Catherine regent.

Can Harry be regent without being a resident of the United Kingdom?

 

[Curryong]

Any Regent would have to have a primary UK residence and the Sussexes have Frogmore Cottage. Harry is still British by nationality.

 

[Somebody]

Agree. Personally, if not Catherine, I prefer Beatrice over Harry and Andrew to become a Regent for George. I do think it's better (just to be safe) to have a "regency plan" in place. I said "plan" rather than act, because George is currently not first in line like Charles is in 1953.

Section 1 of Regency Act 1953 has the heading, H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh to be Regent in certain circumstances. It was especially put in place so that The Duke of Edinburgh would be the Regent for his (and Elizabeth II) children, rather than Princess Margaret (who was 3rd in-line, behind Charles and Anne).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/1/section/1

Given that there are currently two adult heirs, I agree it wouldn't make sense to work on a Regency Act but it indeed seems likely that if George would be the heir while still a minor that a Regency Act will be put in place that will most likely indicate Catherine as the Regent. It would create more fuzz to skip Harry and Andrew so Beatrice can take over than argue that his mother should take that spot until he can take on full responsibility imho.

 

[Betsypaige]

My guess, in this scenario, is that Catherine, George's mother would be appointed as Regent with a very inclusively named panel of advisors and lawyers and guardians to oversee George's reign until he reached his majority.

Just my guess anyways. ?

I don't know what the "qualifications" are, but for me, there's only one choice and that's Kate. Harry is an absolutely no-go for me........same with Andrew.

 

[Grousewood]

Since Harry has withdrawn from royal work, I think he would refuse if asked. I also don't think he would be asked to be regent. However, he relates well with children andl loves George, so if that ever came to be there would be good rapport between them.

 

[Countessmeout]

Can Harry be regent without being a resident of the United Kingdom?

I am sure if Harry was required to step in as regent, he would return to the UK. He is a British citizen and has a British residence. It isnt like he has been exiled and can not return to the country.

As it stands under the current regency act, as long as Harry was living in the UK, he would stand as regent to his nephew until George was 18. Kate would retain guardianship of her son, but not serve as regent.

If Harry makes it clear he would not return, the regency act may need some ammending. As it would fall to Andrew if Harry was unable to serve.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Frankly Harry will not serve as regent for two reasons: Meghan and Archie. Past newspapers have begged Harry to come back to serve the Crown - but not Meghan and Archie. The tone of some of these articles were Harry is welcomed back to the UK if he divorces Meghan (without cause) and abandon Archie. They're a package deal. With the press hostilities still on Meghan he won't come back.

 

[AC21091968]

I would say it's not just the press who would be unwelcoming for Harry becoming a Regent. I think even some Palace Staff, Privy Councillors and Government ministers would not be happy. The reasons are similar to those expressed by some posters here (i.e. not currently living in the UK, possibly considered "a loose cannon", potentially dabbling in politics or controversial issues and quitting as senior working royal).

I know some may ask about my approval for Beatrice, but not Harry. There are three main reasons

• Beatrice did not quit royal duties, she was never a senior working royal, but do work that support charities
• Beatrice currently lives in the UK and probably will stay there for quite a while if not rest of her life
• Beatrice on most occasions have stayed out of politics and restrain herself from talking contentious issues

 

[muriel]

They would have done the same thing they did in 1953, when Philip was named potential regent over Margaret. They would have put the 2020 act naming Catherine, George's regent. If Margaret was deemed an inferior choice, there is no way in Hades that Harry or Andrew would be green lighted.

I agree with @miss whirley, the law would need to be amended to make Catherine the regent. This will be a decision for the government to make, but I do not think there beuing material opposition to this in Parliament.

 

[muriel]

I am sure if Harry was required to step in as regent, he would return to the UK. He is a British citizen and has a British residence. It isnt like he has been exiled and can not return to the country.

As it stands under the current regency act, as long as Harry was living in the UK, he would stand as regent to his nephew until George was 18. Kate would retain guardianship of her son, but not serve as regent.

If Harry makes it clear he would not return, the regency act may need some ammending. As it would fall to Andrew if Harry was unable to serve.

Harry may well be willing to step in as regent, but I just do not think it would be the right thing to do for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that HArry is no longer a working member of the BRF and has proven to be unlreliable in his commitment to serve the British people.

For reasons I do not need to run through, I think it highly unlikely that any governmet will allow Andrew to be regent.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Can Harry be regent without being a resident of the United Kingdom?

Any Regent would have to have a primary UK residence and the Sussexes have Frogmore Cottage. Harry is still British by nationality.

Residency is not a requirement. Domicile is adequate under the Regency Act 1937. As the law stands, the Duke of Sussex would automatically succeed to the regency if Queen Elizabeth, the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Cambridge all predeceased the Cambridge children before 2031. Altering this arrangement would require a new Act of Parliament.

(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 M1Act of Settlement, be incapable of inheriting, possessing, and enjoying the Crown[F2, 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.​

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16

Unless he refused/ was encouraged to refuse, then Andrew - same story, then Beatrice.

Since Harry has withdrawn from royal work, I think he would refuse if asked.

As the law stands, there is no option of refusal. However, an individual who wished to by bypassed could disqualify themselves by legally changing their domicile, nationality, and/or church.

The tone of some of these articles were Harry is welcomed back to the UK if he divorces Meghan (without cause) and abandon Archie.

I have not seen such articles, but if the Duke of Sussex abandoned his child in the event of a hypothetical divorce that would be his own choice. The laws and courts of California and England encourage both parents to continue sharing parental responsibility after a divorce.

 

[Denville]

I can't imagine realistically that a Regent could live out of the UK...

 

[muriel]

I can't imagine realistically that a Regent could live out of the UK...

I think that is right, it would be odd to have a regent who is not normally resident in the UK.

 

[Grousewood]

Frankly Harry will not serve as regent for two reasons: Meghan and Archie. Past newspapers have begged Harry to come back to serve the Crown - but not Meghan and Archie. The tone of some of these articles were Harry is welcomed back to the UK if he divorces Meghan (without cause) and abandon Archie. They're a package deal. With the press hostilities still on Meghan he won't come back.

I agree. And Meghan would not want to come back, regency or not. With negativity that you describe against her, you cannot blame him. They appear to be a happy couple and he is very protective of her. My vote for a regent would be Prince Edward, since George would need a father figure. I'm sure that could be arranged. Otherwise, I'm sure Beatrice would do well.

 

[Somebody]

I agree. And Meghan would not want to come back, regency or not. With negativity that you describe against her, you cannot blame him. They appear to be a happy couple and he is very protective of her. My vote for a regent would be Prince Edward, since George would need a father figure. I'm sure that could be arranged. Otherwise, I'm sure Beatrice would do well.

What kind of arrangement would you suggest for Edward to take the place instead of the 4 adults before him in line to the throne. While Harry probably doesn't qualify as being domiciled in the UK, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie do. So, unless they would rewrite a specific Regency Act in which they appoint a different regent than the current RA provides for (and in that case it would make more sense to have Catherine take it on than George's great-uncle), it would require a lot of gymnastics to make that work.

I don't think George would need the Earl of Wessex as a 'father figure' either. He has sufficient male influences in his life (especially on the Middleton-side of the family) next to his father (and grandfather but the regency scenario suggests that they passed away).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

While Harry probably doesn't qualify as being domiciled in the UK

I am no expert on this topic, but per a British law expert:

Domicile denotes a more permanent association with a country and is generally determined at birth and will remain that country unless you resettle with a firm intention to live in a different country for the rest of your life. [...]

To change domicile, you generally must sever all ties with the UK. So the Revenue might consider you still to be UK-domiciled if you had moved to Spain but returned to Britain to visit friends or family.​

 

[Durham]

Neither Sussex nor York would be acceptable. That's blindingly obvious.

It highlights a problem with the governance of this country in the event of a minor. The present system is not fit for purpose in the C21st. Maybe a regency council rather than a regent might be an answer. There's no need for any relative of a monarch who's a minor to be on it.

 

[Durham]

I can't imagine realistically that a Regent could live out of the UK...

Absolutely. It would be a complete non starter.

 

[Durham]

Frankly Harry will not serve as regent for two reasons: Meghan and Archie. Past newspapers have begged Harry to come back to serve the Crown - but not Meghan and Archie. The tone of some of these articles were Harry is welcomed back to the UK if he divorces Meghan (without cause) and abandon Archie. They're a package deal. With the press hostilities still on Meghan he won't come back.

No. There's only one reason why he wouldn't serve as regent & that's because he wouldn't be wanted. Hardly surprising really.

 

[Denville]

Neither Sussex nor York would be acceptable. That's blindingly obvious.

It highlights a problem with the governance of this country in the event of a minor. The present system is not fit for purpose in the C21st. Maybe a regency council rather than a regent might be an answer. There's no need for any relative of a monarch who's a minor to be on it.

I think there should be a relative, such as the surviving parent, on a regency council.. or an uncle/aunt if there are none.