AIUI, doesn’t British law provide that the next in line of succession acts as regent when such is necessary?
Since 1937, broadly speaking, yes. The Regency Act provides that, during the incapacity or minority of the monarch, the regent is to be the next person person in the line of succession who is over 21, British, domiciled in the UK, and a Protestant. Note that this won’t include the monarch’s spouse, who isn’t (barring a terribly incestuous marriage) in the line of succession, or at most isn’t very high up in it.
You are completely right, but the problem that the media have is that:
anything concerning the UK monarchy rates its socks off like few other topics
the current monarchy are really, really boring and have been for decades
so there is an entire media industry around building mountains out of molehills - or just fabricating mountains entirely - about the UK monarchy, just to try to get some content by any means available.
Just curious about that Queen Mother title: suppose the widow isn’t, in fact, the mother of the new King or Queen?
Suppose King Bob and Queen Flo never had a child, or did but all offspring have died already, so when King Bob dies his nephew becomes King Nick. Does Queen Flo still become Queen Mother, or is she now Queen Aunt? (Man, that sound’s weird.)
Or, of course, the actual situation, with Camilla not being William’s mother. Again, what would they call her if/when William becomes king? Camilla, the Queen Stepmother?
What are you thinking of in support of this statement?
Since 1688, there have been three and only three changes to the succession:
Bill of Rights, 1688, excluded James II and his son, on the basis that James had abandoned the throne when he fled to France, in favour of William (his nephew) and Mary (his daughter), their issue (if any), and then Anne (his other daughter) (and her issue);
Act of Settlement, 1701, following the death of Anne’s last surviving child, provided that Sophia of Hanover would succeed Anne, followed by her issue;
His Majesty’s Act of Abdication, 1936, provided that Edward VIII would cease to be king, and his issue (if any) was excluded. His brother George VI became king.
None of these were unilateral shenanigans by the monarch, all required parliamentary authority, and generally had strong support in Parliament.
So what are the plenty of shenanigans that you’re referring to?
She’d probably be Queen Camilla, which is the norm for a queen dowager regardless of her relationship to the new monarch. That just didn’t work in 1952 because they were both named Elizabeth, so “Queen Mother” was turned into part of her formal style instead of just a descriptor.
Boring? You get jealousy among siblings, outsiders who married into the family getting ostracised, a child molester, and plenty of adultery and divorce. A family drama that screen writers couldn’t come up with.
Well, there was a fourth one, the change from male-preference primogeniture to gender-indifferent primogeniture in 2012 (which also took an Act of Parliament, or rather parallel legislation in all the Commonwealth realms). But this one hasn’t had practical effects yet, and likely wont have for at least another two generations, depending on whether George’s first child will be a boy or a girl.
Unless you mean, by changes to the succession, an ad hoc change that skips the person who’d be next in line under the current rules, rather than a change to the rules themselves.
In general, “Queen Mother” doesn’t actually form part of the formal title of the widow of a king in the UK. After the death of George V his widow was formally styled “HM Queen Mary”; similarly the widow of Edward VII was “HM Queen Alexandra”. “HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother” had “Queen Mother” as part of her title only to avoid confusion with her daughter, also called Elizabeth, who was “HM the Queen”.
The last Queen dowager who wasn’t the mother of the reigning monarch was Adelaide, the widow of William IV, who was the aunt, rather than the mother, of Queen Victoria. (Queen Victoria’s own mother had never been a queen herself, so she was “HRH the Duchess of Kent”). Formally Adelaide was “HM Queen Adelaide”, but you do find informal references to her as “Adelaide the Queen Mother” despite the fact that she wasn’t the mother of the monarch.
But none of these were unilateral shenanigans of the monarch of the day. They were all Acts of Parliament, or bills introduced in the hope that they would get adopted. This proves the point that it’s really Parliament that gets to call the shots.
Also, a regency in the case of a monarch who is a minor is arguably a prudent solution to a problem of a temporary nature, and not shenanigans at all.
There’s a phenomenon I call “stupid for clicks” which I see on things like ExTwitter, and Instagram, and similar. People apparently get some sort of remuneration (or simply love the high of being the center of attention) based on the number of views, likes, and comments - ie. the audience particpation level.
If you say something outrageously stupid, ten thousand people (sometimes I’m one) will reply to explain why you are wrong… thus feeding ego and wallet. It ranges from really bad home repair advice, financial advice (“never buy a home, it’s a waste of time”) to obviously, political extremism. Posting total crap about a hot-button topic like the Royals is an obvious attention getter. (I.e. “why haven’t we seen Harry and Meghan out together recently…? Spiltsville?”) I assume YouTube will follow the same pattern, suggesting videos that have large view numbers, thus increasing their popularity and resultant revenue.
People with even mild curiosty will click to see it, and plenty will post to tell you you’re wrong. There’s no penalty for acting stupid on the internet, especially on ExTwitter.
No but neither were they carried out purely by the elected government with the king just acting as a figurehead. They were all examples of the king (or the prince of Wales, who universally hated the king throughout the Hanoverian dynasty) using their faction in parliament to get the policies he wanted (which very often related to family members who’d pissed him often) enacted
Seriously? You think screen writers couldn’t come up with this? Every single thing you describe with the possible exception of child molesting is absolutely standard plot material in family drama. It’s humdrum.
Not only that but most of what you describe is factually doubtful nothing-burgers and weak-sauce largely frothed up by (or even drama caused by) the media itself.
UK royalty used to kill one another, invade countries, chop off people’s heads and make actual governance decisions.
“Click bait” is the traditional term for headlines written on that premise. “Prince Harry was seen somewhere,” is boring. “Prince Harry ditched Megan to hit the town!” gets people to check it out. Mostly to find out Prince Harry was seen somewhere without Megan being by his side. Ho hum, but fodder for speculation for feeble minds.
The one I saw was headlined, “Prince Harry separates from Meghan” but when I actually read it, he just took a short trip without her. I really try to avoid falling for clickbait but I’m weak.