To add a precedent on regencies other than the George III/George IV story: Bavaria, a kingdom within Bismarck Germany, was under a regency for 26 years, from 1886 to 1912. The legitimate king, Otto, was mentally incapacitated, so his uncle Luitpold took over as Prince Regent. Although the Bavarian constitution would have given him considerable political powers, he largely stayed out of politics and let his ministers run the show; he did, however, exercise all the ceremonial and civil society functions of the monarch, and tons of things in Munich and Bavaria generally from that time are named after the “Prinzregent”. Nonetheless it was Otto who retained the title of King (and IIRC he was the one on coinage). When Luitpold died, his son Ludwig took over as Prince Regent initially, but they soon found the situation awkward and amended the constitution so as to allow for the dethroning of Otto and the proclamation of Ludwig as King (Ludwig III). Nonetheless, Otto (who apparently understood nothing of what was happening) retained, for the few remaining years of his life, the title of King and the style of Majesty, so that the country had, for those few years, two individuals styled King of Bavaria (but only one of them exercising the constitutional role).
Not the UK, of course, but European monarchies often follow similar conceptual foundations, so it might be of interest for this thread.
The whole thing is spoofed in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where the Galactic Empire is nominally a monarchy, but the legitimate emperor has been frozen in a suspended state of being nearly dead for centuries, allowing a head of government to take over.
And in a case where life imitates art, I give you this rather confusing tale. In this case the frozen leader is religious, not civil, but the fellow still serves the role of utmost leader to his adherents:
A key difference, if I recall the timing correctly, is that Charles was a widower when he remarried.
And
Is it so long as they are Protestant (positively), or so long as they are not Catholic? I know those were the only two viable options in the 18th century, but would atheists, agnostics, Hindus, etc. be technically allowed or technically forbidden? Realpolitik, London is well worth a mass, of course.
Interesting: the preambles to the Act of Settlement speak of the prevention of those “in communion with the Church of Rome and professing the Popish religion” from succeeding, but the “be it enacted” bit specifically says “That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established”.
But, as you say, realpolitik wins out, and Parliament can always change its mind. And/or the CofE can always not ask awkward questions of those who take communion.
I am not 100% sure about that. The monarch still has powers that they do not use for fear of a constitutional crisis such as appointing whomever they want as PM and dismissing them and withholding the Royal Assent. One might argue that it is his sole power to abdicate even without Parliament’s approval as his Royal Prerogative and so he legally abdicated upon signing the Instrument. However, considering that it concerned succession to the throne, I concur that Parliament’s approval was necessary to enforce the ineligibility of his descendants.
Sounds like the real problem going forward is the ridiculously backwards views of the CoE. Perhaps they could be leaned upon to enter the second millennium.
It always cracks me up to hear CoE described as “Protestant”. They never protested anything except that Hank couldn’t get divorced, and then they don’t even tolerate that.
The King’s Great Matter wasn’t a divorce, but an annulment. He argued that his marriage to Katherine of Aragon was void under Catholic canon law, because Katherine had previously been married to his older brother, Arthur.
His theology was otherwise pretty Catholic.
The bar on marrying a brother’s widow remained part of Anglican theology for three centuries. It wasn’t changed until the late 19th century, when it was changed by Parliament.
The term “Protestant” originated in Germany, and was in reference to Lutherans protesting against the Catholic Church’s assertion of theological monopoly.
The C of E certainly joined in that general issue, against the Catholic Church, under Edward VI and then Elizabeth, James I and Charles I.
It could get even more bizarre - any blood relationship could be transferred by marriage. Henry II’s younger brother Wiliam was supposed to marry the wealthy Norman heiress Isabel de Warenne, but was instead disqualified because her dead 1rst husband had been his double-second cousin. Thomas Beckett may have later had cause to regret that refusal to play along.
Just how ridiculously flexible and political this could be can be seen from how some time later Henry II’s son, the later King John, was married to another wealthy heiress in Isabella of Gloucester who was his actual second cousin.
Answered already. But, the monarch must be Protestant. (And, until a few years ago, the monarch’s spouse didn’t have to be Protestant but did have to be Not Catholic.)
The monarch’s Protestantism was demonstrated by taking communion in the ritual of the Church of England. So participation in CofE liturgies, rather than formal profession of any particular belief, was the key test. This didn’t have to be exclusive — so long as the monarch took communion in the Church of England, it didn’t matter if they also took communion in other (Protestant) churches. So the Hanoverian monarchs were Lutherans when in Hanover, and all the monarchs took, and still take, communion in the Church of Scotland (which is Presbyterian, not Anglican) when in Scotland.
They self-identify as Protestant, and always have. If you want something specific that they protest against, it’s the errors of the Church of Rome (39 Articles, art. 19) and the assertion of jurisdiction in England by the bishop of Rome (art. 37).
One might, but I don’t think the argument could succeed. The Royal Prerogative gives way to an Act of Parliament, and since 1701 succession to the Crown has been regulated by the Act of Settlement. Under that Act the heir of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, being Protestant, is automatically the monarch whether they like it or not. If they don’t like it the only way to get this state of affairs changed is to have Parliament legislate an amendment or exception to the Act of Settlement.
Fun fact: Edward VIII signed his Instrument of Abdication on 10 December 1936, which expressly states his desire that his abdication should take effect “immediately”. But His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 didn’t pass through Parliament until the following day, and of course it didn’t become an Act of Parliament until granted the Royal Assent. So which monarch assented to it? Edward VIII did, on 11 December, because despite having signed his instrument of abdication the day before he was still the monarch.
The monarch does have such power; they’re called the reserve powers. Their job is to ensure the constitutional system keeps operating.
For example in Canada, two of the monarch’s reps at the provincial level have intervened in the political process when the electorate has returned a hung parliament. The interventions by the Lt Gov of New Brunswick and the Lt Gov of BC resulted in a transfer of powers to the leader of the party who had the greatest likelihood of having majority support in the Legislative Assembly. That’s what the monarch is expected to do.
I don’t think that’s accurate. George V decided against appointing Lord Curzon as PM, although he was a leading member of the party. And Elizabeth decided to appoint Harold MacMillan over Rab Butler in the fallout from the Suez Crisis and Eden’s resignation.
The reserve powers of the monarch or their representative are critical.
Here in Australia memory of November 15 1975 are still keen. What is under appreciated is historically how often the monarch’s representative has dismissed governments.
The core issue that has driven dismissals has been preventing the government from operating illegally, which has almost always meant operating without supply. Unlike the USA, where it appears the government can paper over the cracks when no money is available, in the Westminster system the governor or governor general will act as necessary to bring into existence a government that will ensure supply. In the UK one would expect the same thing.
If some politicians unite in a manner that prevents supply, the monarch/governor(general) will negotiate with whatever politicians they can to reach an understanding so that supply is guaranteed. This has usually meant a deal whereby those politicians that can allow supply agree to do so in exchange for an election. Sometimes the deal goes bad, but in the end the government must not operate illegally. The reserve powers are essentially those necessary to prevent governments from manifestly operating illegally.
In the past blocking supply has been abused badly as a way of forcing an unpopular government to an early election. It has settled down a bit now.
The US system is fundamentally different. There are no reserve powers vested in a single entity. The three way tie breaker of POTUS, SCOTUS, senate, is much less able to control such things. As witnessed by the current shutdown.
The Church of England allows divorced people to remarry in church, and made that change before 2005, but the specific circumstances of the relationship between Charles and Camilla (they were in a relationship together while in marriages that ended in divorce) were such that they would have had a very hard time qualifying under the rules as applied to ordinary people.
I vaguely recall something about the radical protestant faction under Henry VIII starting to get carried away once the split from Rome happened. The tug between traditional and protestant was fairly serious, and those too attached to the Roman ways were purged as being insufficiently loyal to the new church.
To be fair, in 3 cases Henry did not really need a divorce. Mind you, he instigated the situation for two of them…