IOW, he takes after his grandfather? 
Presumably it would be evident before he turned 18 if he was completely unfit, due to defect of intellect or character.
Does the regency automatically dissolve on that 18th birthday? Would a separate regency have to be established at that point?
See- he could totally have been king. No question, goofy as he is.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear (and have also been corrected, as there have been some recent changes).
The Speaker and the Lord Chancellor from Parliament have a say, as do two members of the judiciary - the Lord Chief Justice and the Master Of The Rolls - as well as the consort of the Monarch. A majority of those can declare the Monarch unfit.
Here’s the wiki page, at the section which refers to the transfer of powers.
Thanks to Northern Piper for the correction about the Lord Chancellor.
As others have commented, if the monarch is under 18, the regency is automatic under the Regency Acts - no additional action is required.
If there’s a question whether the monarch is incapable or unavailable to perform his/her duties, the Regency Acts set out a process:
[QUOTE=Regency Act 1937]
… the following persons or any three or more of them, that is to say, the wife or husband of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls, declare in writing that they are satisfied by evidence which shall include the evidence of physicians that the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions or that they are satisfied by evidence that the Sovereign is for some definite cause not available for the performance of those functions, then, until it is declared in like manner that His Majesty has so far recovered His health as to warrant His resumption of the royal functions or has become available for the performance thereof, as the case may be, those functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent."
[/QUOTE]
So suppose some years from now, the little prince is 19, and Elizabeth, Charles and William have all pre-deceased him. He announces that he’s going to reign as King Alexander IV. To celebrate, he goes out riding, gets thrown by his horse, and is in a coma.
Since he’s not yet married, the decision is made by the Speaker, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Three of those four have to agree that he’s incapacitated, and sign the declaration, with medical evidence attached. Dowager Queen Kate doesn’t have any say in it.
Except that Parliament passed the Regency Act, and historically passed other acts to create Regencies. If Parliament wanted to create a Regency, or change the Regent, it has the power to do so.
I should hope not! Zombies aren’t known for their (own) brains.
WHat has not been mentioned here is the current changes in balance of power between various organs of state. Previously the Government of the Day (Prime Minister with the consent ofthe House of Commons) could run a virtual elective dictatorship. The Government can over-rule virtually any law including laws safeguarding the fair and reasonable government of the state so long as the Commons concurs. The recent decades have seen an increase in the powers of the House of Lords (or at least a willingness to deploy such powers against incumbent governments) and the power of the Judiciary. What was a virtual Mutually Assured Destruction Possibility between Government and Monarch has become more complex. Previously the Monarch served only at the wish of Parliament (see the Glorious Revolution) yet the Monarch could remove the leader of the Government.
Things have recently become more nuanced!
A side issue is that the Armed Forces do not swear to protect the State, but to protect the Monarch and so there remains the possibility of a completely legal Army take over if commanded by the monarch.
Maybe all constitutions should have these fuzzy edges.
Aha! This is the missing link that explains “how”!
Meh. “May you live in constitutionally interesting times”. No thanks. 
I quite like the fuzzy edges. I’m cautious about the idea of the present generation setting in stone the values and practices of today for future generations. As long as the rules are clearly understood and conform to the values of the age, they can gradually mould and evolve to suit the priorities and values of contemporary people.
Goodness, if the UK had codified is constitution in 1700 or even 1800, imagine what it would be like now!
Doesn’t mean you never change things later- we’ve amended our Constitution several times, sometimes in ways that affect the balance of powers.
But it’s clear that your system works well for you, and as a people you seem to enjoy it.
And learning about it has been a fun couple of days- in the past I’ve brushed into that part of history but never really studied it in any serious way.
Mostly my impression of monarchy is that it’s irrelevant- which certainly is false.
So, ok.
Primary function of the monarchy is as a defense against the tyranny of democracy.
The people are protected from their own worst actions by having an overriding, overwhelming, god-on-earth with the final say.
Why is that position hereditary? Y’all should **elect **your monarchs- to lifetime positions.
That’s probably the primary political function, along with advising the Prime Minister, but diplomatic and ceremonial functions are also important, and form the bulk of the work the Royals do (apart from those who are in the military, obviously. William is a search and rescue helicopter pilot, for example).
Now you’ve added another layer to the game of fuzziness, as the U.K. didn’t exist in 1700 or 1800. Fun, isn’t it?
I think I must be missing something here.
I believe BigT was responding to this comment:
The only way there would be a regency for George Alexander is if he’s king; the only way for him to be King is that Elizabeth, Charles and Wills are all dead; therefore Wills would definitely not have a say in the regency issue.
Oh of course, but then the constitutional values of 1800 UK(and its derivatives :p) were quite different from now. For example, we’d probably still have the Lords’ absolute veto over legislation and only hereditary peers!
Exactly, different strokes and all that
[quote]
So, ok.
Primary function of the monarchy is as a defense against the tyranny of democracy.
The people are protected from their own worst actions by having an overriding, overwhelming, god-on-earth with the final say.
The heir spends much of their life training up for the job, building on the past and preparing for their descendants. Such as Prince Charles, who has spent 60 years or so as heir.
In a funny way, it’s kind of meritocratic in that sense.
I’m not quite convinced election for life would satisfy those who insist election is the only possible means of appointing the Head of State.
'Cos the sort of people self-selected as President for life have so far been a disappointment.
Ah, makes sense. My error.
But an elected monarch for life is just as likely as an hereditary one to end up with Alzheimer’s or in a coma. If nothing else, an hereditary monarchy has the advantage that the identity of the next head of state is already known, so there is an obvious person to act as regent. Elective monarchies for life therefore tend to be worst at dealing with this sort of problem. John Paul II springs to mind as the most obvious recent example.
nm
Exactly. To my mind, Benedict will be someday thought of as one of the most revolutionary popes of the modern era, for the decision that it is no longer necessary to “hold onto the job like a pope”. It can now be a position leaders retire from when they are not up to the job, like any CEO. Note the new king of Belgium just took over because his father retired. Only the Brits hang on to the job like a pope.
The problem with an elected head of state - you have only to look at places that do have an elected president. Both Italy and Israel have presidents, elected mainly ceremonial positions like monarch that perform similar duties. In both countries the president has been charged with crimes of corruption.
Why? Because it’s an elected position, so who runs? Used politicians, because that’s who has the organization, backing, and IOU’s from the political world to win a country-wide election… and the baggage.
Also, the hereditary monarch is generally wealthy enough to avoid scandal (usually, IIRC there was a bit of an issue with the Netherlands a while ago) and are in the spotlight enough that it’s hard to get into the backroom dealing. The queen stays aloof because if she’s too heavily identified with one side, then when the other side wins (inevitable, eventually) they owe her nothing and can start chipping away at her privilege. For now, plenty of working class, including those who vote Labour, I’m guessing, approve of the monarch.
The best system is the Commonwealth one. The monarch appoints a governor general for a country like Canada - basically, appoints whomever the Canadian government nominates (unless totally totally unacceptable, back to the nuclear option…) As a nominee by the prime minister, this person does not have to be an accomplished politician and win an election. It used to be an “elder statesman”, but recently the trend has been a non-politician minor public figure with less baggage and in general, more diversity. We’ve had GG’s that were an ethnic Chinese woman, a Haitian-Canadian media personality, and now an old white guy.
Again, the GG can exercise the same “nuclear option” although they never have, yet. But, again, it’s a reminder to any prime minister tempted to act like a petty dictator (which is most of them when they have a majority) that there’s a limit to how abhorrent they can make their laws. One person with a conscience can derail them.