21 it is according to the royal family’s website, which unhelpfully lists her as “Mrs. Michael Tindall”.
hmmmm, i didn’t know she took his last name…
We don’t know that she did, from that datapoint. A married woman who uses her birth name but is married could still be described as “Mrs. [Husband’s given name & surname].” That description would apply equally to married Zara whether she kept her name or changed it.
That said, most women using that old-fashioned style would also change their surname on marriage.
Seems like the Family is somewhat in denial, since Parliament is the only authority with regards to succession. Parliament is not a “but also” consideration.
Except that Parliament, having specified the line of descent, doesn’t take a decision on each succession within it.
Maybe she didn’t - calling wives “Mrs. (husband’s name)” is just a “thing” in Britain.
For example, when Chris Evert played at Wimbledon after she married John Lloyd, she was always called “Mrs. J. Lloyd” - for example, “Advantage, Mrs. Lloyd” (rather than what she used as her last name, “Evert Lloyd”).
I went to a fancy charity event with my exwife as her +1 and they took our picture to post on the website. She changed her last name to mine when we married and kept it when we split.
We made sure the caption said “Me Lastname and Her Lastname” which was more accurate than “Me and Her Lastname” in this instance.
And in Hollywood until at least the 1950s
An interesting side question is who this hypothetical preteen Queen Zara’s regent would have been. AIUI, when the monarch is a minor, the regency is assumed by the next adult in line of succession. Since male primogeniture was still the law in the '80s, Zara being queen would indicate that all of Elizabeth’s male children, and all of their children as well, died in the war, along with Princess Anne and Zara’s brother. Would that have made Princess Margaret (assuming she survived) the regent, or is there someone else I’m forgetting?
As has so often been said, the monarch reigns but does not rule. In other words, the monarch does whatever Parliament tells him or her to do. There is nothing political about it; no political parties involved, and thus, no political construct. There are no parties, no sides when it comes to the monarchy—there is only constitutional tradition, and contrary to what many Americans think, yes, the UK actually has a constitution, woven together from 900 years of documents (e.g. Magna Carta), through hundreds of years of legal precedent and tradition. In any event, King Charles’ rule is not political. He is bound to obey constitutional norms, regardless of which party is in power.
I realize this is completely unfamiliar to our American friends, who elect everybody, including their Head of State, but those of us in Commonwealth countries, appreciate a Head of State who isn’t elected. He or she just opens hospitals, attends horse races, greets children at daycares, and otherwise, doesn’t dabble in politics. In other words, the monarchy is not political–it is not allowed to be, under British and Commonwealth countries’ law.
I don’t know what the statutory position is in Australia, but in the UK it’s only custom and practice that keeps the monarch out of politics, on the “all good chaps” principle that holds everything together (just about). In terms of statute law, there’s nothing to stop the monarch engaging in party politics - once.
The reason I suggest moving this thread is that there is the rule in this forum to avoid hijacks and to keep on topic. The way this thread had developed, it’s a better fit for MPSIMS.
Hmm, good one, I may try to figure it out. No, I’m not OCD, why do you ask? 
States are political constructs and every office of state is a political office, including the head of state. Every function of state is a political function. E.g. — the monarch appoints the PM (even if they have no discretion about who to appoint); appointing a PM is clearly a poltical function.
The monarch in the UK is supposed to avoid party politics. The only way they could avoid all engagelment with political matters would be to abdicate.
A thread discussing the discharge by King Charles of his functions as monarch certainly belongs in the “politics and elections” forum. - not least because it opens up the distinction between politics and party politics.
Under UK law the regent, in the event that the monarch is under 18, is the heir to the throne, provided they have attained age 18. If the heir is also under 18, then it’s the next person in line who has attained age 21.
In the scenario in the comic, the heir would indeed have been Princess Margaret, assuming she had survived. If she had not survived but her son had, he would have been over 18 in 1983 (he was born in 1961) so it would have been him.
That being David, Earl of Snowdon, who interestingly is currently the first person in order of succession who is not a descendant of Elizabeth;
I see the family resemblance in him, though he probably wishes he were bald like Philip’s heirs, because that combed-back look isn’t doing him any favors.
His Majesty has been discharged from the hospital.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/29/uk/catherine-princess-of-wales-health-intl/index.html
I think the rule is rather that the monarch does whatever the Prime Minister (or the other cabinet ministers, for matters falling within their respective portfolios) tell him to do. Most of the time this will coincide with the position of Parliament because the government controls a majority in Parliament (otherwise it wouldn’t be the government). But where the actions of the cabinet collide with Parliament, the monarch will have to side with the Prime Minister. Examples include the prorogation in the run-up to the 2019 elections; or when the Blair government used Queen’s Consent to stop a parliamentary vote on the war in Iraq. Also, the monarch’s power to appoint life peers is an example where the Prime Minister can use the monarch to bring people into Parliament.
Yes. Just ask King George V (last sentence here): People's Budget - Wikipedia