What happens if Prince William and Kate Middleton’s baby, Prince George, turns out to be retarded or autisitic or have some other disability that would make it impossible for him to be King of England? Does he get skipped over in the succession line or is it just tough, he serves and that’s it? And who would decide such a thing? I know King George III was supposedly crazy but he ruled, but I don’t think a retarded fellow could fool the public and rule
The main page shows the thread title and then the name of the poster who started the thread below it.
Its an interesting image in this case.
Judging by history, it might not be an impediment for the job …
A regent would be appointed. These days, an act of Parliament has codified the choice of regent, and it would be the next in succession.
Damned five minute edit window. I’m not certain regency applies to a permanent condition. Given the regency act, it’s the same result either way - next in the succession.
Regency, succession, and all associated stuff are the product of Acts of Parliament, and as such can be remedied by passing a new Act of Parliament.
Realistically, barring some unforeseen catastrophe, we’ve probably got somewhere in the vicinity of 60-80 years ahead of us before young Prince George will become the monarch, and in the event that he proved to be mentally enfeebled between now and then, there would be plenty of time to either provide legally for a regent or to modify the royal succession so as to skip over him and/or abolish the monarchy altogether.
Well Charles has done OK, but he’s not king. . . They’d probably be fine.
Charles II of Spain was so inbred he couldn’t even chew, but was still crowned king. With the British monarchy these days it would be entirely in Parliament’s hands.
George III was not mad when he took the throne, though. He only became insane some years into his reign. His son and heir (who later ruled in his own right as George IV) became his regent.
These days, a British has far fewer truly significant duties, and much less political importance, than they did in George’s time. It does not take much brain power.
The Regency Act says that if any three or more of:
[ul]
[li]the monarch’s spouse[/li][li]the Lord Chancellor[/li][li]the Speaker of the Commons[/li][li]the Lord Chief Justice[/li][li]the Master of the Rolls[/li][/ul]
declare that the monarch is incapacitated, then the functions of the monarch are transferred to the Regent, who is the next adult in the line of succession.
what would happen if the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William all died tomorrow, say in an IRA attack on the palace? Would one year old Prince George immediately become King, since he’s next in the line of succession, or would it skip to the next adult in line? And if it did skip, is George out of luck or would it skip back to him when he’s 18? And who is the next adult in line, Prince Harry?
Prince George would become King, and his uncle Prince Henry, who is next in line, would be appointed regent until George reaches the age of majority.
If the heir is very obviously permanently incapacitated and incapable, never could be a functional king, and likely will linger for decades, could their guardian abdicate on their behalf?
There have been problems more recently than George III, though not to the heir. The sad story of Prince John:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_John_of_the_United_Kingdom
The bottom line is David Cameron keeps running the country. The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and the Prime Minister is the person who’s actually in charge. The monarch’s role is mostly ceremonial and doesn’t really effect the government. As others have noted, they’d appoint a regent to perform the duties of the job.
Parliament could also get rid of the monarchy, especially if under those circumstances there is no monarchy left. It would be messy but if that’s what everybody wanted they’d find a way to get it done.
Generally typical causes of MR (nowadays it’s being called ID/DD by the newer literature and organizations serving those populations) are known by now. So if George were to be unfortunately afflicted with such a disability it’d already be known (at least for intellectual disabilities, some of the development disabilities like autism you may not know for awhile.)
But anyway, if he had come out with such a problem I don’t actually expect when it was his turn to succeed they would let it happen. I imagine Parliament would remove him from the line of succession both for practical reasons, and to a degree out of respect to the royal family. It’s a public position and while you could have a regent for the entirety of his reign it would always be drawing negative attention to someone with a disability like that. The sensible thing to do would be an Act of Parliament making his eldest sibling (assuming he has one) the heir, or if William and Kate have no more children they’d probably make Harry the heir and trace it through his line at that point.
so if such an ira attack were successful tomorrow, harry becomes king til george is old enough? so does harry’s reign count officially, is he king harry or king henry or whatever his real name is, and then george becomes king at eighteen
No, he doesn’t become King, he becomes a Regent. There’s a big difference. He’d be ruling in George’s name, as in, “I, Prince Henry, do such and such for George VII.”
Basically, Harry would do all the stuff that the King would normally do, but George would still be the King. Then, when George turns 18, he’d take over and do it all that himself.
He’s not the King, he’s more like the substitute teacher.
Harry would probably be Henry, The Prince Regent until George reaches the age of majority, formally at any rate. He’d likely still be called Prince Harry by everyone.
Would they automatically go with Prince Harry as regent? Prince Andrew’s been around a lot longer and is presumably more experienced. And more likely to keep his pants on around the palace.