Let’s say that Prince George assumes the throne before the age of majority. Who would be his regent?
The next two people in line to the throne after him – viz, his siblings – are younger, so they would be out as regent. The next after that is his uncle, Harry, who has said “fuck it” and moved to Canada. His cousin, Archie, who is next in line, would at once be too young AND lives in Canada.
Next is his great-uncle, Andrew. His status in the Royal Family right now is … complicated.
So would it fall to Princess Beatrice? From what I’ve been able to glean, she doesn’t seem to be too interested in royal life, either
Can’t see the point in that degree of hypothesising, but by custom and convention such a question would be dealt with by the Prime Minister of the day in consultation with the opposition parties in Parliament and the heads of government of the other Commonwealth countries retaining the monarchy, under the formal umbrella of the Privy Council (i.e., confidentially), as well as the Palace officials and surviving members of the family (it wouldn’t be left to them).
Who knows, they might end up with some sort of Regency Council of the great and good (though that’d be casting back to Scotland in 1587 and the 17th century Netherlands for a precedent).
Of course such a scenario requires that William be dead. I can well imagine that in such a circumstance Harry would be willing to return from his self-imposed exile, and serve as regent.
According to the Regency Acts, Harry is legally the Regent if George assumes the throne as a minor.
Right now, I get the impression that he was more or less forced out of a military career he enjoyed, to be second fiddle to his older brother, and then had to put up with quite a bit of racism and abuse toward his wife, and just said “This isn’t worth it.” But I think if he was Prince Regent, the equation would be different, and some combination of familial duty and actual importance would impel him to accept the Regency.
It’s laid out in statute. Harry would be regent and Andrew would be one of the counsellor of state.
Statute trumps everything, so dalliances with possibly underage and probably unwilling girls, and running off to Canada would be irrelevant.
Theoretically, a new Regency Act could make a child’s mother the regent, but under the current Act the Regent must be in the line of succession. Kate isn’t. She would, I believe, be a Counselor of State, however.
Parliament would need to change the Regency Act. Here’s another question; as it stands would she even have legal guardianship of little King George VII?
Actually, that’s wrong. The “consort of the monarch” becomes a Counselor, but of course George wouldn’t have a consort if under 18. (Prince Philip is currently a Counselor as consort of the monarch.)
If George was monarch, according to the current lineup the Regent would be Harry (although one of the requirements would be that he’s “domiciled in the UK,” so he would have to return from Canada), and the Counselors would be Prince Andrew, his daughters Beatrice and Eugenie, and Prince Edward. (It’s not clear from the article in Wiki what happens if there is no consort; if there were another Counselor it would be Princess Anne.)
Why would she necessarily have input on matters of state?
We’re talking about who serves as Regent, not who has input on the child’s life. Regent is a governmental position in the UK with certain (now very limited) powers. There is no necessary reason why Kate Middleton would take on such an official government position. Of course, as George’s mother she would still have input on his personal life, but that’s not what this question is about.
The current five Counselors of State are Philip, Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew. However, Philip, Harry, and Andrew have withdrawn from matters of state due to retirement, relocation, or disgrace, leaving only Charles and William to serve in the role.
As I said above, and as your own link indicates, to be Regent Harry would have to be domiciled in the UK, so he would only become Regent if he agreed to move back from Canada.
If he didn’t, Andrew would be Regent, which I think would be politically unacceptable. I think in such a case the law would quickly be amended. And if the law were to be amended, they could designate whomever they wish.
Of course Philip and Andrew are legally still Counselors of State. However, in the case of the Queen’s incapacity in current circumstances it is unlikely that they would be called upon to substitute for her in performing royal duties. Those duties could be performed by the other two Counselors, Charles and William.
Harry’s domicile remains the United Kingdom, even if he is resident overseas for many years, its his domicile of origin. Its been a while, but IIRC for his domicile of choice to become his primary domicile needs him to live overseas for 17 of the last 20 years, which obviously won’t be the case for years and Prince George will be well into his 20’s by then, I think so will Princess Charlotte.
That is true. Though who knows what Andrews position and public stature is in 10 years from now.
Surely there would be a provision for The Princess Royal. HRH Anne. Apart from her now being equal with the male heirs, she is a hard-working, intelligent woman and I think she would be a better Regent than any of the boys.
Should Harry and Andrew not be available/acceptable as Regent, as I said the above the act would have to be amended, and they could designate anyone they wanted (within limits). Although Anne is second eldest after Charles, her position in line remains behind Andrew and Edward because it wasn’t changed retroactively by the new succession rule that equalized male and female inheritance. But if they amended the law, AFAIK they could designate Anne. (She would also probably be seen as a better choice than Beatrice or Eugenie, who are also ahead of her because Andrew is)