What would a modern British regency look like?

Suppose that at some point after 1900, the British crown passes to a King or Queen who is still a child. What would a modern regency be like?
 
Given how the modern monarchy is purely symbolic with Parliament exercising all the power, I don't think they'd even bother.
 
Given how the modern monarchy is purely symbolic with Parliament exercising all the power, I don't think they'd even bother.

I'm almost entirely certain that they would, actually - after all, someone needs to act as monarch for all sorts of symbolic thingies.

The question is whether they'd appoint a close member of the family or have some professional politician take on the task.
 
I'm almost entirely certain that they would, actually - after all, someone needs to act as monarch for all sorts of symbolic thingies.

The question is whether they'd appoint a close member of the family or have some professional politician take on the task.

I would think it would have to be a relative, in the 70s I would think the Earl of Burma would be the probable regent.
 
There would have to be a regency in the event that the new king or queen is a minor. Although the British Monarchy has declined in power over the last few centuries, it does still fulfill several important, if not symbolic, functions.

So lets say that the Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and Prince William are all taken out. The next in line for the throne would be Prince George, who is currently two years old. As I can't see a toddler giving the annual Speech From The Throne for the next several years then a regent would have to be appointed. Parliament would most likely pass a bill appointing an individual to act in King George VII's (if that is the name taken) name until he reaches adulthood.

I would've looked for Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, to be the regent due to his age and experience, but he's had some scandals occur which may take him out of the running.

Prince Henry may be a good alternative, but his youth may play against him. Regardless, I'm sure that he would have some say in the Regency and he would most likely become and important figure for the new king.

Perhaps a senior member of the House of Lords would be selected if there were no viable alternatives. That or perhaps a collective regent made up of government officials.

Oddly enough, this may actually give the nascent Republican movement an argument for their cause. I could see their leaders saying something like: "If our head of state was elected, then we would have a new one immediately rather than waiting 16 years for one." Of course they would have to wait a while to make their case as the public would still be in tremendous shock and grief for the loss of the three senior members of the Royal Family.
 
Last edited:
I would think it would have to be a relative, in the 70s I would think the Earl of Burma would be the probable regent.

In the early part of the Queen's reign, when Prince Charles was young, she advocated/insisted on a change in the law so that her sister would not become Regent, but it would go to Prince Phillip.
 
Under the laws currently prevailing, should Her Majesty, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge die, the throne would pass to Prince George of Cambridge - presumably as George VII - and the regent would be Prince Henry of Wales, no question about it.

The Counsellors of State, in addition to Prince Henry himself, would be the Duke of York, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York, and the Earl of Wessex.

If Parliament wished to do otherwise, an act could be passed to that effect, but otherwise the above arrangements would apply.
 
What are you expecting the answer to be here?

As has been finally noted above by the sixth reply, the arrangements are all well set out in law, so there's not going to be any ambiguity about the process.

What would a regency look like? Basically exactly as things look now, but with a different person and a different title.
 
Top