Harry and Megsy

[lyhargr_0]

Spoilt brats or NOT?

[imastawka]

Calls for Prince Harry to be removed from the line of succession (msn.com)

[domino-710]

Doubt it.

The Queen cannot bring that Act of Parliament in because the rules that regulate the monarchy are decided by Parliament, not the monarch.

And it's unlikely that an MP would use parliamentary time to have Harry removed, when the chances of him becoming king are slim, even at sixth in line.

In 2003 and 2008, two people lost their place in the line of succession.

In 2003, Lord Downpatrick, the grandson of the Duke of Kent, the Queen's cousin, was confirmed into the Catholic Church, and lost his place in line to the throne.

Five years later, his sister Lady Marina Windsor did the same thing. If they had remained in the Church of England, they would currently be position 39th and 40th in line to the throne.

It also happened in 1978, when Prince Michael of Kent married a Catholic.

At the time, it was the law that anyone in line to the throne who married a Catholic would have to surrender their place.

When he was born, Prince Michael was eighth in line, but he gave up his position at 15th in 1978 to marry Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, now Princess Michael of Kent.

[lyhargr_0]

---

@imastawka wrote:

Calls for Prince Harry to be removed from the line of succession (msn.com)

---

Wont happen ..............

[the_great_she_elephant]

It wouldn't make much difference anyway.  he already has Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis ahead of him - not to mention any cildren any of them may yet produce. 

[lyhargr_0]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

It wouldn't make much difference anyway.  he already has Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis ahead of him - not to mention any cildren any of them may yet produce. 

---

Will be a quite few yeas until  they produce kids ...............   Personally, if it did happen, I think  Harry would abdicate, I cant see him ever living full time in the UK again.

The really make me lol, they want total privacy, yet they are happy to do an interview with Oprah ..................  Am totally over both of them and their WOKE propaganda

[domino-710]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

It wouldn't make much difference anyway.  he already has Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis ahead of him - not to mention any cildren any of them may yet produce. 

---

Just wondering.

If say - Charles on the throne - something happens - then comes William - something happens - George - how old - would be King - could Harry be called upon to be regent.

[lyhargr_0]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

It wouldn't make much difference anyway.  he already has Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis ahead of him - not to mention any cildren any of them may yet produce. 

---

Just wondering.

If say - Charles on the throne - something happens - then comes William - something happens - George - how old - would be King - could Harry be called upon to be regent.

---

Dont think so ................ 

[domino-710]

Then who.............................

[lyhargr_0]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Then who.............................

---

A regency is appointed until he/she becomes of age

[imastawka]

The Act of 1937 states that should the throne pass to someone under the age of eighteen then the Regent will be the next person in the line of succession aged 21 or over. And right now, should Prince George find himself on the throne before the end of July 2013, that would be Harry.

There is also the issue of Counsellors of State to consider. This role is given to senior members of the Royal Family and allows the Queen to delegate some of her powers when she is out of the UK or not able to discharge them fully herself on a temporary basis. Two are usually appointed by letters patent when needed and those letters patent can be revoked at any time. These Counsellors can exercise many of the Monarch’s functions including attending Privy Council meetings and receiving Letters of Credence from new ambassadors.

The role belongs to the Monarch’s consort and the four most senior people in the line of succession. To take on the role, they must be over the age of 21, British subjects and living in the UK. The current list is the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York.

Now that the Duke of Sussex has announced he is no longer a senior royal and that he intends to spend more time in North America as he and his wife aim to become financially independent (albeit with a rather large chunk of Duchy of Cornwall funding according to their own website), questions are being raised as to whether Harry would or could fulfil either of these two, important constitutional roles.

Will Harry and Meghan’s decision lead to a new Regency Act? – Royal Central