Presumably given that "Following the 2019 scandal, Prince Andrew was ostracized from the royal family and stripped of his royal titles and duties," lots of people would be happier if Harry relocated to the U.K. to take up that role. I wonder what happens if he did so after William and Charles were to pass, could Harry divest Andrew of the Regency without an act of Parliament? english.elpais.com/international/2023-01-11/…

and following the 2023 book lots of people are pretty upset with Harry...

Also makes me wonder what forum a dispute like that would be resolved in.

Is it not the case that steps have recently been taken as regards both Princess Anne (Princess Royal) and Prince Edward (Duke of Wessex), in order to give them more influence over affairs in the absence of the King - should he be ill or out of the country.? My guess is that Parliament would find itself having to endorse the named regent, which in the circumstances would eliminate both Princes Andrew and Harry (both of whom are currently outside the formal protocols of the Royal Family). Almost certainly Princess-Regent Anne or Prince-Regent Edward I would suggest would oversee matters.

Hope I've got that right. Is a female Regent, still known as a Regent? Or is there a feminine noun for "regent"? Regenta?

@WS2 Regent is a gender neutral noun. Historically in Europe, one fairly common choice of a regent has been the mother of the child who is a monarch who is the widow of that child's father, and the term Regent is used in those cases.

@ohwilleke: the traditional forum for disputes about regal succession is the battlefield.

@WS2 The current Regency Act gives no discretion to Parliament or anyone else over who becomes Regent. However, there have been a number of Regency Acts in the past, in order to update the rules according to circumstances, and so another Act could be passed by Parliament in the future.

@ohwilleke claiming that Andrew was "ostracized" is, at the very least, a gross exaggeration, and one made in that article with no source to back it up. Nor was he stripped of his "noble" titles. He was stripped of his military titles and patronages and he isn't supposed to use the "HRH". He was only removed from active duty as "a royal", but still enjoys his absurd wealth and the various meaningless titles like "Duke" etc.

@WS2 They were both recently appointed Counsellors of State by the Counsellors of State Act 2022. That allows them to stand in for the monarch in case of illness or absence and might be indicative of a possible regency. The Regency Act is controlling though.

@SteveMelnikoff Of course one question would be that of "Who makes the appointment - of Regent?". It couldn't be the monarch, because they would be dead. What does the Regency Act provide in this regard? Unless it is a matter reserved to such as the Lord Chancellor, one assumes it would be the Prime Minister. And anything the latter does is clearly subject to the will of Parliament. I have absolutely no doubt that Parliament would have the final say.

@WS2 since it's an Act, it's already the say of Parliament.

@WS2 "It couldn't be the monarch, because they would be dead" No. In effect, the monarch is never dead. At the exact moment the one dies, the successor is monarch. The exact point of a Regency is that the next monarch is too young or otherwise incapacitated to actually carry out the responsibilities.

@eques You misunderstand my point. It could not be the previous monarch becuse that person would be dead. The good news is that it has long been an established principle that Parliament is sovereign and can do anything it wants. - including abolishing the monarchy if it is so minded.

@WS2 I cannot misunderstand what you did not state. Of course the dead cannot decide, but someone (a monarch) could anticipate a need for a regency and make arrangements and failing that someone besides the monarch would have to be able to do so (or convince others to respect their claim)

"Parliament" would be the parliaments of all 15 Commonwealth realms, which would need to agree (or have a different Regent). and I'm now going to look up if the Regency Act applies in NZ

If Harry moved back to the UK as soon as he learnt of the deaths of Charles and William, would that make him eligible to be regent?

@DawoodibnKareem I think that anyone who actively presented themselves for the job would ipso facto almost certainly be deemed unsuitable.

So the Epstein affair doesn't have an affect on Andrew in this case?

@user1271772 I do not believe that Prince Andrew, who is no longer an active member of the Royal Family, would ever become Regent, even in the highly unlikely circumstances that one were ever needed. Nor do I believe that anyone could be so appointed without the concurrence of the young King's mother - assuming that at that point she were still alive.

@WS2 the answer says "the Regency would pass to Prince Andrew".

@user1271772 Nobody has got the faintest idea of who it would pass to. The British Constitution is a highly flexible beast. Were that not the case the country would have gone the way of revolution centuries ago.

Okay, so constitutionally it would be Andrew, but it is likely that the constitution will change so that this doesn't happen? But if the deaths occur suddenly and there's not enough time to change the constitution, Andrew would be promoted until the constitution changes? Andrew would "technically" be allowed to veto that constitutional change right? I understand that this doesn't usually happen in practice, but at least in Canada the parliamentary decisions get "approved" by the Governor General, which would be the representative of Andrew in that case (i.e. Andrew would be able to veto laws).

@user1271772 I wouldn't pretend to know what might happen - the last time was in 1811, when George IV became Regent for his insane father. "Changing the constitution" in Britain, is not the formal process that you make it sound. There is no written constitution. But of one thing I feel certain - that the UK Parliament will have the final say.