Talk:Regency Acts

Other Commonwealth Realms
These regency acts are UK acts, and so apply to situations where the Queen of the UK is incapacitated. However, Queen Elizabeth II is also, separately, the monarch of the other Commonwealth Realms. Since these acts were passed after the Statute of Westminster, they don't apply to the other realms (at least not to those who were independent at the time). So, what happens when, for instance, the Queen of Canada is incapacitated? To my knowledge, there is no Canadian regency act. Obviously, the duties of the head of state are performed by the Governor General, but the Queen herself must appoint each Governor General -- so if she had gone dotty, then how would the new appointment happen? The realms have promised not to alter their lines of succession without parallel amendments by all other realms, but they haven't promised anything regarding regency. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that the need is less urgent, as the governor-general could give royal assent to a regency act before the Queen was needed to appoint a new governor-general. Richard75 (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian Governor General has practically all the powers of the Monarch under Letters_Patent,_1947, including the power to appoint the next Governor General. One of the reasons for that Letters Patent was to prevent the need for a Canadian regency act.DanTrent (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Catherine
I think they have prepared acts transferring control of the Regency to the Duchess of Cambridge in the event of the incapacitation of the Duke of Cambridge as King. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds unlikely. Do you have a source? Richard75 (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any change in law. The guardianship of a theoretically under-age King George is not the same as the Regency Acts, which would vest power in Prince Harry. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that since King George V's accession to the throne, each monarch has theoretically had a successor available who was over 21 to become Regent in the event of an underage accession to the throne of a minority child. In King George V's case, it was Prince Arthur of Connaught; in George VI's it was the Duke of Gloucester; in the Queen's it was the Princess Margaret. In each instance, the provision was made to bypass each of these legitimate successors and vest the Regency in the Sovereign's spouse: Queen Mary; Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh. It only stands to reason that the Duchess of Cambridge would be a more suitable Regent being closer to her children, than say the Duke of Sussex or especially the Duke of York, since the latter has stood down from royal duties, which would include a Regency. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's conjecture. There's no source for it. Richard75 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Incapacity of a Regent
The article currently says 'if the person serving as regent becomes incapable of discharging the royal functions ... the same group of people who can make a declaration of incapacity regarding the sovereign (the wife or husband of the monarch, [and four others]) are empowered to make a declaration of incapacity regarding the regent.' However, Section 3(5) says that 'Section two of this Act shall apply in relation to a Regent with the substitution for references to the Sovereign of references to the Regent'. So if you make that substitution, you get 'If the following persons or any three or more of them, that is to say, the wife or husband of the [Regent], [and four others], declare in writing that they are satisfied ... that the [Regent] is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions ... then, until it is declared in like manner that [the Regent] has so far recovered His health as to warrant His resumption of the royal functions or has become available for the performance thereof, as the case may be, [that person shall be Regent who would have become Regent if the Regent had died].' I therefore suggest that it is the Regent's spouse, not the Sovereign's spouse, who can certify in respect of the Regent. IOW, if Prince Charles became Regent for the Queen, then the Duchess of Cornwall rather than Prince Philip could certify in respect of him. Alekksandr (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a legitimate and interesting interpretation which I haven't thought of or seen before. It might well be right, on the basis that the spouse of the person whose capacity is in question would be well placed to determine that question -- Camilla would be better placed than Philip to say whether Charles had capacity or not. On the other hand, it depends on whether you substitute the word Regent for the word Sovereign, or whether you substitute the regent for the person of the sovereign -- in the latter case, "wife or husband of the Sovereign" is a different person to the sovereign so you don't make the substitution. It's ambiguous enough that a court could hear argument about it and might have to decide what Patlisment intended, rather than just being guided by the text alone. So I'm not sure how to fit that into an encyclopedia without contravening the prohibition on original research. Richard75 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Who signed off on the 1714 act?
If I'm reading the brief description of the 1714 act correctly, it was passed after Anne's death. But then who gave royal assent to it? Not George I, as he wasn't available, which was the whole reason the act was passed in the first place. Did this act suffer from the same chicken-and-egg problem as the ones around George III's incapacity, which are discussed in depth in the article? --Jfruh (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Explained at Succession to the Crown Act 1707. Richard75 (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So is 1714 a misnomer? Shouldn't this section be a discussion of the Regency Act 1705? Or was there a second act? ---Jfruh (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1707 Act is the second act. Richard75 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, gotcha. I guess my point is, the header makes it sound like there's a "Regency Act 1714," and I'm gathering that's not actually the case, right? What happened in 1714 is that the provisions for a regency in the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 kicked in when Anne died in 1714. Is that correct? --Jfruh (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Richard75 (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Monarch or Sovereign
We should decide to use either monarch or sovereign in this article, not both. Less we confuse our readers. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not very confusing. Richard75 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Consort vs Spouse
I'm changing spouse back to consort, because (1) consort is the word used in the legislation and (2) it's not clear that consort wouldn't also include a civil partner, and I don't think Wikipedia should assume that it knows the answer to that. Richard75 (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Minority of Successor to Crown Act 1750/1?
@Mauls: The source for the act includes 1751 in the title. Is there another source that verifies that it was passed in 1750? DDMS123 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The source I have included in against the title lists it as 1750. It was passed in the 1750 session (see List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1740–1759. Formally, 1750 is the correct date, although some sources may date it as 1751 (see Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 for an explanation of why this happens). Mauls (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mauls: I just read the book source, you are correct. Sorry for reverting too early without looking at the source first. DDMS123 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)