In article ,
tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> In article <4b953ea8.1807781@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Pete Barrett wrote:
> >On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 08:24:09 -0600, raystwo@webtv.net (Raymond Speer)
> >wrote:
> >>Churchill promises
> >>that the monarchy shall continue.
>
> There's no "promise" about it. There's a long line of sucession as
> provided in law, and the constitution requires a monarch, barring
> forgeries involving the Great Seal.
>
>
> >>(DECEMBER 1944.) William V, King Henry's infant son, ascended to the
> >>throne upon his father's demise in a plane crash.
>
> Quite so.
>
> >>Prime Minister Winston Churchill communicates with the ex-King
> >>Edward VIII, who is presently the young King's sole surviving
> >>uncle. Duke Edward is appointed Lord Protector for the baby king,
>
> Nope. No Lord Protector. The Regency Act 1937 (1 Edw. VIII & 1
> Geo. VI c. 1) is also explicit.
>
>
> 1. - (1) If the Sovereign is, at His Accession, under the age of
> eighteen years, then, until He attains that age, the royal
> functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the
> Sovereign by a Regent. ...
>
> 3. - (1) If a Regency becomes necessary under this Act, the Regent
> shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified
> under this section, is next in the line of succession to the
> Crown.
>
> So no Edward VIII. His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936
> said
>
> His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue,
> shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or
> interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of
> the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.
>
> Given that this Regency Act was enacted in 1937, right after the
> Abdication, I bet that clause was aimed RIGHT at Edward VIII.
> The Regency Act continues
>
> (2) A person shall be disqualified from becoming or being
> Regent, if he is not a British subject of full age ...
>
> I assume that means 18 years.
>
> Issue of George V, in primogeniture order:
>
> * Prince George, Duke of Kent.
> Killed in 1942, o.s.p.
Leaving behind two sons and a daughter; but they were all too young
in 1944.
> * Prince John of the United Kingdom.
> Died of a surfeit of epilepsy in 1919, o.s.p.
> * Mary, Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood
> Born 25 April 1897, so she's well over 18. Resident in the UK
> (controller commandant of the Auxiliary Territorial Service).
> Not in communion with the Pope, not married to a Papist.
> DING DING DING. We have a winner.
>
> The Regency Act provides that, if a higher-precedenct regent candidate
> meets the qualifications during the regency, they become regent. But
> there were no such candidates, so the Princess Royal would have been
> Regent until 18 December 1959 or she died, whichever came first.
>
Well, no. Prince Edward, Duke of Kent had his 18th birthday on Oct
9, 1953 and would have replaced his aunt at that time.
--
Robert Woodward
|
