In message , THG
writes
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:05:14 -0600, tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>If she died, her sons
>>* The Hon. George Lascelles
>> b. 7 February 1923, so he's 21-22.
>> Has there been a regent who was not royal? His father didn't
>> kick until 23 May 1947; has there ever been a regent who was not
>> even a peer?
>>* The Honourable Gerald Lascelles
>> 21 August 1924, so 20.
>>
>>After them, the issue of Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife.
>
>I'm working from memory here but wasn't Edward VI's regent one of the
>Seymours? Admittedly his uncle but not royal.
William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke, started his life as "the younger
son of a minor nobleman" (but there were greater noblemen among his
mother's kin), and ended it as regent for Henry III.
The rule that a regent be a member of the Royal Family is relatively
recent.
>
>Certainly no one in more modern times - Victoria was 18 when she
>ascended the throne but did she have a regent? I dont think she did.
--
Kelbert Hawsing |
