bracketquant
Veteran Member
At 3:00 am, Charles is probably on his 4th leak of the night.
INTL Royal family cues British media for major announcement 'at any moment'/Update Kate has cancer #225
- Thread starter jward
- Start date
Very cute!!!
Squib
Veteran Member
Hey!!! Hold on!!! I resemble these remarks!Im on my second!
night driver
ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Finasteride and Tamsulosin for the WIN. 1 per night and that is USUALLY around 0530.
You never know what happens behind closed doors but William being an abuser would be shocking for many reasons. If he were to abdicate, regardless of the reason, I’m fairly certain it would be the end of the monarchy. I don’t think he would want his children to go through what he has at the hands of the press.
Who is Sarah? The law is specific about who could be appointed Regent. Please see the following from the House of Commons Library…
In a Regency, a “Regent” is appointed to act on the monarch’s behalf.
A Regency applies if a monarch succeeds to the Throne before the age of 18, or if a monarch becomes permanently incapacitated due to “infirmity of mind or body”.
If a monarch becomes permanently incapacitated, the Regent assumes most of the monarch’s “Royal functions”, except granting Royal Assent to a Bill which alters the line of succession or the Scottish system of Presbyterian church government.
The Regent is the heir to the Throne unless they have not reached the age of 18. In such a case, the Regent is the next in the line of succession who has reached the age of 21.
In your scenario Harry would be appointed Regent. I don’t think that would go over well.
Why do you think the kids have been pulled from school since Elizabeth died? They are all students at a local primary school near their home in Windsor. Part of the reason why William has been scarce since Kate’s surgery is because he has been doing the school runs, etc…
https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...egency, a “Regent,infirmity of mind or body”.
Squib
Veteran Member
Already take the Tamsulosin, and it seemed to work for the first few years, lately though…
I need to go see the Dr. But I know the finger of Doom is in my future there and my Dr. has fingers like bananas…
Yeah, "
But the regent has to live in the UK, so right now after William it would be Andrew.
Good point. Andrew would probably be less acceptable to the public than Harry. The line of succession gets messy after William & his children.
It’s all hypothetical but I do think that Harry & Meghan would move back to the UK in a heartbeat if he had the opportunity to become Regent for one of William‘s children. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate revenge on the brother he resents so much?
Last edited:
Melodi
Disaster Cat
If there were a regent for little George in regular times, it would usually be The Uncle (which would be Harry). In this case, I suspect that grand-uncle EDWARD (the quiet one) and his wife Sophie will be chosen. Both Harry and Andrew no longer perform royal duties. The other option would be Grandmother Ann. Edward and Ann would be the official regents together. Andrew will be quietly told that if he tries for the position, they will throw him to the American wolves over his association with Epstein.
Most of this is probably already decided, just as plans were made for Charles to become Regent if the Queen had not died but become bedridden. The Palace Mavans wargame everything and have plans made for the death of every member of the royal family. This was shown accurately in the not-always-accurate series The Crown. When pre-internet, the palace is waiting to hear if it was Charles or his friend who died in the skiing accident in the Alps that day. The Queen is reminded (really the audience is) that there is a plan for the death of any of them, including the Crown Prince. It wasn't needed; his friend had died, but Charles almost did.
Harry is now so far down the ranks of secession that it is unlikely he would become the heir unless an act of war or natural disaster took out both William and all of his children. In the Middle Ages, such things could happen when a plague or war broke out, but it is unlikely today. This is also why William had to get an exemption to fly in the same plane with his children when they were small. But that was when Harry was still a working part of the family and there to take over if the whole family died in a crash. I suspect today, he would not be on the same plane very often.
Fun stuff if you care about such things (or use them for plotting novels).
As to what is going on now, my strong hunch is that SOMETHING is going on, but we may have to wait a few days to find out what it is.
Most of this is probably already decided, just as plans were made for Charles to become Regent if the Queen had not died but become bedridden. The Palace Mavans wargame everything and have plans made for the death of every member of the royal family. This was shown accurately in the not-always-accurate series The Crown. When pre-internet, the palace is waiting to hear if it was Charles or his friend who died in the skiing accident in the Alps that day. The Queen is reminded (really the audience is) that there is a plan for the death of any of them, including the Crown Prince. It wasn't needed; his friend had died, but Charles almost did.
Harry is now so far down the ranks of secession that it is unlikely he would become the heir unless an act of war or natural disaster took out both William and all of his children. In the Middle Ages, such things could happen when a plague or war broke out, but it is unlikely today. This is also why William had to get an exemption to fly in the same plane with his children when they were small. But that was when Harry was still a working part of the family and there to take over if the whole family died in a crash. I suspect today, he would not be on the same plane very often.
Fun stuff if you care about such things (or use them for plotting novels).
As to what is going on now, my strong hunch is that SOMETHING is going on, but we may have to wait a few days to find out what it is.
Are the kids in school or no? I’ve been wondering why we don’t see folks frothing at the mouth over William taking the kids to school solo. Or maybe in this example, ‘doing the school run’ means going and picking up their work from the teacher?
Melodi
Disaster Cat
They are certainly in school, and William has been doing part of the school run while Kate cannot. The Palace "Advisors" are said to call him "The 10 am to 4 pm Prince" because he mostly commits to royal duties only during those hours so he can take the kids to school and pick them up in the afternoon.
If you are interested in this sort of detail, read the UK Daily Mail (which is what I do). Also, remember that they have been sued and lost over stuff their reporters made up. But usually, they get this sort of thing right or mostly right. They even tend to respect direct orders from the government, NOT to print something really sensitive or to put out a government propaganda piece. But they will often be the only outlet that will go right to the edge (and sometimes over it) without such a direct (behind-the-scenes) order.
They are day students at the Lambrook School In Berkshire. “Doing the school run” means bringing them to school and picking them up every day.
What the Prince and Princess of Wales's children, George, Charlotte and Louis are called at school
What the Prince and Princess of Wales's children, George, Charlotte and Louis are called at school
Prince William and Kate's children attend Lambrook school in Berkshire
03 Sep 2023The Prince and Princess of Wales's children, Prince George, ten, Princess Charlotte, eight, and Prince Louis, five, enrolled at their new school, Lambrook, last September.
Following a break with their grandfather, King Charles, at Balmoral in Scotland, the children will head back to their classrooms in the coming days as the school holidays end.
George, Charlotte and Louis will now be in Year 6, Year 4 and Year 1 respectively at the Berkshire-based prep school.
While Prince William and Kate's kids are three of the most famous children around the world, they're not referred to by their royal titles at school.
The siblings are known simply as George Wales, Charlotte Wales and Louis Wales to their school friends, in a nod to their parents' new titles, the Prince and Princess of Wales, which they were given following Queen Elizabeth II's death in September 2022.
This was also the case for Prince William and Prince Harry, who took on their father Charles's former title Wales as their surname at school. Members of the royal family traditionally don't use a surname; they are simply known by their first name in the public eye and His or Her Royal Highness.
They can also be known by the name of their house, such as Windsor, which may be different to their surname, such as Mountbatten-Windsor.
A declaration made by the late Queen in the Privy Council in 1960, said that male-line descendants of the monarch, without royal styles and titles, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor.
The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh's children are not styled as His or Her Royal Highness, and Lady Louise's birth in 2003 marked the first emergence of the Mountbatten-Windsor surname.
William and Kate were given the titles of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge following their 2011 royal wedding.
Following the late Queen's death, they were then known as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge for a day, before the King announced the appointment of William as the Prince of Wales.
If you look at the link I posted earlier, the Regency Acts are law. It would take an act of Parliament to change the succession. As the law is written Harry would be Regent for George. The relevant part is as follows….
The Regent is the heir to the Throne unless they have not reached the age of 18. In such a case, the Regent is the next in the line of succession who has reached the age of 21.
The Palace cannot change this. The Regency Acts 1937-1953 are the relevant legislation. It’s interesting that they were put into place after the abdication of Edward VIII. They thought they were safeguarding the crown against another crisis like the abdication crisis. No one could've foreseen the mess with Harry.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
Trust me, any Prime Minister worth their salt would have no trouble getting Parliament to pass an exemption or change to the act to avoid having Harry or Andrew in that position, especially as a regent for a child.
Harry, I'd say there's at least a twenty-five percent (or slightly higher) chance of some accommodation made in a grave crisis. Meghan might have to have an official "keep out" order for such a regency (on paper, anyway) or told to either sign away her royal title (she can do that) or end her Hollywood career and act like a Duchess at least in public. I'd suspect there might be a divorce at that point, but then a divorced Harry would be considered much faster than when he is married to a severe problem, Duchess.
This is also why I suspect Grand-Uncle Edward might be seen as a compromise since he is an "Uncle" and hasn't had any issues attached to him since he was quite young (there were some problems a few decades ago, but he and his wife learned their lessons—that's another story).
TheSearcher
Are you sure about that?
Where there's smoke there's fire. I bet something is going on and they're trying to suppress it.
So, Kate and Wm were out strolling at the farmer's market the other day, and Charles is figuring to attend the Trooping of the Colour in June, though he may take a carriage or watch from a podium instead of riding horseback this year. Seems to me the excitement was for nothing.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
This is in the UK Daily Mail just now - their usual long article. Again, not everything they publish is true, but I suspect this is a government-sponsored article, at least partly. I won't post it all for the usual reasons.
www.dailymail.co.uk
'King Charles is NOT dead': Ukraine's British embassy issues furious denial after Russian media shared fake Buckingham Palace statement claiming Monarch 'passed away unexpectedly yesterday afternoon'
A host of Russian news sites today reported the King had died aged 75
By WILL STEWART
PUBLISHED: 14:48, 18 March 2024 | UPDATED: 16:00, 18 March 2024
e-mail
467
View comments e-mail
Top
+99Home
467
View comments
Ukraine's British embassy was today forced to give an official statement confirming King Charles III is still alive after Russian media claimed he had died.
A host of Russian news sites and their associated social media accounts reported earlier today that the King had died aged 75 as a result of cancer complications, citing unnamed 'media' sources in an inexplicable stream of posts.
It came as an image of a clearly fake statement from 'Buckingham Palace' reporting Charles' 'unexpected death' was circulated on social media.
'King Charles III of Great Britain has died at the age of 75, according to media reports,' Russian newswire Sputnik reported.
'There is no information about this on the royal family website or in the British media.'
Minutes later their stories were updated after they were forced to climb down following reports the King was in fact not dead.
The British Embassy in Kyiv shared an abrupt notice on social media that read: 'We would like to inform you that the news about the death of King Charles III is fake.'
+8
View gallery
A host of Russian news sites and their associated social media accounts reported earlier today that the King had died aged 75
Ukraine 's British embassy was today forced to give an official statement confirming King Charles III is still alive after Russian media claimed he had died
+8
View gallery
Ukraine 's British embassy was today forced to give an official statement confirming King Charles III is still alive after Russian media claimed he had died
A tweet by Gazeta.ru perpetuated the rumours that Charles had died
+8
View gallery
A tweet by Gazeta.ru perpetuated the rumours that Charles had died
The fake palace announcement was dated today and said: 'The King passed away unexpectedly yesterday afternoon'
+8
View gallery
The fake palace announcement was dated today and said: 'The King passed away unexpectedly yesterday afternoon'
TRENDING
Kate is spotted with William on a visit to her favourite farm shop
910.3k viewing now
Kate Middleton's shock farm shop trip piles more pressure on Palace
390.1k viewing now
William & Kate will reveal more about her health 'when they are ready'
137.5k viewing now
Several prominent outlets reported the bogus news but it was not immediately clear whether they had made an error or whether Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine was directly behind it.
The sick stunt involving the monarch followed criticism in Britain and other Western countries of Vladimir Putin's election 'victory' in a 'rigged' presidential election.
The British embassy's Telegram channel posted a notice in Russian to stress the reports were fake.
'Reports about the death of King Charles III of Great Britain are fake,' said the announcement, shortly after the British Embassy in Ukraine issued a similar message.
Early outlets running the fake report were RIA, Sputnik, Readkovka and Mash - staunchly pro-Putin outlets - but all later corrected their stories.
Mash media outlet wrote: 'Britain's King Charles III has died, Buckingham Palace reports. The son of Elizabeth II ascended the throne less than a year ago - the coronation took place on May 6, 2023. He was 75 years old.'
It updated to say 'the message turned out to be fake' while adding: 'Let us remember that a few months ago he was diagnosed with cancer.'
But the outlet later stated: 'The fake news about the death of Charles III quickly spread and was just as quickly debunked.
'The King of Great Britain is alive and continues to go about his business. At least that's what Buckingham Palace says.'
Even Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov's spokeswoman Maria Zakharova joined the fray, posting: 'London looks pathetic.'
snip...
King Charles is NOT dead, despite what Russian media may claim
A host of Russian news sites and their associated social media accounts reported earlier today that the King had died aged 75 as a result of cancer complications, citing unnamed 'media' sources
'King Charles is NOT dead': Ukraine's British embassy issues furious denial after Russian media shared fake Buckingham Palace statement claiming Monarch 'passed away unexpectedly yesterday afternoon'
A host of Russian news sites today reported the King had died aged 75
By WILL STEWART
PUBLISHED: 14:48, 18 March 2024 | UPDATED: 16:00, 18 March 2024
467
View comments e-mail
Top
+99Home
467
View comments
Ukraine's British embassy was today forced to give an official statement confirming King Charles III is still alive after Russian media claimed he had died.
A host of Russian news sites and their associated social media accounts reported earlier today that the King had died aged 75 as a result of cancer complications, citing unnamed 'media' sources in an inexplicable stream of posts.
It came as an image of a clearly fake statement from 'Buckingham Palace' reporting Charles' 'unexpected death' was circulated on social media.
'King Charles III of Great Britain has died at the age of 75, according to media reports,' Russian newswire Sputnik reported.
'There is no information about this on the royal family website or in the British media.'
Minutes later their stories were updated after they were forced to climb down following reports the King was in fact not dead.
The British Embassy in Kyiv shared an abrupt notice on social media that read: 'We would like to inform you that the news about the death of King Charles III is fake.'
+8
View gallery
A host of Russian news sites and their associated social media accounts reported earlier today that the King had died aged 75
Ukraine 's British embassy was today forced to give an official statement confirming King Charles III is still alive after Russian media claimed he had died
+8
View gallery
Ukraine 's British embassy was today forced to give an official statement confirming King Charles III is still alive after Russian media claimed he had died
A tweet by Gazeta.ru perpetuated the rumours that Charles had died
+8
View gallery
A tweet by Gazeta.ru perpetuated the rumours that Charles had died
The fake palace announcement was dated today and said: 'The King passed away unexpectedly yesterday afternoon'
+8
View gallery
The fake palace announcement was dated today and said: 'The King passed away unexpectedly yesterday afternoon'
TRENDING
Kate is spotted with William on a visit to her favourite farm shop
910.3k viewing now
Kate Middleton's shock farm shop trip piles more pressure on Palace
390.1k viewing now
William & Kate will reveal more about her health 'when they are ready'
137.5k viewing now
Several prominent outlets reported the bogus news but it was not immediately clear whether they had made an error or whether Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine was directly behind it.
The sick stunt involving the monarch followed criticism in Britain and other Western countries of Vladimir Putin's election 'victory' in a 'rigged' presidential election.
The British embassy's Telegram channel posted a notice in Russian to stress the reports were fake.
'Reports about the death of King Charles III of Great Britain are fake,' said the announcement, shortly after the British Embassy in Ukraine issued a similar message.
Early outlets running the fake report were RIA, Sputnik, Readkovka and Mash - staunchly pro-Putin outlets - but all later corrected their stories.
Mash media outlet wrote: 'Britain's King Charles III has died, Buckingham Palace reports. The son of Elizabeth II ascended the throne less than a year ago - the coronation took place on May 6, 2023. He was 75 years old.'
It updated to say 'the message turned out to be fake' while adding: 'Let us remember that a few months ago he was diagnosed with cancer.'
But the outlet later stated: 'The fake news about the death of Charles III quickly spread and was just as quickly debunked.
'The King of Great Britain is alive and continues to go about his business. At least that's what Buckingham Palace says.'
Even Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov's spokeswoman Maria Zakharova joined the fray, posting: 'London looks pathetic.'
snip...
“Any Prime Minister worth his salt”, that’s not Rishi Sunak. It’s doubtful that he will even be prime Minister much longer.
Regardless, this entire conversation is predicated on a scenario where there would be a Regency for George while William is still alive. That will never, ever happen. If William is removed from the line of succession he will take his children with him. A Regency if William were to die is another story. I do think there would be a way back for Harry in that circumstance if he were to divorce Meghan. It wouldn’t be easy but the path would be there. If there was any real desire to remove him from the line of succession or even remove his titles Parliament would‘ve already done it.
mzkitty
I give up.
Bams was over in Downing Street today.......... Hmmmm.............
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1769759071903588835
View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1769759071903588835
John Deere Girl
Veteran Member
I think I've figured it out! Obama is going to take over for Charles... 
View: https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1769758966182019387
View: https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1769758966182019387
ginnie6
Veteran Member
as long as he leaves here I don't care where he goes!I think I've figured it out! Obama is going to take over for Charles...
View: https://twitter.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1769758966182019387
Southside
Has No Life - Lives on TB
WildDaisy
God has a plan, Trust it!
Sarah Ferguson, William and Harry's Aunt. She was married to Prince Andrew. Her daughters are in line to the throne. She is not eligible to be regent because she is not on line for the throne
Succession is - William(1), Williams, children: George (2), Charlotte (3), then Louis (4), then Prince Andrew (5), then Beatrice (6) and Eugenie (7), his daughters.
So if William abdicates, then it is George, who is only 10 since Harry also abdicated and lost all claim to the throne. The official regent would be Harry until George reaches the age of 18. But requirements are that Harry be over 21, be of royal descent and have a domicile in the UK, which I dont think they have anymore since they sold Frogmore Cottage. However, with amendment, the Duchess of Cambridge (Katherine) could be appointed regent.
But all this is probably mute because this is the LAST scenario I would guess. Most likely it is an announcement that Charles doesnt have much longer and they are setting up William to take the crown.
Melodi
Disaster Cat
I meant ANY Prime Minister, I know that Rishi is likely not going to last much longer. I pay some attention to UK politics because Northern Ireland is still part of the UK and that is part of the Island that I live on.
I meant a regency where William was dead. He's not likely to abdicate. However, if he did (it is unlikely), his children "going with him" might be more difficult than it looks. Technically the monarch (or perhaps the regent) has some powers over the royal children. There was a quickly hushed-up story that the reason (supposedly) that Megan and Harry fled Canada (a Commonwealth Country where The British Monarch is technically Head of State) to the US was that there were "signs" that the Queen might order her baby taken and removed to the UK (presumably by Canadian Police). I have no idea if this is true or not, but I gather it might have been legally feasible.
I think William would find that George would at least be forced to stay in the UK (even under armed guard) if William abdicated. He can't do that for a minor child who is an heir to the throne.
But again, neither the Palace, the family, nor Parliament are likely to ever approve Andrew as a regent. If nothing else, as I hinted before, the various agencies have enough on old Randy Andy to make sure he was put away for life in the UK or The US. If they have to, I suspect they would jail him first (though it probably wouldn't come to that, but they will make the threat, I'm pretty sure). They will ensure Andrew "voluntarily" refuses the position if Harry is considered unsuitable. Harry is an unknown for sure at this point.
Thankfully, this will never be likely to happen.
Edited to add: Mothers have been regents in the past (at least in Europe; I'd have to check the UK), and yes, Beatrice and Eugine are still Princesses. But I think only one of them lives in the UK.
packyderms_wife
Neither here nor there.
Well the story about what's going on with Kate made the local news at noon, WHO Ch 13 NBC affiliate Des Moines, IA.
Palace goers suggested that we'll be seeing a photo of Kate when George has his birthday next month.
Palace goers suggested that we'll be seeing a photo of Kate when George has his birthday next month.
WildDaisy
God has a plan, Trust it!
Obama isnt the only one flying into London unexpectedly - Prince Andrew just arrived, Princess Anne came earlier as did Beatrice and Eugenie, and other royalty from throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. Duke and Duchess of Gloucester arrived too (Prince Richard and Brigitte - Charles' aunt and uncle) and Princess Alexandra (Charles' cousin).
My guess is that Charles, knowing his time is short, is going to give the crown to William and wants to do it while he is alive, OR he has such a short time, people are coming to say goodbyes.
My guess is that Charles, knowing his time is short, is going to give the crown to William and wants to do it while he is alive, OR he has such a short time, people are coming to say goodbyes.
Last edited:
Donghe Surfer
Veteran Member
Well, if they set up an ice cream vendor at 10 Downing, Ole Joe will make it over to find out what's happening.
TerriHaute
Hoosier Gardener
Whatever it is, he's up to no good. Undermining Trump in some way, no doubt.
SmithJ
Veteran Member
But they all live there, right? So it's not unusual for them to be there. Except Obama of course
As far as I know, Harry hasn't actually abdicated, and is still in line; if he had, then he couldn't be regent.
I can't imagine William abdicating. His family is extremely important to him, but so is his destiny as king. This is a horrible time for him to succeed, but if Katherine's illness is as we've discussed she will recover (though possibly with lifelong effects which would have to be worked around). Allowing George to be king with a regent, especially with the choices available, would be way more disrupting to his childhood, to their family, and to the country, than having his dad become king at a difficult time. Any other scenario seems very unlikely.
Last edited:
Obama is probably there so he can give his orders to Joe when he gets back in the US.
pauldingbabe
The Great Cat
My opinion...
When the Queen died, she left instructions to be followed.
I think one issue she wanted sorted was having Charles be king for one year only so he can be in the history books. I think the Queen had no faith in her boys as men, much less kings.
I believe the Queen wanted her grandchildren to rule. I hope Anne has a hand in the changing of the guard.
When the Queen died, she left instructions to be followed.
I think one issue she wanted sorted was having Charles be king for one year only so he can be in the history books. I think the Queen had no faith in her boys as men, much less kings.
I believe the Queen wanted her grandchildren to rule. I hope Anne has a hand in the changing of the guard.
jward
passin' thru
That is interesting, and certainly within the realm of possibility, I guess.
As I recall no one expected him to have the crown long before passing off to William.
My impression when this most recent "buzz" was instigated, was to expect something about Kate.
We ended up in the 24 hour news cycle READING- (but not SEEING, as no photos from the "sighting" of her and william were taken-) of her reportedly being spotted popping into the shopping venue.
The preparation - creating the buzz and expectation of news, then handling it this 3rd party manner, as opposed to an actual story or official commentary, "smells" like one of the ways in which "they" might choose to address the swirling rumours of her health, while skirting around actually doing so.
No idea what O was up to- perhaps explaining how to set up alternative governments in one's basement :: shrug ::
SouthernBreeze
Has No Life - Lives on TB
That "announcement at any moment" sure seems to be dragging on and on and on. I'm now beginning to wonder if that wasn't just a rumor.
WildDaisy
God has a plan, Trust it!
No, what is unusual is that they arrived by helicopter all day long, one after the other on the front of BP and then all flew back to Balmoral in Scotland and landed there, one after the other. Yes, most live in the UK, but they dont all go at once to the King's home residences on the same day. Something is up.
Wasnt a rumor. It was a "stand by" announcement from Buckingham Palace that there is impending news. No time frame given. If Charles has taken a turn for the worst, then it is likely giving time for family to get in peacefully without the media storm to say goodbyes and to get in and gather and waiting Charles out. They wont announce the King is dead until he is gone, and there is no schedule for that.
Or...he is abdicating and giving the throne to Wm before he dies, but that doesnt explain the family parade via helicopter all day. So likelly Charles isnt doing well and they all are coming in to say goodbyes and plan for funeral.