Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,268
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
One practical argument is that a regent would not be necessary in Australia or Canada because the Governor General is already an acting Head of State for most intents and purposes. My point was, however, that there are certain residual constitutional duties that the GG still cannot perform alone and have to be done by the Queen herself. In those cases, not having a regent for the realms if the Queen is incapacitated might be problematic.
Usually though, when it comes to things that a GG might have to perform alongside with The Queen, don't members of the governments (UK and/or Commonwealth nation) seek to advise The Queen on these matters and then action is taken? If they would advise a regent (and most likely the regent would know how his mother in this case would decide), then the regent as acting for The Queen would have been advised at all angles and carry out "the Queen's pleasure" as she would have if she could.
Now I've come up with a question. If, by chance, Charles had to fill in as a Prince Regent for The Queen for a period of time, does he act according to how he would feel things should go or as regent be obliged to make decisions as he would feel his mother would want them to be? Of course all this would include HM's advisers on matters too I'd presume.