I was more thinking about a situation where a monarch dies and the remaining Royal consort not only has to cope with the grief of loosing their spouse and supporting the child(ren) with the loss of a parent as well as preparing a minor to be ready at 18 to succeed AND taking on the role of regent. I find that a bit much.
In the present situation that would mean the following:
In the Netherlands prince Constantijn would be regent and Queen Maxima the guardian of the minor Catharina-Amalia
In Spain the Infanta Elena would be regent and Queen Letizia guardian
In Monaco Princess Caroline would regent and Princess Charlene guardian.
In all other European monarchies the heir is over 18 so can succeed at once.
In that case, by your logic, the Duchess of Kent (mother of Britain's Queen Victoria) should have remained only the legal guardian of her daughter, in the event that she ascended the British throne as a minor, but that the regent should have been her uncle Ernest Augustus, the prince who succeeded to the throne of Hanover in 1837 as king -- correct?
After all, he was an adult dynast who was next in the line of succession to the British throne -- heir presumptive to his niece, until the birth of her own first child.
Message Thread
« Back to index