At the start of his reign Willem III was expected to abdicate as soon as his son was old enough but we did not get a Willem IV. Instead Willem III outlived all three sons of his first marriage and as neither Wiwill nor his youngest brother Alexander ever married and the second son Maurits died as a child no heirs from that line existed.
Willem III had remarried and with his second wife he had a young daughter. Once she became the heiress to the throne in 1884 a regency bill was needed in case her father would die before she turned 18. As there were no men in the family outside the King they looked at the husband of his first cousin HRH princess Marie of the Netherlands: prince Wilhelm von Wied. However it was decided that Queen Emma might be preferable so she became the regent. First for her husband and later for their daughter.
When Queen Wilhelmina gave birth to her only child Juliana a new regency bill was needed. In this it was not Juliana's father Hendrik but her grandmother Emma who was named as regent in case Juliana would succeed before she turned 18. It was explained by stating that Emma had the experience to do the job.
When Juliana and Beatrix succeeded both had a their oldest child as first in line of succession and both were under 18. In these cases it was the husband of the Queen who was named as regent in case the heiress/heir would succeed before they turned 18.
The current Princess of Orange turns 18 in december and the regency bill drawn up for her is rather specific. Only if she succeeds because of her father's death does her mother Queen Maxima become regent and in case Maxima is not available her uncle prince Constantijn will be regent.
But in the case of Catharina-Amalia succeeding to the throne because of her father abdicating there is no provision. A new regency bill will be needed to be passed in that scenario.
An adult monarch can require a regent if the monarch is unable to perform the duties that are part of the role. Both Willem III and Wilhelmina had regents at the end of their reign. For Willem his wife was appointed but for Wilhelmina it was automatic. If the first in line of succession is an adult that person is the constitutional regent. The duties of the monarch can for a short period be administered before a regent is required though.
Personally i can see advantages in making the remaining parent the legal guardian but nominating the first adult heir(ess) in line of succession to be regent.
I know that Marie Adelaide of Luxembourg became the reigning grand duchess at the age of 17 -- several months shy of her 18th birthday. Because she was technically a minor at the time of her accession, she began her reign under a regency -- in this case, her mother, the Dowager Grand Duchess Marie Anne. It only made sense, since she had already been serving as regent for her husband, Marie Adelaide's father, the Grand Duke Guillaume IV.
It was essentially the same situation as in the Netherlands, 1890-1898, when Dowager Queen Emma had already been serving briefly as regent for her husband, King Willem III, when he died and was succeeded on the throne by their minor daughter, Queen Wilhelmina. The regency simply continued under the same person.
But suppose King Maximilian II of Bavaria had died before his elder son reached his majority? I ask this because the man we know in history as King Ludwig II succeeded to the throne six months after celebrating his 18th birthday -- when, according to the Bavarian constitution, he became a legal adult. It could easily have been the opposite -- i.e. succeeding while still a minor.
Who, then, would have served as regent of the kingdom? We know that his uncle Luitpold eventually assumed the regency -- but that was only later on, when the government determined that both he and his brother (Otto) were too mentally incapacitated to serve as sovereigns.
Would it still have been his uncle -- or perhaps his mother, Dowager Queen Marie?
Message Thread
« Back to index