I have a question about royal succession. If something should happen (God forbid) to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their infant son should assume the throne, a regent would be appointed until the infant reached a certain age.
What is the age and who would become regent? Prince Harry?

I Googled this and it would appear most likely that Harry, or Prince Henry as he is really, would probably be the Regent if George was under 18 when he becomes king.

Well, something would have to happen not only to the Duke but to the Queen and Prince Charles as well, and most likely by the time neither of them are around, the little Prince will no longer be an infant. Not sure at what age he could reign in his own right, maybe 16-18. Harry would probably be a top choice for regent, maybe Prince Andrew if he were still alive and/or Harry didn't want it. I would think that nowadays the selection of regent wouldn't be such a hot issue since the monarch has mostly symbolic power and doesn't truly 'rule'.

Thanks Sue.

U 2 guitargoddess

They could possibly also, once William becomes King, establish their own protocol so that Kate would be the regent if their children are still minors once he is King. There is was a similar 'thing' in place for Elizabeth's children, still minors when she assumed the throne, that Prince Philip would have been the regent instead of her sister.

We generally don't do regents in this country. There was the Prince Regent, later George IV, of course but he's not regarded as a wonderful precedent. Plus we already take steps to avoid this sort of thing - it's why the Queen and Prince Charles never travel in the same plane, Charles and William don't either, and there will come a point when William won't travel with George (though that point is a long way off). If there's an accident, we try to make sure that not all the heirs are wiped out at once.

There's really no point in a regency - as GG says, our monarchs don't actually rule so the government would go on doing that and the only technical difficulty would be who signs Acts of Parliament. I imagine there would be a committee of the Privy Council to advise on forthcoming legislation and someone, maybe called 'regent' would do the signing but the title would be more honorary than anything.

As I recall, it caused quite a stir when Diana insisted that William go to Australia with them, two heirs at risk at the same time.

Not placing more than one heir at risk doesn't mean there won't come a time when the heir is underaged. These days I think it's unlikely with how long people are living, but let's say in 5 years, the Queen dies (she's got to sometime!) and let's say Charles doesn't have the longevity his mother does and he's dead 5 years after that. So William is King. Let's say he and George always travel separately and the worst happens and there's an accident killing Will. 10-year old George is the heir.