Suggestion: The "Regency" event should not happen in fully constitutional monarchies

[Xylephony]

Or, if it does, its effects should be minimal. The monarch does not need to perform any critical duties of state in a fully constitutional system, and a regency would have no significant impact on day-to-day governance as a result. It doesn't make sense that there's massive militancy and consciousness gain over the monarch dying without an of-age heir in such a system; the entire point of the Regency event and its negative modifiers is to destabilize monarchies where the monarch still has authority, to encourage their POPs to question the perpetuation of a system where governing power lies in the hands of a ruler who can be singularly incapacitated. That doesn't happen in constitutional systems.

[ujtcelvn]

In HPM, a regency lasts 7-10 years in an absolute monarchy, 3-6 years in an semi-constitutional monarchy, and 0-3 years in a constitutional monarchy, so the effects for constitutional monarchies is already much less. Do you think this is not enough variation?

[Xylephony]

Do you think this is not enough variation?

I didn't know that actually, but no I don't. I understand why HPM did it that way, since the Regency modifier prevents you from passing certain desirable laws, but the main difference, IMO, should not be in time but in magnitude. In other words, the more constitutional you are the less militancy and consciousness the modifier provides, because the less disruption there is to the function of the nation from the regency itself. There are redundant governmental systems in place which prevent the absence of an empowered monarch from having a (as) catastrophic effect on the function of the state.

And I still think it shouldn't apply in a fully constitutional system, because rationally why would it? Presume George V had died before ever taking the throne and Victoria and Edward VII died early as well, and Edward VIII took the throne underage at, say, age 10. Would that have caused... any disruption in Britain at all? Would there be a functional regency which had actual authority and impact upon the affairs of the nation in any meaningful way? No, because Britain is a constitutional system where the monarch has no critical duties, and indeed is expected to intentionally remain out of government affairs. It would not have made any difference if their ruler were an adult or a child, because Parliament is the driving force in the country. As long as Parliament is functional there would be no interruption in governance, and it doesn't make any sense to me that there should be any inability to pass legislation, nor militancy and consciousness among their population. They're getting angry for what? The anger is meant to represent frustration and class consciousness that the functions of state can be paralyzed by the death of a single individual, but that doesn't happen in constitutional systems.