British Monarchs don’t abdicate because they get ill, they just hand over most of their duties to their offspring, or even create a regent as stand in. Charles, William and Anne (in particular) are already carrying out most of The Queen’s public appearances.
I also don’t think Charles is as unpopular as people who haven’t seen him in the news since Diana died seem to think he is.
Who knows? Popes also didn’t use to abdicate, but then Benedict XVI did just that, after witnessing the last few years of John Paul II. Traditions can change, but it’s probably true that given that British monarchs can retire to the background and let their children take over their duties, they don’t feel the need to abdicate.
Plus, unlike Pope Benedict, Charles can’t abdicate unilaterally. It would take an Act of the British Parliament, plus the consent of all the other Commonwealth realms.
That’s a really interesting problem. Being forced to work against one’s will has been illegal in Britain for nearly 200 years. They can label him king, but surely they can’t compel him to do anything. It would never happen, but I look forward to this imaginary conflict. I imagine it would start with a work to rule action, then withholding ribbon-cutting, and finally an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, though I’m not sure how Brexit affects this implausible scenario.
But he already does many of those ceremonial duties. I really don’t think he’s going to stop doing them, unless he’s physically not able to do so (as his mother is now). I really don’t think he will ever abdicate.
IIRC some scholars think the monarch retains the ability to abdicate unilaterally at common law, and that legislation is only necessary to tidy up loose ends. (1936 was an example of that, because Edward VIII was not being succeeded by an heir apparent, and it was entirely possible he’d have children…and then what?)
There is no precedent in a thousand years of an English/British monarch abdicating voluntarily, except for Edward VIII. The Act of Settlement doesn’t seem to leave any room for it.
Of course they can’t. If he really wanted out, he could get out. But the difference between the British Monarch and the Pope is that Charles can carry on ‘in name only’, with relatives picking up the load of work as needed (see George III and the Prince Regent as a prime example). Pope’s can’t really do that.
But the support by George VI and the present Queen for homeopathy hasn’t exactly been kept secret, so it is likely that most doctors, the government and the public will just treat any support by Charles with the same polite indifference. The far more shocking stance for a member of the Royal Family would be to come out and say that they think it’s all nonsense. But either way, almost no one would actually care what they think.
Not worth a hijack, but calling Edward VII’s abdication voluntary is a stretch–he was denied the basic human right of marrying freely unless he abdicated. That is more coercive than Edward II’s abdication–under threat against his son.
Well, it was a right not recognized for monarchs since the Act of Settlement of 1701. And the idea of marrying whom you want a basic human right wasn’t historically recognized.
Anti-miscengenation laws weren’t abolished in the United States until Loving v. Virginia (1967) and, lest we forget our recent past, other forms of “the right to marry whom you want” were recognized much more recently. Even now there is resistance in some places to some forms of such a right.
Still, you consider what happened to Edward less coercive? Presumably, he risked losing his life.
He did get murdered. Edward II, that is.
He was captured in Wales, brought back to London, which was controlled by his wife and her lover, Mortimer. They convened a Parliament that deposed Edward. Technically, he consented, in tears, while he was imprisoned and under the complete control of his enemies. He was succeeded by his young son, and then kept imprisoned, being moved to different locations around England to prevent his supporters from trying to free him.
Finally, he conveniently died, about six months after his deposition. The best theory is that he was killed on Mortimer’s orders. (The legend is that he was killed by having a red hot poker shoved up his anus, to leave no external mark on the body.)
But sure, signing an Instrument of Abdication and leaving for Paris to get married is a far worse fate.
My father said he heard (no idea where) that Charles intends to be Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith, meaning supporting beliefs other than CoE. Not sure what that would mean, aside from not persecuting Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and others.
Is the palace a union shop? 
I have to assume so, as the job pays well, has great benefits, termination is nigh impossible, and their seniority system can’t be beat. I can’t imagine a non-unionized workplace bestowing all that. “Union” is even in the name of the flag!
Plus, solidarity among the worker and senior job applicants seems pretty tight.
Oh, how delightful it would be to watch a Tory PM struggle with this! Does one bring in a scab king to break the union, because unions exist only to be crushed? Or does one bend to the demands of the ultra-wealthy to make it even easier for them to live in fabulous luxury without contributing to society? Why oh why must the cruel universe force me to choose between these two great political goods?!?
I think Charles floated that idea some years ago, to indicate that the monarchy is more inclusive than just Anglicans with a hereditary title from the Pope.
It may be a recognition that the UK today is far more multi-cultural and multi-faith than it was when the queen was coronated.
A.N. Wilson writes in The Rise and Fall of the House of Windsor (in the 1990s I think) about how very, very Anglican and fundamentally religious the 1953 coronation was, at a time when the vast majority of the British population were at least nominally Anglican. Now, barely 2 or 3% are. Wilson said if there is another coronation at all, it will be very, very different. No Archbishop, no anointing with holy oils, etc.
Is it that low?