# Could Queen Elizabeth Decide to Bypass Prince Charles as her Successor? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 11, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288 "2016-10-11T21:49:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![installLSC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/54ee81/32.png) [@installLSC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/installLSC)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/21 "2016-10-12T01:06:07Z")
Sorry for a mild threadjack, but I noticed in the article on the Succession of the Crown Act Roman Catholics are still forbidden from becoming king or queen. Why does this provision still stay around (I totally understand the historical reason why) and why did the royals object to changing it? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/22 "2016-10-12T01:10:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On the other hand, if she expressed her preference that the succession be changed, that might help to encourage all of her various realms to pass appropriate legislation. They did recently pass legislation to change the succession rules. The changes werem’t directed at excluding Charles, though. And the initiative didn’t come from the Queen - it came from the (then) UK Prime Minister. Amending the Act of Succession is a political questions, and the monarch doesn’t take a public position on political questions - and certainly doesn’t take the initiative in _promoting_ action on political questions. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/23 "2016-10-12T01:32:47Z")
> [@NeonMadman](#): > > But would there be a mechanism by which the Queen, if she so chose, could unilaterally assure that Charles would not become king? There’s always the precedent of William IV, who managed to live long enough for his successor (Queen Victoria) to turn 18 and therefore stimie the prospects of Victoria’s mother (Duchess of Kent) and her private secretary John Conroy to act as regents. [QUOTE=William IV] _“I trust to God that my life may be spared for nine months longer … I should then have the satisfaction of leaving the exercise of the Royal authority to the personal authority of that young lady, heiress presumptive to the Crown, and not in the hands of a person now near me, who is surrounded by evil advisers and is herself incompetent to act with propriety in the situation in which she would be placed.”_ [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Nawth\_Chucka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c57346/32.png) [@Nawth\_Chucka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nawth_Chucka)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/24 "2016-10-12T02:54:31Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > She could certainly discuss it in private with Charles and push strongly for the idea that they both abdicate on the same day, so William becomes King. Let’s face it a coronation for Charles at 67 is not going to excite anyone, and of course it raises the sticky question does Camilla get to have any involvement or not? > > While a coronation of William with his Kate at his side would be a massive media event and bring a huge tourist boom to the UK. With the UK in it’s current self inflicted Brexit doldrums economically, it could be a very good good thing to give the UK a bit of an international PR boost and morale boost. Everything I’ve read says she’s unlikely to abdicate simply b/c she lived through the Abdication Crisis and saw how it tore the family apart. While her abdication would be under hugely different circumstances and she could retire from the public eye w/ relative ease, Charles is still young enough that he might be expected to live abroad where none could make use of him against the government (especially if one could argue he’s able to be influenced by promises of crowning Camilla queen, which is the carrot used on Edward, Duke of Windsor). It would shock me to no end for HM to abdicate, Charles less so. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/25 "2016-10-12T03:18:53Z")
A problem with William is that while he seems like a nice enough person now, he’s only 34 years old. If he became the King now, he’d probably hold the throne for forty or fifty years and who knows what he’ll be like when he’s older? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/26 "2016-10-12T03:45:44Z")
Geez, his grandmum was crowned at the age of 26 and that didn’t turn out too bad. I’m not sure why you’d think crowning William at 34 is so terribly risky. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/27 "2016-10-12T04:14:03Z")
It is risky. But that risk is built into the monarchical system. Plus, it’s not a risk you avoid by allowing Charles to take the throne. If, for the sake of argument, in another twenty years William has developed Donald Trump-like levels of unfitness for public office, he’ll still be in line for the throne, and he’ll still become king when Charles joins the choir invisible. The whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that you don’t choose who gets to be monarch. Therefore somebody’s potential or actual lack of personal fitness for the position is not an objection; they’re not in line for the position on the basis of any particular fitness they are supposed to possess in the first place. Unless you want to deal with the risk of an unfit monarch by abolishing hereditary monarchy (Hurray! Liberty! Equality! Fraternity! Les aristos à la lanterne!) then you deal with it by so circumscribing the monarchical role that a poor monarch is a survivable calamity, which is pretty much what the British have done. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/28 "2016-10-12T04:31:15Z")
Hmph. As an American, all I can say is that Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. ---
**Author:** ![Nawth\_Chucka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c57346/32.png) [@Nawth\_Chucka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nawth_Chucka)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/29 "2016-10-12T04:50:44Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Hmph. As an American, all I can say is that Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. Well, I know for sure the Queen won’t sign up for that. But Charles, he’s a real wild card. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/30 "2016-10-12T05:13:05Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On the other hand, if she expressed her preference that the succession be changed, that might help to encourage all of her various realms to pass appropriate legislation. Seriously? Of course it’s a “possibility”, but do you really think it is probable? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/31 "2016-10-12T05:14:42Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > A lot of routine stuff is already done by her eldest son and eldest grandson anyway Oh? And what routine stuff has [Peter Phillips](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Phillips)done recently? ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/32 "2016-10-12T05:17:42Z")
There is ample precedent for beheading Prince Charles, or putting him in chains in the Tower, which no doubt would have the desired effect. ---
**Author:** ![Nawth\_Chucka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c57346/32.png) [@Nawth\_Chucka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nawth_Chucka)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/33 "2016-10-12T05:22:57Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Oh? And what routine stuff has [Peter Phillips](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Phillips)done recently? His job at the Royal Bank of Scotland, as befits the 13th in line for the throne. ---
**Author:** ![Shakester](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shakester/32/437_2.png) [@Shakester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shakester)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/34 "2016-10-12T05:35:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > A problem with William is that while he seems like a nice enough person now, he’s only 34 years old. If he became the King now, he’d probably hold the throne for forty or fifty years and who knows what he’ll be like when he’s older? Queen Victoria was 18 when she was crowned, and that turned out fine. What, exactly, kind of “problems” do you think the King or Queen could actually cause, anyway? We’re talking about constitutional monarchs, who haven’t had any real executive power for hundreds of years. Since, in fact, well before the American Revolution. I know in the Disney version of history Kings and Queens have unlimited powers, but we do know that Disney films are not documentaries, don’t we? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/35 "2016-10-12T06:13:03Z")
> [@Mk\_VII](#): > > Any changes to the succession are void, under the Statute of Westminster of 1931, until all the Commonwealth Realms pass exactly similar legislation to implement it. There’s certainly a convention that all the realms consent, but it’s not binding on future parliaments (nothing is) and it doesn’t require “exactly similar legislation” or even legislation at all. The recent changes were not legislated in every realm. Some governments simply consented and advised that their view was that no domestic legislation was necessary. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/36 "2016-10-12T06:32:37Z")
Yup. The constitutional convention is that legislation of this kind won’t be passed without the consent of the Commonwealth realms. Its up to each Commonwealth realm to decide how, in accordance with its own laws, that consent should be given or expressed. In some cases legislation is considered necessary; in others not. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/37 "2016-10-12T06:40:14Z")
> [@installLSC](#): > > Sorry for a mild threadjack, but I noticed in the article on the Succession of the Crown Act Roman Catholics are still forbidden from becoming king or queen. Why does this provision still stay around Because the monarch is still nominally head of the Church of England. Even if they have no control, I’m pretty sure the CoE don’t want a Catholic in the top seat any more than the Catholics want an Anglican Pope. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/38 "2016-10-12T07:09:07Z")
King Henry VIII had two sisters: Margaret married a King of Scotland; her younger sister Mary married an aging King of France (and later had children by her 2nd husband). The death of Elizabeth the Virgin rendered Henry’s legitimate line extinct and the throne of England passed to Margaret’s grandson King James VI, who became James I of England. But Henry had specifically given precedence to his younger sister Mary! _If English Monarchs were allowed a say in their succession_, it would be Mary’s heirs who would sit on King Edward’s Chair while St. Edward’s Crown was placed on their heads. The Cromwell unpleasantness would have been avoided and [the present Monarch would be the 10th Earl of Jersey](http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/henrician.html), or perhaps his 1st cousin, the 7th Earl of Minto. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/39 "2016-10-12T07:32:05Z")
English monarchs used to be allowed a say in their own succession. As you point out, Henry VIII provided (in his will) that the descendants of his sister Margaret would be excluded from the succession; he could do this because Parliament, in the Act of Succession 1543, said he could. On Henry’s death the succession passed, in accordance with Henry’s Will, to his son Edward VI. On Edward’s death the next-in-line, according to Henry’s Will, was Henry’s daughter (and Edward’s sister) Mary. Edward and his advisers didn’t like this; to try and forestall it Edward, before his death, issued letters patent passing over Mary (and Elizabeth) and several other people, and naming his first cousin once removed, Lady Jane Grey, as next in line. However Parliament had conferred no authority on Edward to do this and, despite a brief attempt by Lady Jane and her supporters to claim the throne, Mary succeeded in accordance with the terms of her father’s will. On Mary’s death Elizabeth succeeded, again under the terms of Henry’s Will. Such things are no longer possible, however. Succession to the Crown is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701, which gives the monarch no voice in selecting or naming his or her own successor. The next British monarch will be the senior heir of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, being Protestant, and there is nothing that the present Queen can do to change that. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2016, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288/40 "2016-10-12T08:23:42Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Hmph. As an American, all I can say is that Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. No priests in the US then? Cool. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288.md?page=3)