The most recent elderly-at-accession monarch, Edward VII, didn’t turn out too well. Hopefully, should the matter arise, the Prime Minister will have a quiet word with Charles, suggesting he step aside in favour of William.
In what way? He only lasted nine years, but he seems to have been popular enough.
If you understand the historical reason, then you understand the current reason. The head of the CofE needs to be someone in communion with it, and in conscience capable, as part of the coronation ceremonies, of taking communion and the Coronation Oath to maintain the establishment of the Protestant religion (as required by the Act of Succession). Since Rome and the CofE aren’t in communion with each other, and Rome takes a dim view of Catholics taking other churches’ communion, it can’t happen. I never heard of any royal objection to a proposal to change it - the basic situation would be widely enough understood to stymie it from the outset (mind you, we wouldn’t hear of any royal comments on it anyway).
Much better than his sainted mother feared (though, perhaps, depending on your view of the Entente Cordiale).
A reporter once asked Charles if he wished the Queen would die so he could have the job, and he replied very coldly “That’s my mother you’re talking about.”
of course if Charles never took the Crown, William would not be the successor.
And as this is GQ, a careful response to the odd derogatory comment on Constitutional Monarchy.
The system may have faults, but so does every other form of constitution. One benefit of the UK system is that we don’t get to have politicians representing us as Head of State.
Why would the PM do that? There’s no way such a change could be made quietly. Charles will be King by law, and to change the law would require an Act of the British Parliament as well as corresponding steps in the Commonwealth realms.
Why would a Prime Minister trigger that sort of political debate?
That’s a good reason for requiring the monarch to be Anglican. It’s not a good reason for requiring the monarch to be anything-but-Catholic. Under the current rules, the monarch could be a Lutheran or Calvinist or Anabaptist just fine, which would be just as odd, for a leader of the Church of England, as a Catholic. Probably odder, since the Anglicans and the Catholics are closer to each other, in most regards, than either is to the Calvinists or Anabaptists.
A Real American would have found an American to parrot. :rolleyes:
Provided they enter into Communion with the Church of England upon ascending the throne. Members of other Protestant churches can do that, but members of the Roman Catholic Church cannot. That’s the theological difference.
The line was drawn that way because George I was a Lutheran.
I presume this includes TV evangelists?
Given modern medicine and the security and safety surrounding VIP’s today - barring unfortunate (car?) accidents and unfortunate occurrences like cancer, it seems the future will be monarchs ascending at age 70 and lasting until 105. Not exciting, but consider the queen mother who died recently was 101.
not sure why everyone piles on Charles. The guy was basically told he couldn’t marry the woman he loved “for the good of the crown”. Then they stuck him with a flake who had all kinds of problems. It didn’t help that he had no idea how to handle someone who didn’t bow and scrape like everyone else around him except mummy.
Then everyone went all weepy about how she finally found true love - coincidentally, with one of the few men in England who could afford to keep her in the same style as her ex, a playboy who left it to his minions to tell the paid women on his yacht to get lost when she came to visit. Yet Charles finally gets to settle down with the long-time love of his life and everyone piles on him.
Except that the CofE is an “open communion” church and the Roman Catholics aren’t, and don’t recognise CofE sacraments. Therefore an RC can’t, in conscience, take communion in the CofE anyway, even though the CofE would offer it, and even if there’d be no RC objection to the wording of the oath.
I suppose if the occasion were to arrive, you could try playing with the wording to focus on the independence of the CofE rather than doctrinal distinctions or the personal religious practice of the monarch, but even then, it’s one step closer to final disestablishment, which raises a whole load of other questions that nobody wants to get tangled up in.
Because Charles is a prat. And because the PM is the real boss. Parliament has usurped the monarch before: the abdication of Edward VIII, the accession of William of Orange, and the execution of Charles I.
The advice would be quiet and no change of law would be required. Charles would publicly abdicate and William would become King.
What debate? There’s plenty of precedent and I think there would be a sense of quiet relief and expectation.
Well, he had a backup gig at one time. Maybe still does.
(Mildly NSFW. Turn the volume down a bit.)
The one indicates why the other is a bit unrealistic. His pratness is containable, tolerable and raises no real issues. The biggest problem would be for the politicians to find ever new ways of saying “If you say so, sir…” when he bemoans something or other - but ignoring him thereafter is easy. Whereas proactively seeking to change the succession is raising a distraction to any other substantive business the government of the day might be having to deal with.
If Charles never took the Crown, the Crown would instead go to William, who would therefore indeed be his grandmother’s successor. (If William wasn’t available, then George, Charlotte, or Harry, in that order, would be the successor instead.)
Peter Morris’s point is that Peter Phillips, who does no royal duties at all (routine or otherwise), is the ELDEST grandson. The SENIOR grandson, the Duke of Cambridge, does have an increasingly prominent royal role, but he is five years younger than Peter Phillips.
Worth mentioning that neither Zara Tindall or Peter Phillips are given any form of funding from The British taxpayer.
It’s nice, when you steal someones quote, to credit them, either Jean Meslier or Denis Diderot.
But the world has shown that we dont need Kings to have abusive Dictators, in fact the current fashion is to be named “President for Life”.
I don’t get your argument. Liz very clearly does not really approve of Charles and Camilla being together so she probably doesn’t want him to be coronated. Convincing him to abdicate at same time as her is how she could make that happen.
And lets face it, the Royal Family of the UK is primarily a tourist attraction and goodwill figure head for feel good foreign visits, while the career diplomats do the real work. There’s no doubt that young attractive William and Kate could do that job much much better than Charles and Camilla. So really since Liz does care very much about the good of Great Britain, she’d be doing the right thing by arranging for Charles to be skipped.
But can’t parliament pass a new succession law? Canada would never agree because it is built in to the constitution and the constitution is essentially unamendable. The reason is that Quebec would have to agree and Quebec has never accepted the constitution in the first place. I guess they might some time in the distant future, but it is not on any current horizon.
I know you’re being facetious, but the only people trying to deny Charles the throne are people who read too many tabloids in the 1990’s. He will inherit the crown.