Not if he dies before she does, of course.
Cite?
Slight Hijack, but hopefully not far away from the topic. Would anyone care to offer up a suggestion or proposal for Charles’ future regal name? I doubt if he would be Charles 111 given the luck of the previous two so named Monarchs.
You mean the previous 110 Charleses? 
Rumor is that Charles would be King George VII.
Seriously? I tend to think that famous aphorisms don’t need footnotes. If you’re having trouble following along, annotate it yourself. Also, Shaka when the walls fell. Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.
As for the contention that Charles shouldn’t become King because he’s a bit of a prat, if the country can’t handle a monarch who’s a bit of a prat then maybe rethink the whole hereditary monarchy thing? If you really want someone well qualified to be be national mascot, then maybe an elimination style TV competition is in order, rather than relying on who slid out of whose vagina first.
If his kid can be Henry, I don’t see why he can’t be Charles.
Plus, I strongly suspect he knows what things he can go on a rant about as not-(yet)-king vs. what he’s obliged to say as king - after all, it is as others said the job he’s been preparing for all his life. Plus, when dealing with Prime Ministers, he does not strike me as the type to have that very sharp “don’t disagree with me” look that the Queen can have when she wants to display her displeasure.
And I think the “anyone but Charles” attitude has softened quite a bit over the last decade or two. As far as I know, with Diana dead, there’s no impediment to Camilla being Queen. Unlike, say 1980 when people who grew up in the 1930’s were directing the royal household, I don’t think anyone is scandalized by the future queen being divorced. I assume divorce is not an issue fo Charles (and never was), just remarriage when Diana was alive was a problem.
But yes, I suspect we’ll have a queen who lasts a decade or two pretty much secluded in the palace. the only question is whether Charles will be formally appointed Regent. (and to what extent he’d sit in on her meetings with the PM). But, it did not appear that the Queen Mother was very out of it when she was 100, so things look good for Betty too.
I was always given the view through various sources starting back in the 90s that he didn’t want the job and was perfectly happy to wait it out and be king father to Williams king
if he does become king but camellia dosent become queen … will she officially be lady or consort ?
It’s not my argument, there are any number of biographers and historians you could take issue with who say the crisis and its fallout (which of course she saw firsthand in her father) had such an impact on her that she feels more strongly about serving country (via her reign) over family; her many decades of seeking counsel from her mother only reinforced that, as I understand it. As far as Camilla goes, if her son is satisfied and not upsetting the apple cart Elizabeth is satisfied w/ the arrangement. That’s as much as she cares to care, apparently; it’s well-known theirs has never been an emotionally close family (w/ the exception of the Elizabeths and for a time, Margaret). Her first priority is her duty to her country as she has always understood it - that is HER right thing.
It was announced by Clarence House at the time of the marriage that Camilla would be known as Princess Consort on Charles’ accession the throne (though she’d be entitled to the style of a queen Consort).
But wasn’t that before Diana bit the big one?
No, they married in 2005, right around Pope John Pauls II’s death; Diana had been dead for nearly 8 years.
From what I’ve read in the late 1990s Elizabeth realized that for Charles to do a good job as king, he needed to be happy. The best way for Charles to be happy would be for him to be married to Camilla. So the Queen let Camilla in the house, let them get married somewhat quietly in a civil ceremony (a Church of England ceremony was out because her first husband still breathes) and have her known by a lesser title, Duchess of Cornwall. No need to upset the Diana fans by naming her Princess of Wales.
Starting with George V, George VI and Elisabeth II have been brought up and acted that they have a duty to be the sovereign and to act accordingly. As strong a duty as anything in the world…Edward VIII didn’t, and he was frozen out in life and death, as was his wife. I don’t see any kind of
abdication or changing the line of succession unless something changes drastically…like Charles going nutty as Junior Soprano did at the end.
Besides if say Elizabeth dies in 2020 and Charles in 2030, you have two funerals and coronations to get tourists to visit, instead of one with William taking over.
Huh? I don’t think the grooming from birth thing happened. George VI was the “spare” until Edward abdicated, which was a last-minute decision. Elizabeth looked to be the next in line, but until Edward jumped ship there was always the possibility he could find a good wife to pop out one or more, so it wasn’t a done deal. Edward just happened, IIRC, to marry a woman that not only made him ineligible but also was pretty close to past child-bearing years.
I recall in some discussion of Margaret, that when daddy became king, suddenly all the attention descended on Elizabeth to make her ready for the job next, and Margaret was pretty much sidelined as irrelevant - hence her less than stellar lifestyle.
crowned.
Yeah, she was about 10 when her grandfather passed and her uncle acceded to the throne; she wasn’t quite 11 when her father succeeded him. All of the contemporary sources say she wasn’t brought up as an expected queen-to-be (she was 3rd in line) from birth due to Edward’s youth.
Margaret pitied her sister having to learn how to reign while Margaret had the freedom that comes w/ being ignored, even semi-teasing her about it. Since she was only 5 when her grandfather died, Margaret knew her sister would be queen someday for most of her childhood. Neither girl was terribly well-educated, but Margaret even less so. From the Wiki - ‘When Queen Mary insisted upon the importance of education, the Duchess of York [Elizabeth’s mother] commented, “I don’t know what she meant. After all I and my sisters only had governesses and we all married well—one of us very well”.’
Marrying well was the arbiter of a good upbringing. :dubious:
Legislation would be required. The abdication of Edward VIII had to be ratified by an Act of Parliament in order to be effective (His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936) any any future abdication of Charles would need to be similarly ratified. And, for the reasons already given, that legislation would require the consent of the Commonwealth realms (As the 1936 legislation did. But there were a lot fewer Commonwealth realms them.)
The only precedent was the abdication of Edward VIII, and that was messy.
Being a prat does not in any way rise to the level of those three: Charles I raised his standard to fight against the Parliament; James II/VII was plotting to undercut Parliament and subvert laws passed by Parliament; Edward VIII wanted to marry a woman against the constitutional advice of the Prime Minister. Even if Charles is a prat (“assumes facts not in evidence, M’Lud”) that’s not sufficient to trigger a constitutional issue like this.
Personality aside, does he understand the role of a constitutional monarch and will he fulfil that role properly? That’s the only fitness issue. If he does understand his role, his personality is not a basis to remove him. Having an occasional prat as monarch is one of the risks of the monarchy.
Yes, a change in the law would be required, as the abdication of his great-uncle, Edward VIII, demonstrated, as did the events of the Glorious Revolution.
Under the Act of Settlement, 1701, the monarch is the eldest surviving issue of the body of Sophia, dowager Electress of Hanover. By the rules of succession, that is currently Elizabeth. If she dies, then it’s Charles. By law, he’s then the King.
Elizabeth has no power to change the law unilaterally. Neither can Charles. Neither can the prime minister. Only Parliament can change the law and relieve Charles of the Crown.
That’s why it wasn’t enough for Edward VIII to sign his Instrument of Abdication. After he signed it, making his desire to abdicate as clear as possible, the British Parliament had to pass the Abdication Act to change the law and make George king, rather than Edward. And the Commonwealth realms had to consent as well.
Nor was it enough for James to bugger off to France. While the English who supported William argued that James had abdicated by his conduct, Parliament still had to pass the Bill of Rights to change the law of succession to make William and Mary the joint monarchs.
So yes, it would be a big deal and could not be done quietly by the PM. There would have to be a law passed by the British Parliament, after Charles clearly indicates he wants to abdicate, and the Commonwealth realms would have to be onside, just as they were for the recent change to the law of succession relating to gender. That’s what the precedents show.
And now I see that UDS has said much the same while I was composing my post. Ninja’d on British/Commonwealth constitutional law!
Northern Piper, could you address this remark:
My own understanding of Canada’s Constitution is that while it contains provisions to remove the monarch (at Charter s. 41), it does not address succession issues. Those should be addressed by the Succession to the Throne Act, S.C. 2013, c. 6, but I also note that there was some controversy about that Act, specifically in regards to its constitutionality; and Ontario and Quebec both challenged it.
Could you clarify? Is succession to the throne a constitutional issue in Canada?
I’m no expert, but I think that the effect of the statute is that Westminister won’t pass a new succession law, because if they did, the Queen of the Commonwealth might be a different person from the King of the UK, which would be a bit rude and inconsiderate. The dominions aren’t under that restriction. They can choose whoever they want as King/Queen, and people won’t think it’s rude: just stupid.