As long as we’re on a tangent, was the English/British/U.K. monarch ever styled King of Wales?
How does regency work? Would Charles be the regent?
More importantly, how does regency work with regards to actually setting it up? Who decides? What if the Queen were to get, say, very very mild dementia? At what point would a regent be appointed? What if the need for it is disputed and/or the potential regent is unpopular, incompetent, or untrustworthy?
Say Lizzie misplaces her glasses one morning. Can Charles say, “Right! Mumsy has obviously gone senile. Let’s get on with it”?
True so far as it goes (though the pejorative is a tad out of place for the forum, IMHO), but not necessarily relevant - there certainly weren’t any kings of “Britain” before “England” existed.
I think Charles will end up like his great-great-grandfather, Edward VII. Ne’ll be a grandfather before he’s ever king. His mum, ERII, is not all that far(eight years or so) from being the longest reigning monarch in the history of England, and she’d be less than ninety when she reaches that. Given she looks in good health, will have the best medical care, and her own mother lived to be over a hundred, I don’t think Charles is really holding his breath at the idea of becoming king.
OK, I retract “for the first time in British history,” before somebody gets into Eochaid IV of Dalriada or something equally abstruse. How about “first time in English/unified-British history where a non-puppet/interim monarch has a living father who was not previously dethroned as king”?
As for Regency-from-dementia, there are two excellent precedents in place: the insane periods of Henry VI and George III. In each case, what was for all practical purposes the Privy Council seems to have met and confirmed legally the medical conclusion that (a) His Majesty has completely lost it, and is as apt to make his dinner pudding a Duke as he is to do something sensible; (b) this is apt to continue for an unpredictable period; © the realm needs someone sane acting as monarch; so (d) the adult male relative who is next in line for the throne (cousin Richard Duke of York and son George Prince of Wales respectively in the two precedent cases) should function as regent until the monarch either comes to his senses or dies.
It’s probably a decision taken by HMMH Privy Council which consists of:
The Cabinet
Senior Members of the Shadow Cabinet
Senior 3rd Party (Liberal Democrats) Frontbenchers
Senior Scottish Parliament Ministers
Senior Welsh Assemby Ministers
Prince of Wales
Duke of Edinburgh
Senior Judges
Bishops of Canterbury, York and London
Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
Senators of the College of Justice in Scotland
In effect the Regent, which is most likely to be the Prince of Wales would take on the day to day duties and responsibilities of The Queen.
On an alternative board a similar conversation came to the answer that Prince Charles should just pass the Crown on to his son when our current Queen expires.
That seems to make the most sense to me too.
Why?
Unless he’s extremely old or has a terminal diagnosis, what would be the point?
Because he’s not fit to be King. He’s a fully paid-up member of the Church of England Hand-Wringers Club.
Some people, so used to the long, steady personality of Elizabeth, somehow get the idea that the monarch is supposed to be the epitome of class and morality-they point to George V, George VI, Victoria, etc, and say, “See, Charles is an adultorer (sp?), he’s not fit to be King!” and all that jazz.
Of course, a lot of these people forget that monarchs like Elizabeth II and Victoria are the exceptions. Victoria’s own son, Edward VII was known as “Edward the Caressor”. Victoria’s uncles were notorious womanizers (King William IV was pretty devouted to his wife, Adelaide, but back in the day, he had many a mistress), rakes, scoundrels, etc.
So Chuck is actually pretty dull for a royal.
I think Charles would be a fabulous king. Affable, a bit dotty, frequent low-level gaffes for the tabloids, fond of pomp and ceremony, easy to make fun of. I’m looking forward to it.
Szlater: They probably don’t want a royal who forms such a strong argument against the inbreeding the entire concept of royalty is founded upon. You know, the same reason people who sponsor Defense of Marriage Acts never seem to mention Britney Spears.
- August “Mate them cousins one more time!” Derleth
<<nitpick>> It’s Dutchie actually, as recorded by Musical Youth.
It was in fact a reference to Marijuana if I remember right…just sayin’ 
Dunno if ol’ jug ears has tried a spliff :eek: or not
Dutchie Originals… if I ever move into dealing, that’ll be my brandname. 
Kind of a sidebar, but my SIL said that Charles will never become King (prolly due to his divorce and subsequent (originally) unpopular marriage to whatshername). That because his life has been frought with drama, he could simply pass it to William and live a quiet royal life with the missus. Is that possible?
I suppose it is possible. To supplement his meagre funds he could allus advertise tampons…I mean he has expressed a wish to be one 
(shudder!) If that creepy pillow-talk exchange didn’t put him in the “Too Preoccupied to Reign” column, nothing will!
There’s nothing to stop a divorcee from ascending. And as far as an unpopular marriage, it’s only really unpopular amongst acolytes of the ‘Cult of Diana’, Daily Express and Daily Mail readers.
I don’t think he’s unsuitable to be the King, sure he’s got a host of misinformed opinions (chief amongst them medicine, architecture and agriculture) but then so does our elected head of government and a good proportion of the population. Hell, the President of the US thinks he’s talked to and was appointed by God.
I also think that William has yet to actually do anything good or bad. So far it seems he’s being judged solely on the basis that he fell out of Diana’s crotch and is considered to be somewhat good-looking.
Right. But a royal gets to be the Royal Boss regardless of his politics, correct? I mean, he could just lay around eating scones all day and he could still be King. He doesn’t have to accomplish anything. It’s a birthright.
Absolutely. Still, there are people who think William would be a better King, despite having absolutely nothing to base this on (although possibly they think Charles will be so bad that anyone would be better).
It seems to me that because the monarch doesn’t really do anything that has any direct impact (they can’t even express an opinion on anything or vote), there’s no grounds for Charles not to be king. It’s not like he can do any major damage, except maybe increase the popular support for a British republic.