Is Prince William eligible for elected office in the UK?

[What_Exit]

Does anything restrict him or his brother from one day being Prime Minister?

It appears Prince William is very popular, considered handsome and is well liked. Could he run for office and win?

Second question, is there any possibility of the UK passing over Prince Charles in favor of Prince William?

I heard some polls that indicated a strong dislike for Prince Charles but a high regard for the Queen and “Diana’s Son” Prince William. Is this at all factual?

Thank you in advance,
Jim

[tagos]

@What Exit?

Does anything restrict him or his brother from one day being Prime Minister?

It appears Prince William is very popular, considered handsome and is well liked. Could he run for office and win?

Second question, is there any possibility of the UK passing over Prince Charles in favor of Prince William?

I heard some polls that indicated a strong dislike for Prince Charles but a high regard for the Queen and “Diana’s Son” Prince William. Is this at all factual?

Thank you in advance,
Jim

Short answer - he could but it would be over several dead bodies and probably precipitate a constitutional crisis by breaking the unwritten constitution.

Royal Insight

Although the law relating to elections does not specifically prohibit the Sovereign from voting in a General Election or local election, it is considered unconstitutional for the Sovereign and his or her heir to do so.

As Head of State, The Queen must remain politically neutral, since her Government will be formed from whichever party can command a majority in the House of Commons. The Queen herself is part of the legislature, and technically she cannot therefore vote for members of another part of the legislature.

Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, although legally entitled to vote, never did so because of her closeness to The Queen. With the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords in 1999, the Royal Dukes (The Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) ceased to be members of the House of Lords and therefore became eligible to vote in elections.

The Queen and her family never stand for election to any position - political or otherwise. The Queen’s role is to provide continuity and the focus for national unity, and the Royal Family’s public role is based on identifying with every section of society, including minorities and special interest groups.

To hold elected positions would not be in accordance with those neutral and unifying roles.

For the same reason, members of the Royal Family, although allowed to vote in local government elections and stand for election to the House of Commons and local authorities, do not in practice exercise these rights.

Under the Maastricht Treaty, The Queen and other members of the Royal Family would be entitled to vote for the European Parliament, or to stand for election to that Parliament. But The Queen would only exercise these rights on the advice of her Ministers, and their advice would invariably be that she should neither vote nor stand for an elected position so as not to compromise her neutrality.

Other members of the Royal Family do not act on ministerial advice, but they also are required to preserve their political neutrality so as not to embarrass The Queen. Therefore, they too would not vote nor stand for election for the European Parliament.

I believe Charles could be bypassed by an Act of Parliament. That’s what has happened before.

The scum media in this country often tries to whip up anti-Charles hysteria so I’d take any ‘polls’ with a pinch of salt. As you hint at - all sorts of questions concerning paternity would be opened up too. We’d see some bloody internicine royal family fighting.

[rayh]

The Queen could appoint William Prime Minister, it is only by convention that she appoints the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons. This would cause it’s own set of problems though. Imagine a president independent of both political parties in the US, would they be able to get any legislation passed?

Charles could be bypassed by an Act of Parliament, but unless he goes completely off the rails I doubt this would happen. There is an outside chance he may renounce or abdicate in favour of William, which would not require an Act of Parliament, but I think this unlikely to happen.

[What_Exit]

@tagos

…
The scum media in this country often tries to whip up anti-Charles hysteria so I’d take any ‘polls’ with a pinch of salt. As you hint at - all sorts of questions concerning paternity would be opened up too. We’d see some bloody internicine royal family fighting.

Thank you for the answers.

Strangely, I was not questioning the paternity of William, merely the fact that he seems to be considered more like his Mom than his Dad and especially in the way people respond to the two parents.

Is his paternity, actually in question? I don’t follow the Royals and I never had a hint of this.

For the record, I dislike Prince Charles for no particular reason. I like the Queen and what she had done back in WWII to aid the moral of the UK. I have very little opinion on the two young Princes. I just saw something recently about Prince William having a ‘Kennediesc’ quality.

Jim

[tagos]

@What Exit?

Thank you for the answers.

Strangely, I was not questioning the paternity of William, merely the fact that he seems to be considered more like his Mom than his Dad and especially in the way people respond to the two parents.

Is his paternity, actually in question? I don’t follow the Royals and I never had a hint of this.

For the record, I dislike Prince Charles for no particular reason. I like the Queen and what she had done back in WWII to aid the moral of the UK. I have very little opinion on the two young Princes. I just saw something recently about Prince William having a ‘Kennediesc’ quality.

Jim

You are right - it’s Harry who is more generally considered of dodgy parentage. Both look like it to me.

But the important thing is neither of them have Muslim parentage - so Prince Philip did not have to have them whacked too.

[Baron_Greenback]

@What Exit?

Is his paternity, actually in question? I don’t follow the Royals and I never had a hint of this.

Prince William is looking more and more like a male Windsor with every passing day, poor fellow.

[glee]

@What Exit?

It appears Prince William is very popular, considered handsome and is well liked. Could he run for office and win?

It’s true that newspapers here will increase circulation if the publish a gossipy story about William. “William’s got a new girl-friend!” would be the level of intellectual discourse involved.

However thankfully, we expect a bit more of our political leaders than to be good-looking and well-known. Your mileage may vary*.

*this is a dig at US Presidential elections which seem to be decided by who is best on TV and which party can peddle the most lies. :eek:

[Billdo]

@rayh

There is an outside chance he may renounce or abdicate in favour of William, which would not require an Act of Parliament, but I think this unlikely to happen.

I believe this to be incorrect. When Edward VIII abdicated, it required an Act of Parliament of the British and other commonwealth parliaments to remove him as King. Indeed, he did not cease to be King until he gave his Royal Assent to the abdication acts.

[Commodore_Penguin]

@tagos

You are right - it’s Harry who is more generally considered of dodgy parentage. Both look like it to me.

But the important thing is neither of them have Muslim parentage - so Prince Philip did not have to have them whacked too.

Muslim schmuslim. What REALLY matters is they’re not Catholic.

[What_Exit]

@glee

…

However thankfully, we expect a bit more of our political leaders than to be good-looking and well-known. Your mileage may vary*.

*this is a dig at US Presidential elections which seem to be decided by who is best on TV and which party can peddle the most lies. :eek:

Don’t worry, that was well proven by both Winston and Maggie. We know looks and charisma have little to do with being PM.

[Acsenray]

@What Exit?

I like the Queen and what she had done back in WWII to aid the moral of the UK.

Are you referring perhaps to the queen’s late mother? She was one who was credited with boosting morale in the 1940s. Elizabeth II didn’t become queen until 1953.

[Baron_Greenback]

@acsenray

Are you referring perhaps to the queen’s late mother? She was one who was credited with boosting morale in the 1940s. Elizabeth II didn’t become queen until 1953.

I think he must be. However people of a certain age (e.g. my mum, who was eight at the time) remember this broadcast vividly. * To paraphrase my mum, she wasn’t even supposed to be our Queen, but if anyone says a word against her I’ll have their eyes out with a spoon.

• It’s a British Library link and the only way the audio seems to work for me is to “save as” and let my media player pick it up. If I could find the earlier thread that mentioned the shift in posh English accents over the years I’d repost this link there.

[Chez_Guevara]

@acsenray

Elizabeth II didn’t become queen until 1953.

She actually became Queen in February 1952, her coronation taking place in June 1953.

[BrainGlutton]

@tagos

The scum media in this country often tries to whip up anti-Charles hysteria . . .

Why? That is, why him so particularly?

[BrainGlutton]

@Chez Guevara

She actually became Queen in February 1952, her coronation taking place in June 1953.

I believe that’s because it is customary to observe a year of mourning for the old sovereign before crowning the new one.

[BrainGlutton]

@glee

However thankfully, we expect a bit more of our political leaders than to be good-looking and well-known. Your mileage may vary*.

*this is a dig at US Presidential elections which seem to be decided by who is best on TV and which party can peddle the most lies. :eek:

Quite true, no doubt. Nevertheless, looking at Tony Blair, it doesn’t seem to make much practical difference, does it?

[BrainGlutton]

@tagos

You are right - it’s Harry who is more generally considered of dodgy parentage. Both look like it to me.

Diana was an adulteress, to be sure (and Charles probably was seeing Camilla all the time they were married), but my guess – just based on media portrayals I’ve seen of their marriage – is that Diana didn’t start having affairs until long after Harry was born.

[What_Exit]

@acsenray

Are you referring perhaps to the queen’s late mother? She was one who was credited with boosting morale in the 1940s. Elizabeth II didn’t become queen until 1953.

I have to cite Wiki here for speed, but:

Elizabeth was thirteen years old when World War II broke out, and she and her younger sister, Princess Margaret, were evacuated to Windsor Castle, Berkshire. There was some suggestion that the two princesses be evacuated to Canada, to which their mother made the famous reply: “The children won’t go without me. I won’t leave the King. And the King will never leave.” While at Windsor, Princess Elizabeth and her sister staged pantomimes at Christmas with the children of members of staff of the Royal Household. In 1940, Princess Elizabeth made her first radio broadcast during the BBC’s Children’s Hour, addressing other children who had been evacuated. When she was 13 years old, she first met her future husband Prince Philip. She fell in love with him and began writing to him when he was in the Royal Navy.

Military career In 1945, Princess Elizabeth convinced her father that she should be allowed to contribute directly to the war effort. She joined the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, where she was known as No 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor, and was trained as a driver, and drove a military truck while she served. This training was the first time she had been taught together with other students. It is said that she greatly enjoyed this and that this experience led her to send her own children to school rather than have them educated at home. She was later praised by many for her hard labour during the war period. She was the first, and so far only, female member of the royal family to actually serve in the armed forces, though Queen Victoria was Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian militia, and other royal women have been given honorary ranks. During the VE Day celebrations in London, she and her sister dressed in ordinary clothing[citation needed] and slipped into the crowd secretly to celebrate with everyone.

This is what I meant. I think it a rather remarkable effort she made and I had understood it was good for morale. She was a Princess and Heiress Presumptive, before she was Queen.

Jim

[Baron_Greenback]

@What Exit?

I have to cite Wiki here for speed, but:
This is what I meant. I think it a rather remarkable effort she made and I had understood it was good for morale. She was a Princess and Heiress Presumptive, before she was Queen.

Jim

I’m guessing I’ll have to be a post-whore to be noticed. You could probably check the link in my post above to listen to the actual fucking broadcast you are drivelling on about.

[Baron_Greenback]

@BrainGlutton

I believe that’s because it is customary to observe a year of mourning for the old sovereign before crowning the new one.

I believe that you are completely wrong!