If King Charles 3rd should abdicate his crown for health reasons and leave it to Prince William what title would Charles have? King Emeritus?
This cite is a few years old and so is mostly considering what would happen were QEII to abdicate. Which was viewed as extremely unlikely. But the situation of a King abdicating is also addressed by some seemingly knowledgeable characters.
Summarizing as best my limited skill allows …
There’s a distinction between his style (akin to a name) and his title (akin to his organizational position). King Emeritus has been used as a position in other countries, but not yet UK.
There are a variety of possibilities for the style. As best I can read it, “HRH Prince Charles of [whatever he used to be]” is the odds-on favorite. With some complicated details beyond my ken which depend on how he came to be each of the several [whatever he used to be]s that he has held over his life.
You didn’t ask, but they also point out that abdication is not the usual solution to a monarch unable to perform their duties by reason of health. Leaving the infirm monarch in place and appointing the successor as Regent to act in their stead seems to be the preferred approach. The Monarchy only passes when the monarch dies.
Edward VIII was made Duke of Windsor after he abdicated.
He’d be Prince Charles, as the son of a monarch.
After that, he’d have whatever title the new monarch chose to give him. As DrDeth points out, after he abdicated Edward VIII was created Duke of Windsor; that title was conferred on him by the new monarch, his brother George VI. But that didn’t happen until two days afer his abdication; for those two days he was just “Prince Edward”. As Duke of Windsor he used the “Royal Highness” style but it was unclear if he was entitle to ti. To clarify the question the style was formall conferred on him so he was HRH the Duke of Windsor.
If Charles were to abdicate, William would not be bound by that precedent. He could give his father the title “HM King Charles” if he chose to, by analogy with the way that the widowed mothers of previous monarchs have been “HM Queen Elizatheth”, “HM Queen Mary”, etc.
The abdicated King of Spain, Juan Carlos, still uses the courtesy title of “King”, as do the abdicated monarchs of Denmark and Belgium, but the abdicated Queen of the Netherland is simply “HRH Princess Beatrix”.
Is it entirely analogous, though? My understanding is that British law treats the wife of a reigning monarch different from the husband of a reigning monarch (marrying the reigning King can allow you to become Queen, but not the other way around). Which is why QEII’s mother got to be a Queen (the “Queen Mom” as she was known), but QEII’s husband was only a Prince. British law, as I understand it, did not permit her to bestow the title King upon him.
So… can we be so sure that W really can bestow the title King on his father if he abdicates and thus ceases to be the reigning monarch?
He can; the Crown is the font of all honours, and can confer any title on anyone (unless Parliament has forbidden it, or has already conferred the title on someone else). But we can’t be sure than he would. And I agree that the case is not exactly on all fours with the case of a Queen consort retaining her title in widowhood. Still, the posited circumstances of Charle’s abdication are very different from those of Edward’s, and there might be a desire to give him a title that signals that.
That is the issue as I see it. Has Parliament forbidden it? If not, why wasn’t Prince Philip styled as King Philip? If the sovereign can just go around naming anyone King (like the Lady of the Lake!).
Parliament has not forbidden it (unless you can point me to a hitherto unknown Act of Parliament which address this question).
The sovereign acts on the advice of Ministers, obviously, so doesn’t personally go around handing out titles willy-nilly without caring what anybody thinks. But on the matter of titles for the members of the royal family the Ministers in turn would be expected to take the views of the sovereign very seriously. They’d look to build a consensus.
Philip didn’t become King consort because the “king” title hasn’t been awared to the husband of a reigning queen since Mary Tudor married Philip of Spain, which didn’t work out well.
But this would be different. The fact that consorts don’t get the “king” title doesn’t mean that ex-monarchs shouldn’t. The precedent of Edward VIII is easily distinguished; he abdicated reluctantly and the whole affair was seen as discreditable to him, and none of this would be the case if Charles were to abidicate for reasons of age and infirmity. I don’t see any reason why the new King and the ministers couldn’t agree that, in such circumstances, Charles couldt continue to use the “king” title even though he was no longer HM the King, just as George VI’s widow could continue to use the “queen” title even though she was no longer HM the Queen.
That is certainly true in modern times (Prince Philip, Prince Albert), but is it entirely true? The House of Stuart doesn’t seem to have thought so.
After James II / VII left the throne in 1688, the crown went to his eldest surviving daughter, Mary II… and her husband, William III. William was Mary’s cousin, but his descent from James’s elder sister shouldn’t have put him in the succession until Mary and her sister Anne were both dead. In fact, he reigned solely between Mary’s death and his own, and was succeeded by Anne.
(Edit: looking up the details, James himself died after Mary, kicking around until 1701.)
Not entirely analogous. William was invited to invade and then approved by parliament to reign jointly with Mary:
Which is to say that, clearly, some special provision of law was considered necessary to allow William to ascend to the English throne as King alongside his wife. Not the default, and not something Mary did on her own as sovereign or “font of all honors”.
He’ll be forever known as the the pampered chap who “has his valets squeeze one inch of toothpaste onto his toothbrush every morning.”
Of course. I just meant that there was at least a case where marriage to a queen (well, criwn princess) brought a guy the kingship.
One could see the fact of being married to Mary (as he had been for a decade) as providing a cover of added hereditary legitimacy to Parliament’s invitation, part of the motivation for which was that William had successfully resisted Louis XIV (whereas both Charles and particularly James had with reason been suspected of conniving with Louis to reinstate Catholicism in England).
For what it’s worth, in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part 3, during the time when Henry and Edward are contesting the throne, they’re both listed as King in the script. Nor was Shakespeare averse to changing names in the script, as the same character is variously referred to as “Lady Grey” and “Q. Elizabeth” before and after her marriage.
I don’t see it that way at all. I see the fact that parliament passed a law declaring William to be king to rule jointly with his wife, Mary, even as the hereditary king (James II) and his male line were still very much alive as evidence that parliament considers itself to reserve the right to bestow the title King on someone.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Except it wasn’t the marriage that made William king. It was an Act of Parliament, changing the line of succession:
*declaring that James had abdicated and the throne was vacant;
*excluding James’s son and issue from the line of succession;
*putting William and Mary on the throne as joint monarchs, with right of survival to either;
*displacing Anne from the throne for the lifetimes of William and Mary, separately.
The Act of Parliament was the mechanical system that transferred the kingship (and in this case, reset it).
What I’m arguing is that William’s marriage to Mary was a salient factor in his being offered the crown by Parliament in the first place, as opposed to literally any other guy. I’m not trying to argue that Mary herself, or any of her relatives, had much of anything to do with it except incidentally.
My argument is complicated by the fact that William III was James II’s closest male heir, though Mary I, Elizabeth, sort of Mary II, and Anne show that the British weren’t averse to reigning queens in that era.
Surely his closest male heir was his infant son?
Oops, you’re right. Closest male Protestant heir?
That depended on whether you accepted the warming pan story (I read somewhere that from the announcement of the pregnancy - so relatively late in the marriage - Anne declared she didn’t believe it, so there was fertile ground for a conspiracy theory).