If Charles is Prince of Wales, what is Prince William gonna get until QEII steps down?
You mean “get” as in “get to do”?
Well, at the moment, he gets to play water polo for Scotland… 
Seriously, though, he’s only 21, he’s still in college (majoring in Art), and officially, “…He undertakes no official engagements on his own, but he has accompanied his father on several official visits around the UK.” So it looks to me like he gets to “finish college and not have any official responsibilities for a while”.
An enviable position for any young man.
I think he means “get” as in “what titles and estates will he hold?”
AFAIK, he is just “HRH Prince William of Wales” until his father becomes King. As the future Prince of Wales (and Duke of Cornwall?), he doesn’t take on other titles that he would later drop – that isn’t done. Whether he has any titles now that he would keep, I don’t know – I haven’t seen any such.
Unless his Royal Grandma gets fed up with His Highness, Prince Jug-Ears, and decides to pass him over as heir, & give it to William.
Far from impossible, it could easily happen, as Charles is popular with nobody except Camilla.
The sovereigns elest son gets the English Peerage title of Duke of Cornwall and in the Scottish Peerage, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick and Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.
The decision to create the heir apparent the Prince of Wales is in fact at the discretion of the Monarch, though like all such ‘discretions’ its really a matter of royal protocol and done at a suitable time.
Highly unlikely that QEII will step down - the abdication crisis in the thirties shook the monarchy, and she’s said on a few occasions that she views it as a life-time job.
With regard to the question, the last time there was a full-age grandson of the monarch was in the late 19th century, when Victoria was on the throne, her son Edward was Prince of Wales, and Edward’s oldest son, Albert Victor, was in his twenties. Queen Victoria gave him the title of “Duke of Clarence”, which dates back several centuries. Albert Victor eventually died of pneumonia, clearing the way for his younger brother, George, Duke of York, to eventually become George V.
We had a discussion about the title of Duke of Clarence a year or two ago, and I think APB suggested that it is seen as the traditional title for the grandson of the monarch, but there really aren’t a lot of precedents for the situation, so who knows?
Even more highly unlikely than HM. stepping down. First off, the Queen has no power to disinherit Charles; his right to inherit flows from an Act of Parliament, the Act of Settlement. As long as he stays in communion with the Church of England and doesn’t marry a Roman Catholic, he can’t be excluded from the throne.
Second, to change the rules of succession requires the agreement of all the Commonwealth countries that have the monarch as head of state. That’s quite an undertaking, and I can’t see it happening easily, just because of the Prince of Wales’ lack of popularity.
- The chance that any given Parliament will be less than pleased by the idea of two (astronomically expensive) coronations possibly within 10 years of one another and repeal the Act of Settlement is high. The probability that Charles would declare in favor of William anyway is higher. He knows he isn’t wanted.
- Actually the Commonwealth nations would still get Charles; it is not incumbent on Parliament to ensure that the Head of State for the Isles need be the Head of State for the Commonwealth nations.
-
As for the cost of coronations, I think it’s arguable that they might generate more economic activity than the out-of-pocket costs: tourists flocking to Britain, coronation events, law suits from failed coronation events, Coronation Street…
-
The man has spent his entire life in training to be King, and has mused about being crowned as George VII, because of the unfortunate baggage associated with the two previous Kings Charles. Can you provide any cites for the suggestion that he’s planning on stepping aside?
-
Yes, as a matter of constitutional law the Westminster Parliament can do what it pleases, and could unilaterally change the line of succession for the purposes of the U.K. However, doing so would be in breach of the constitutional convention, set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, that unanimous consent is required to change the succession. Unilateral change to the succession would completely undercut the basis of the modern Commonwealth, since the recognition of the monarch as the head of the Commonwealth is the only defining feature. I can’t see the Brits doing that willy-nilly.
He’s gonna get a lot of sex from fresh-faced English girls hoping to hit the same jackpot his mother did.
Hm. Miserable marriage, big in-law problems, messy divorce, premature death. Must be some usage of the word “Jackpot” with which I was not previously familiar.
It’s highly unlikely that either QEII or Charles would abdicate, they have both said as much on many occasions and it’s even more unlikely that Charles would be forced to abidicate.
Cite? Are you saying that Parliament is going to insist Charles is skipped over as a cost saving exercise??? This is as good as admiting that royalty is nothing more than a tourist attraction and the whole edifice will collapse.
Cite?
As a matter of opinion, I would be amazed beyond words if either of these things happen. So I would very much like to hear where you’re getting your facts from.
If anywhere.
With hereditary peers being phased out of the House of Lords, and titles in general being seen as less important, it’s unlikely William will have any extra titles conferred upon him.
And although this is turning into almost an IMHO thread, I don’t think it’s likely that the Queen will pass Charles over for William, even if it were practically feasible. How much would she have to hate him to do that? ‘The public don’t like you much, son, so I’m going to make you feel and look even worse by taking your Kingdom away!’ :rolleyes:
Even though titles are getting less attention, I think that they’ll survive the longest within the Royal Family itself, particularly for the heir to the heir apparent. After all, it was just 5 years ago that the Queen gave Prince Edward his title, Earl of Wessex. Although Princess Anne has indicated that she doesn’t want titles for her children, I think that’s because they’re so far down the line of succession. It’s a bit different for Prince William, who’s only two heartbeats away.
I am not a monarchist by any stretch of the imagination, but I’d like to see evidence that Prince Charles is particularly unpopular in Britain, as has been asserted by several people in this thread. As far as I can tell, people who care about such things quite like the old loon, and his suspected leftie-ishness endears him to people who wouldn’t normally approve of hereditary privilege.
Also, the phasing out of hereditary peerages has recently been abandoned ‘this side of the election’ (i.e. for the foreseeable future) by the British government.
Sounds like the typical celebrity rise-and-fall story to me. If hundreds of hopeless dopes come out of the woodwork whenever theres an American Idol tryout, I can certainly see plenty screaming for their chance on Who Wants to Bang a Prince? If William can just get FOX to promote it as a continuing series, he’ll be hip-deep in crumpet for life.
The assumption must still be that William will get a royal dukedom if he marries while his grandmother is still queen. That actually has more to do with what other people are going to be called.
The first factor is that it would solve the problem as to what his wife would get called. Suppose he marries Brittany Spears and remains plain ‘Prince William of Wales’. According to the current rules, his wife would not be ‘Princess Brittany’, but ‘Princess William of Wales’. Hence the fact that there is already a ‘Princess Michael of Kent’. His mother was never ‘Princess Diana’, only ‘Diana, Princess of Wales’. Of course, this rather quaint rule could just be changed, but if William becomes, say, ‘Duke of Borsetshire’, his wife would conveniently become ‘Duchess of Borsetshire’.
The second factor is whether Harry is going to get a title when he marries. Again, it is possible that a decision will be taken to break with tradition and not give him anything. But if he does get one, it would seem inconsistent for his big brother not to get one as well. This will actually be a bigger deal for Harry as, unlike William, he won’t later succeed to any grander titles.
To amplify Northern Piper’s point, there is no obvious reason why the intermittent attempts to reform the House of Lords should make any difference to what titles are given to the more senior members of the Royal Family. In their case, it can hardly be argued that giving them titles makes them more ‘important’ than they already are or that it is somehow more democratic from them to be princes but not dukes
This made me think…what if William gets marreid, but is infertile, therefore can’t have kids. If he then adopted kids - would they be in line to the throne or not??
Because if they didn’t then Harry would be in line to be King.
Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch. If Murdoch could arrange for somebody to wear a crown, it would be him!
Back to what Prince William is going to do…
Once he finishes University, he will without much question, join a branch of Britain’s armed services as an officer. Either the Army or Navy. Probably the Navy.
Come cheer up my lads, 'tis to glory we steer