# Suppose Prince Charles doesn't want to be King for long (or at all)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 26, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546 "2013-07-26T01:49:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/21 "2013-07-26T11:59:01Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I’m not convinced that Charles _wants_ to be King - the man’s already at an age when many people retire, and he’s quite happy with his overpriced biscuit business and other hobbies I think he is perfectly prepared to be king. He’s been readied for it his whole life. There seems to be a lot of presumption, mainly from Americans (and Australians, strangely), that Charles will somehow be an unpopular king and that he “should” hand the crown over to William. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think Americans in particular seem to have bought into the crazy notion of Princess Diana as saint, and think the UK view Charles and Camilla as pantomime villains. (OP: not directed at you as you say you have no strong feelings on this.) In any case, kings and queens are meant to rule until they expire. That’s just the way it is. If they become too old, decrepit or mad to do the job then regents take the reins (reigns?) behind the scenes. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/22 "2013-07-26T12:03:55Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > **jtagain** > As I understand it, two things: > > 1. The removal of male preference hasn’t taken effect yet (Commonwealth countries tend to pass/fail this kind of stuff together). > 2. It was designed to NOT be retroactive. Interesting. But what does “not retroactive” mean? I would take the term “retroactive” to remove someone from the throne who succeeded under MPP rules. This would be purely prospective if Charles’ line was disinherited in the future (or whatever the proper term is). Does it mean that it only applies to the yet to be born? Lets say that William and Kate each have two more kids, the next a girl, and the following one a boy. Who is next in line following young Prince George? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/23 "2013-07-26T12:11:07Z")
Isn’t there the whole issue of Charles being divorced and married to a woman with a living ex-spouse? If it was bad enough to force Edward to abdicate, why isn’t it bad enough for Charles to not get the crown at all? What’s changed in this regard? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/24 "2013-07-26T12:16:16Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Isn’t there the whole issue of Charles being divorced and married to a woman with a living ex-spouse? > > If it was bad enough to force Edward to abdicate, why isn’t it bad enough for Charles to not get the crown at all? What’s changed in this regard? Popular thought regarding divorce in the 1930s versus those thoughts in the 2000s. Plus Edward took a “fuck you all” approach in which he said he was going to do what he wanted. Charles humbly asked the Queen and (I think Parliament as well) for permission and received it. ETA: If Charles wanted to marry a Catholic in the 2000s, it probably would have led to a reexamination of that rule as well. Are citizens in the UK really against Catholics so much that they would actually enforce the rule instead of just keeping it around for tradition’s sake? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/25 "2013-07-26T12:21:07Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Popular thought regarding divorce in the 1930s versus those thoughts in the 2000s. Plus Edward took a “fuck you all” approach in which he said he was going to do what he wanted. Charles humbly asked the Queen and (I think Parliament as well) for permission and received it. > > ETA: If Charles wanted to marry a Catholic in the 2000s, it probably would have led to a reexamination of that rule as well. Are citizens in the UK really against Catholics so much that they would actually enforce the rule instead of just keeping it around for tradition’s sake? Well I understand the popular thought, but the King/Queen is also the head of the Church of England, no? Is it now acceptable for the head of the church to be divorced and remarried? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/26 "2013-07-26T12:40:30Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Well I understand the popular thought, but the King/Queen is also the head of the Church of England, no? Is it now acceptable for the head of the church to be divorced and remarried? Well, the church will soon be performing same sex marriages. It’s not the Southern Baptist Church. It’s a relatively liberal one that changes with the times and public opinion. Many churches will marry previously divorced persons. I don’t know why the Anglican Church would be different. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/27 "2013-07-26T12:43:48Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Well, the church will soon be performing same sex marriages. It’s not the Southern Baptist Church. It’s a relatively liberal one that changes with the times and public opinion. Many churches will marry previously divorced persons. I don’t know why the Anglican Church would be different. I wasn’t saying it \*was \*different. I was merely asking what their take on it was. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/28 "2013-07-26T12:48:21Z")
Leads to follow-up question as to same-sex marriage and monarchy. If the new king is a flaming queen, is that a disqualifier? Let’s say he’s willing to provide sperm to produce an heir, as long as he doesn’t have do it in a vagina. But, before becoming King, he marries a man. A nice, wholesome, handsome man, the distaff equivalent of Kate. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/29 "2013-07-26T12:49:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Well, the church will soon be performing same sex marriages. It’s not the Southern Baptist Church. It’s a relatively liberal one that changes with the times and public opinion. Many churches will marry previously divorced persons. I don’t know why the Anglican Church would be different. Nope. The recent decision specifically excludes the CoE from performing same-sex marriage. As for the retroactive thing, in this case it means it didn’t change any of the (at that time) succession lines, any “new additions” will be slotted in without gender preference. One of the other threads around here had an explanation of it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/30 "2013-07-26T13:14:00Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Leads to follow-up question as to same-sex marriage and monarchy. If the new king is a flaming queen, is that a disqualifier? > Let’s say he’s willing to provide sperm to produce an heir, as long as he doesn’t have do it in a vagina. > But, before becoming King, he marries a man. A nice, wholesome, handsome man, the distaff equivalent of Kate. CofE: You can marry a same sex partner and have gay orgies in public, but he had better not be CATHOLIC!!! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Athena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@Athena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Athena)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/31 "2013-07-26T13:24:05Z")
I seem to recall that there’s a financial aspect to it as well; in [Elizabeth the Queen](http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-Queen-Modern-Monarch-Edition/dp/B00CB231X8/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1374844838&sr=8-3&keywords=elizabeth+the+queen+life+of+a+modern+monarch) (an entertaining but one-sided read), the author talks about how the finances of the Monarchy work, and talked about how it doesn’t define what happens in an abdication. Presumably Elizabeth would be fine, but if Charles didn’t want to be King, his income would be in jeopardy as there is no accounting for the-guy-who-should-be-King-but-doesn’t-want-to. I wish I could remember more detail; it made a good case for abdication being very unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/32 "2013-07-26T13:36:53Z")
Edward, Duke of Windsor, had to depend on the generosity of his brother, King George. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/33 "2013-07-26T13:41:44Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > I think he is perfectly prepared to be king. He’s been readied for it his whole life. There seems to be a lot of presumption, mainly from Americans (and Australians, strangely), that Charles will somehow be an unpopular king and that he “should” hand the crown over to William. I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think Americans in particular seem to have bought into the crazy notion of Princess Diana as saint, and think the UK view Charles and Camilla as pantomime villains. I didn’t say he wasn’t ready, capable or popular; I said I didn’t think he _wanted_ to be King, in that he prefers the less prominent role he currently occupies. I have no doubt that when the time comes he will step up to the throne without hesitation and reign quietly for the remainder of his life. > [@jtgain](#): > > Interesting. But what does “not retroactive” mean? It means that it doesn’t apply to Princess Anne; only to female children in the line of succession born after a certain date (August 2012 IIRC). So the new law does not jump Anne ahead of her brothers. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/34 "2013-07-26T13:49:31Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Well I understand the popular thought, but the King/Queen is also the head of the Church of England, no? Is it now acceptable for the head of the church to be divorced and remarried? It was acceptable in the 1500’s. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/35 "2013-07-26T13:59:06Z")
> [@Athena](#): > > Presumably Elizabeth would be fine, but if Charles didn’t want to be King, his income would be in jeopardy as there is no accounting for the-guy-who-should-be-King-but-doesn’t-want-to. He/they own property, money, homes, yachts, etc in their own names though, right? I mean, he doesn’t have to go get a _job_ if he abdicates, does he? ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/36 "2013-07-26T14:23:48Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I didn’t say he wasn’t ready, capable or popular; I said I didn’t think he _wanted_ to be King, in that he prefers the less prominent role he currently occupies. I have no doubt that when the time comes he will step up to the throne without hesitation and reign quietly for the remainder of his life. That wasn’t aimed at you. Two separate thoughts kind of got compressed into one. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/37 "2013-07-26T14:23:50Z")
I coulda swore I read, at the time of Charles’ divorce, that the divorce itself disqualified him from kinghood. Must have misremembered. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/38 "2013-07-26T14:27:56Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > CofE: You can marry a same sex partner and have gay orgies in public, but he had better not be CATHOLIC!!! 🙂 Again. No, you can’t. The CofE is still forbidden from recognizing or performing same sex marriages. Please stop repeating incorrect information. > **[Search results | The Church of England](https://www.churchofengland.org/search-results?keys=our%20views%20marriage%20family%20sexuality%20issues%20same%20sex%20marriage%20same%20sex%20marriage%20church%20of%20england%20an%20explanatory%20note%20aspx)** ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/39 "2013-07-26T14:31:47Z")
> [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > I coulda swore I read, at the time of Charles’ divorce, that the divorce itself disqualified him from kinghood. Must have misremembered. I’d understood it as that the divorce isn’t recognized by the (more conservative elements with the) CoE, so as far as they are concerned, Charles and Diana were married until Diana’s death, at which point Charles became a Widower and was free to remarry. If he had married Camilla while Diana was still alive, he would be considered a bigamist, and that was the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Ms\_Boods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@Ms\_Boods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms_Boods)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546/40 "2013-07-26T16:14:12Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > He/they own property, money, homes, yachts, etc in their own names though, right? > I mean, he doesn’t have to go get a _job_ if he abdicates, does he? He could always sell _The Big Issue_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/suppose-prince-charles-doesnt-want-to-be-king-for-long-or-at-all/664546.md?page=3)