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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
I seem to recall that there’s a financial aspect to it as well; in Elizabeth the Queen (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.
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.
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.
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.
