If I remember correctly, not really. The bulk of the Monarchy’s funds come from the Sovereign Grant, which comes from the government. In a very simple way, many years ago the monarchy gave a whole pile of their assets to the British government, who then promised to support them from the profits.
There’s also a lot of income that’s tied to titles. If Charles is no longer the Prince of Wales nor is he the King, he’s gonna have to be granted another title or lose the income.
I’m sure someone will be along who can explain it better than I. I’m hardly an expert, and am just remember stuff I read a while ago.
It’s a rather simple assumption, though. Prince Charles Philip Arthur George has the right to take any of his baptismal names as his regnal name, which means he has the options of being;
King Charles III - The last two kings Charles were deposed, and considering the increasing republican sentiment these days it’s probably not the most auspicious name for a new monarch to take.
King Philip - There has never been a Philip who was king of England/the UK, and I don’t see Charles as the type to be the first.
King Arthur - Well, that’s just right out.
King George VII - Nothing wrong with that one that I can see.
There’s a youtube video on the subject. Basically George III traded the profits from the Royal Land (but not the land itself) to parliament for a salary for the rest of his life. The subsequent monarchs have all cut the same deal. If a monarch decided not to follow the tradition, they would have a fuckton of profit-producing land on their hands.
The Statute of Westminster requires that any changes to the succession are void until all the Commonwealth countries (these days all those which retain the Queen as head of State) pass exactly similar legislation. Which they have not yet done. Cameron said it would be retrospective (disgracefully, in my view), though I’m not sure if he understands how this stuff is supposed to work. As the child is male the whole thing is moot for another generation.
As others pointed out, Charles II was not deposed, he died still king. I suppose technically Charles I did too, since he was not so much deposed as decapitated. To remain head of state it helps to have a body attached.
Will is lucky in that unlike Charles, his royal parent waited a while to marry and have kids. Elizabeth was 22 when she had Charles, so assuming the same longevity, he can look forward to, say, 22 years of reignhood. Will OTOH, was born when Charles was 34; and Boy George’s dad Will is 31; so there’s an extra decade of throne room for the next generations.
Males born before October 2011 will still come before their older sisters. A girl born in 2005 will come after her brother born in 2007, but before her brother born in 2012.
(If you want to look at it a different way, pretend that the rules stay the same, but imagine that everybody born after October 2011 is female for the purposes of succession.)
Not necessarily. If Will and Kate have a girl next time, and then a third child is a son, and then Georgie dies tragically (accident, leukaemia, what-you), the issue could still arise.
There is a lot less incentive now to pass it regardless. I suspect they will.
As an aside, there is a bit of a shortage of girls in the Royal Family. You have (by generation) the Queen, the older Royal Duchesses and Princess Alexandra. Camilla and Anne. Sophie. Catherine and Zara. The York Princesses. Lady Louise Windsor.
I suspect that they will have to ask more minor Royals to take up duties. The elder generation is going to soon die or at the best have to reduce or eliminate commitments. I believe that this is the reason poor Zara has been press ganged into under taking Royal duties and I suspect the York Princesses will have to as well.
Here’s where the succession currently stands. I wasn’t aware that the bill gets rid of the prohibition against marrying a Catholic. I assume that since the law passed in the UK, the succession is now gender neutral for the UK if not for all Commonwealth nations.
I suspect that, should Charles wish to retire but not abdicate, a regency could be arranged on the grounds that he was too old to be competent as King. I rather doubt this will happen, though.
I think there’s a possibility, and to be honest it would be my personal preference, but I think George is more likely.
Arthur is simply not going to happen, and Philip is extremely unlikely, due to the far worse history than Charles.
Years ago, when Charles was unpopular due to the rather tacky “Saint Diana” nonsense, I could see a reason not to want to associate with the previous end of the Monarchy, but I don’t think Republicanism is a big issue here these days.
When Charles was born it was know that he would most likely become King someday. His grandfather was King and her Mom was next in line for the throne. Was there talk at the time that Charles was a bad name for the boy?
His grandfather wasn’t ruling under his first name, so it probably wasn’t an issue. I’m not old enough to remember his birth, but I’ve never heard of any issues with it.
It passed in the UK, but it hasn’t come into force yet. The intention is that it won’t happen until all the countries pass their local versions if necessary (legislation isn’t necessary in a couple, Tuvalu and Papua New Guinea I think). Any hurdles are about procedural issues, not overcoming opposition. And it’s really not the most salient issue, so if it’s going to take effort, it’s not something a government is going to make its top concern.
I seem to remember reading long ago, that Charles rather liked the idea of reigning under the name of Arthur – harbouring notions maybe, of bringing ancient legend to pass (King Arthur will return when Britain is in dire need and peril). Have no doubt, though, that those appropriate among his subjects, would have informed him forcibly that the name Arthur was “not on”.