Well, the Queen is getting on and we have to start thinking about these things.
Will he be a goodly King of the Realm?
You’re going to kick yourself when you re-read the title.
It’s hard to tell what kind of King Prince Charles will make. I have mixed feelings about him already. Probably influenced by the recent revealing Paul Burrel docu-thingy on tv which portrays him as cruel and impatient.
My WAG is that he will be a pompous and circumstantial king, trotted out for occasions when pomp and circumstance is called for. Much like the job his mom does.
Charles will never be king, his mum will outlive him.
It’ll go straight to William. Harry will become King of People’s Hearts though. In the end the monarchy will end as a live Richard and Judy interview with the whole family disintegrates into a screaming match between James Hewitt and Camilla. An attempt at a comeback in 2021 - via a reality tv version of the monarchy - will result in their becoming hugely successful in Japan.
My thoughts were that the monarchy in Britain had largely become ceremonial in role by this point… do they have any influence on the government whatsoever to this date?
Charles’s hasn’t seemed like that bad a guy. I doubt he’ll be a great and glorious king, but I think he might make a decent one.
Her Majesty comes from lines of long-lived females: Victoria, Alice, Elizabeth the Queen Mother… so I expect to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee in due course. Hopefully, Charles will not become King; I simply don’t think he’s got the right character. It’s too early to say whether William is fit.
Character’s got nothing to do with it; when his mother dies, Charles becomes King Charles III. End of story. Lots of Kings haven’t had the right character, in the eys of many observers. George VI wasn’t even prepared to be King but he turned out okay.
As to the OP; s short-reigning one. If he does outlive his mother, odds are it won’t be for long.
When (if) Charles succeeds to the throne he’ll be King of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other countries too.
Anyway, I think he’ll be fine and will do all of the required UK constitutional stuff well. He’s certainly had an excellent role model in his mother and plenty of time to learn the ropes.
Hell, Chuckie’s getting on in years too. I say pass the reins (reigns) straight to Will.
Not going to happen. Even if Charles wanted it to happen, it wouldn’t.
Firstly, by the Act of Settlement of 1701, Charles will become King the instant his mother dies.
Even if Charles wants to abdicate in favor of William, that path is not so clear either. The only historical precedent we have of a living British monarch willingly abdicating the throne is Edward VIII in 1936. However, as part of the Act of Abdication, it was stated that not only was Edward no longer eligible for the crown, but his descendants (which, in the end he never had - but that was unknowable in 1936) would also be ineligible. If the same route is followed, then Charles would be out as well as his sons, thus handing the throne to his brother.
Zev Steinhardt
Actually, now that I think about it, there are three ways that Charles could legally end up not being the king and still alive. None of the three are likely, however.
(1) Charles could become a Catholic. Catholics are excluded from the succession by the Act of Settlement of 1701. If he becomes a Catholic, then his place in the Line of Succession becomes forfeit and William becomes the next in line for the throne.
(2) Charles marries a Catholic. Likewise, a person who marries a Catholic gives up his place in line.
(3) Parliament could change the Act of Settlement to exclude him. This is not likely to happen.
Other than those three methods, I can’t think of any other way that Charles (if alive, of course) does not become King at the moment that Elizabeth II dies.
Zev Steinhardt
In the event of an abdication, surely the succession to the crown would depend upon the wording of the actual legislation effecting the abdication? Section 1 of *His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act * 1936 states that the crown would pass to the next in the line of succession:
- Immediately upon the Royal Assent being signified to this Act the Instrument of Abdication executed by His present Majesty on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall have effect, and therupon His Majesty shall cease to be King and there shall be a demise of the Crown, and accordingly the member of the Royal Family then next in succession to the Throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges, and dignities thereunto belonging.
Section 2 did bar any of Edward VIII’s issue, but presumably such a section need not be included in the legislation in the event of Charles’ hypothetical abdication.
- His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne, and section one of the Act of Settlement shall be construed accordingly.
Er… we’ll have a Prime Minister and a Governor General who represents the King, but we sure as heck won’t have a King–that pesky guy stopped leaving us alone about 1867.
You’re kidding, right? Holy shit.
We (Canada) have a Queen now, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. We have had either a King or a Queen ever since 1867. Who do you think the Governor General represents? You may have also noticed that the Queen, not Adrienne Clarkson, is on our money. The D.G. REGINA on your coins means “by the Grace of God, Queen.” They don’t mean the Queen that Freddie Mercury sang for. They mean the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II.
If you don’t believe me, check out the government’s website. On thsi page describing the government of Canada, guess whose name is at the top?
http://canada.gc.ca/howgoc/glance_e.html
Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada. And when she dies, our head of state and monarch will be King Charles III.
Isn’t there debate going on in England over doing away with the Monarchy?
Actually, he’s indicated he’s probably going to take the name George VII. Otherwise, great post. We inveterate governmental quibblers must stick together 
Kyth, check out http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Canada for detailed info.
BTW, did you know that Canada has had one of the longest uninterrupted periods of monarchical reign of all? We’ve been under one king or another ever since New France was established. (After all, we skipped the Cromwellian period by being French, and the French Revolution by being British.)
Charles has also indicated that when he comes to the throne, the royal assent to legislation may no longer be a matter of formality. This would be a radical shift from his mothers position, who sees herself to have no role in legislation except the formal. Charles wants the King-In-Parliament to have actual meaning again.
Charles will be fine if he can get used to keeping his mouth shut.
He’s had a long period of relatively free speech and has been able to give his somewhat eccentric take on several big issues (Architecture, GM food, Nano Bots (which seem to particularly get his goat) etc).
He won’t have this freedom as King. But if he says the right lines and doesn’t walk into the furniture (or marry any other sloane slappers) he should be OK.