Sure, it’s really no big deal. It does rather colour the impression of the person who uses it though, particularly if they demonstrably know better.
It’s the same kind of tiresome officiousness involved with people hopping up with index fingers raised whenever some says “chief justice of the Supreme Court” instead of “chief justice of the United States.” It’s not the official title but it’s perfectly accurate in a descriptive sense, it was the official title in the past, and it’s so common that it’s time to get over it.
And people reaching such pointless, shallow, and unnecessary judgments are even more justifiably subject to judgment.
It has nothing to do with Charles, she was asked this right after Charles and Diana got married and stirred a bit of flack when she answered, “Will you abdicate” with “No, this isn’t the Netherlands” (Their royalty does abdicate in favour of their children, at least recently)
[Moderator Note]
Let’s stop the bickering and drop the hijack. Take it to GD or the Pit (although this is certainly not a “great” debate). No warnings issued.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Isn’t Queen Beatrix considering reverting to the earlier tradion of reigning until she dies? She is more of a traditionalist than her mother & isn’t she also older than Juliana was when she abdicated?
Really? I’ve never read before that Queen Elizabeth II said that. Seems uncharacteristically rude towards a fellow monarch. Cite, please?
Can somehow clarify exactly how Charles could avoid becoming King in favor of his son, if he were so inclined? It seems to me that if he abdicated, that it would prevent his sons from inheriting, since their father would no longer be royal. Perhaps the only way for Charles to pass the monarchy to his son without becoming King is to predecease the Queen.
I don’t think this is true. William’s status comes from his relationship to the queen (and to the Electress Sophia of Hanover), which will remain the same regardless of Charles’s status.
I believe George III was popular in England. George IV was unpopular, but labeling him a “lecherous slime” seems to be based on rumour rather than facts.
And this part is untrue as well. If he’s a royal now, why wouldn’t he still be a royal after abdication? Edward VIII was still a royal, meaning “member of the royal family.”
And only a small number of people are considered to be “royals.” Many many more than that are “in line” for the throne.
If Charles seriously wanted to do this, he would tell his mother and her prime ministers. If they did not talk him out of the idea (as they might want to), the PMs’ advisors in the several realms could suggest how to do it. If necessary, special legislation could be passed in each parliament taking Charles out of the line of succession, but leaving William and Harry in it.
Special points:
(1) Legislation would be needed in each of the realms in which HM is the monarch – not just in the U.K. Parliament.
(2) Charles would also probably lose the titles of Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay – the legislation in the U.K. would probably pass them on to Prince William. Unless a new title were created for him, he would be just Prince Charles, with the courtesy title of Earl of Merioneth (coming from his father).
Alternatively, Charles could abdicate after becoming the monarch. That might make things simpler. 
Though on the other hand “Queen Matilda”/the Empress Matilda (a title she had from her first marraiage to a Holy Roman Emperor) does not generally appear in lists of rulers of England despite being in control of the country for a short time. On eof the main reasons for this is that she was not crowned.
Lady Jane Grey (the “Nine days queen”) is listed as a bona fide queen in some lists, but not in others. She was never crowned.
He could convert to catholicism. That would exclude him from becoming King, but not his descendants.
Apparently, some people think he already has become a Catholic.
Not really, abdication still requires an act of parliament in each realm where he’s king.
This issue was discussed before. Somebody quoted the relevant Canadian law which said that Canada’s head of state is the Monarch of the United Kingdom. So if Charles were to abdicate in the UK he would automatically be abdicating in Canada as well. Probably some of the other realms have similar laws.
If the Crowns are legally separate, then ideally, whatever the UK does would have no bearing on the Canadian succession, except as Canadian law provides. Thus, if Canadian law says the UK succession holds for Canada, then that’s the Canadian succession.
The default seems to be that the UK succession holds for all of the other Crowns unless they decide differently. I’m aware that changes to the UK succession require the consent of all the Commonwealth Realms (and if a Realm does not agree with the succession, it may opt out of the Monarchy entirely), so that the ideal situation I describe above does not actually hold… but it should. If the Crowns are legally separate, then the successions should be legally separate as well.
As I understand it, as a matter of UK law an abdication by the monarch requires an Act of Parliament to make it effective - the Act of Settlement, which determines the devolution of the UK crown, makes no provision for abdication so if a monarch does abdicate, a supplementary Act is required to give effect to that.
And the UK parliament has bound itself, in the Statute of Westminster, not to legislate about the devolution of the crown without the consent of the Parliaments of the other Commonwealth realms.
Thus an abdication requires parliamentary action in every Commonwealth realm.
Well… yes, in the case of Edward VIII, there was an Abdication Act, to which Edward VIII consented. So that’s one precedent.
However, in the case of James II, there was no Abdication Act. Rather, he left the Kingdom, and a Convention was called by William, his nephew, which declared that upon James’ fleeing the kingdom, the throne became vacant. Therefore, the Convention offered the throne to William and Mary, on conditions, which they accepted, and became joint rulers. So in that case, there was never any Act of Parliament which declared the abdication.
And think about it - what if, upon becoming King, Charles just drew up a formal Declaration of Abdication, modelled on the one signed by his great-uncle Edward, signed it with all sorts of pomp and ceremony and witnesses, sent it to the PM and said, “That’s it, I’m done, I’m going off to eco-farm. Will’s got it.”
And if the lawyers came back and said, “But there has to be an Act of Abdication, to which King Charles must consent,” and Her Majesty’s Gov’t said, “Right ho,” and the two houses passed the Act and presented it to Charles for his assent, and he looks at them and says, “Sod off. I’m not King. I have no power to give Royal Assent.” What happens then?
I think that while an Act of Abdication is nice and proper, it’s hard to get around the case of a monarch who abdicates unilaterally and then refuses to execute any kingly duties.
Here’s the paragraph from the Preamble to the English Bill of Rights of 1689:
So in this precedent, no Act of Abdication was required, only the actions of the absconding King James.