# Why don't Brits want King Charles III (or will it be King George VII?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326 "2010-11-29T21:25:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/21 "2010-11-30T00:44:11Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Commoners who marry royalty or peers of the realm are officially referred to as \ \. So for example [Princess Michael of Kent](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_michael_of_kent). Do they still do this when the Prince in question has been granted a peerage in his own right? For instance, Edward is now the Earl of Wessex, and is expected to become Duke of Edinburgh after Prince Philip dies. So his wife is Lady Wessex or the Countess of Wessex. Generally the commoner wife of (a) an actual Peer or (b) or his eldest son, or (c) that individual’s eldest son\* uses the feminine version of her husband’s rank, and his title (the name he uses after “Lord” or “Duke of”). Presumably this extends to great-grandsons as well, as long as the supply of titles doesn’t give out. In the case of (b) or (c), and so on, husband and wife are both commoners; the titles are just a courtesy. They can run for election to the House of Commons and do anything else that commoners are allowed to do. OTOH, in the case of younger sons using the honorific Lord John Smith, their wives do become Lady John Smith, and I assume the usage you describe for younger Princes works the same way, absent any Peerages they may have been given in their own right. > [@](#): > > Diana was the daughter of the Earl of Spencer. Before he inherited the title, he, as the heir to the Earldom, used a lesser title, Viscount Althorpe. Viscounts aren’t really peers and their children are styled as “the Honorable”. Certainly Viscounts in their own right are Peers. Anyone from a Baron on up is a Peer, and Viscount is the next rank up from Baron. Be that as it may, I’m not sure any actual Viscounts exist; I recall reading somewhere that at present, all Viscountships are held by higher ranking Peers, with the title of Viscount being used as courtesy titles by their eldest male line descendants. Technically speaking, therefore, these Viscounts are indeed not Peers. (Yeesh, why do I know this stuff??) > [@](#): > > I’m not a particular royal watcher. I’m just a huge fan of the Lord Peter Wimsey series. (Peter was second son of a Duke, hence the courtesy honorific Lord Peter, and married a straight up commoner, Harriet, who was called Lady Peter, formally. Eventually, the young heir to the Dukedom, Viscount St. George, was killed in WW2 and Peter became the heir and eventually 14th Duke. That last bit mostly happened after the original stories ended though.) I’m not either, but I’ve picked up nearly all of this information from P.G. Wodehouse stories, which AFAIK describe the styles and usages accurately, with the caveat that things are probably less formal now; for example today a friend of Clarence, the Earl of Emsworth, might well call him Clarence, while in the Wodehouse stories that was done only by his brothers and sisters. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/22 "2010-11-30T00:49:00Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Things like talking to plants, an air of unworldliness, having a servant squeeze his toothpaste, the whole Diana thing… . . . lineal descent from George III . . . ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/23 "2010-11-30T01:12:43Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > No, the only person ahead of Prince William _is Prince Charles_. For Prince Charles to step aside one of two things must happen (& both are without precedent in British history). He needs convert to Roman Catholicism (or divorce Camilla to marry a Catholic). Or he needs to convince the British Parliament (& the Parliaments of the 16 other Commonwealth Realms) to pass a special act excluding him from the succession and excluding any _future_ children he might have. Constitutionally it would be like he died, William and Harry would remain in line for the throne (actually everyone would one step up). > > Charles would have to lose all the special titles he has as the Queen’s eldest son and heir apparent; Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall (& with it the income from the Duchy of Cornwall), Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. He’d keep his knighthoods and military ranks. His formal style would be “HRH the Prince Charles” like a younger son of a monarch. Camilla would become “HRH the Princess Charles”. He’d still become Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies. Prince William would become the new heir apparent and the Queen could make him Prince of Wales, but all the other titles would stay in abeyance until William ascended the throne and his eldest son get’s them automatically. > > None of this will ever happen in real life. > [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > How could that be possible? Googling reveals that there’s talk of removing the ban on Catholic spouses, but how would that affect Princes William’s and Harry’s places in the line of succession? And with regard to gender, even if they removed the specification of a male heir, Charles is still the oldest child of the present monarch. > > Centuries ago a Peer could be broken down to commoner for treason, or for not having sufficient wealth to maintain the expected lifestyle. While that obviously prevented his descendants from inheriting a title, that was more because the title ceased to exist. To address both, that is why I said I would let someone else that had a clue answer. I was under the impression though if Charles stepped aside his brother might be next in line rather than his son. I’m not sure where I got that idea. On the other part, Charles can take the Kingship and abdicate but he cannot just take a pass? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/24 "2010-11-30T01:19:47Z")
No he can’t. He can’t give up something until it’s his to give up. ---
**Author:** ![Gotterfunken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/58956e/32.png) [@Gotterfunken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gotterfunken)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/25 "2010-11-30T02:17:01Z")
If it’s determined that Charles is mentally incompetent (heh), then William could step in to rule as regent. That’s what happened when George III went bonkers, and his eldest son (the future George IV) ruled as the Prince Regent. In such a situation, however, Charles would still technically be king, just as George III was until his death. In answer to the OP, Charles just isn’t all that charismatic so it’s hard to warm up to him. But that’s never stopped any other heirs from ascending the throne in the past, so the question of him abdicating (even if that was a viable option) is a moot point, really. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/26 "2010-11-30T02:35:41Z")
Perhaps Charles could step up and be the nominal King, but his sons could take on all the regal duties, or most of them. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/27 "2010-11-30T02:41:00Z")
If he becomes too old or infirm to carry out those duties then certainly something like that would happen. That’s what regency is. However, unless Charles triggers a constitutional crisis by being unwilling or unable to fulfill his duties, it’s just not going to happen. If he outlasts his mother, he will be king and remain so until his death. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/28 "2010-11-30T03:07:08Z")
I heard (on the Dope?) he was likely to become George VII, if only because Charleses I and II were both less than popular. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/29 "2010-11-30T03:23:18Z")
I see some value in a ceremonial head of state separated from the regular partisan political process. However as an American and a staunch republican (little “r” in this case) I have no personal use for monarchs or nobility. They’re interesting from afar, and as someone who loves history obviously the lives and exploits of monarchs back when they actually ruled is of interest to me. In the modern world I think they’re an anachronism kept around mostly because of the innate conservative nature of the countries that keep them. The British political system is more bogged down with tradition than most. (When I use conservative I’m saying it solely in the context of being change-averse.) From what I can tell the _personal_ holdings (separate from their holdings that are considered public assets) of most modern monarchs would remove them from any possibility of working at Wal-Mart or McDonald’s if their thrones were taken away. **If** I lived in a system in which we had a ceremonial head of state, I’d probably like it to be some sort of position that was elected by the legislature (maybe by the Senate) and I’d like it to normally go toward older politicians who are essentially in retirement. (Maybe even attach a stipulation that anyone appointed to the position may never run for any other Federal-level elected office again.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/30 "2010-11-30T03:28:21Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > I heard (on the Dope?) he was likely to become George VII, if only because Charleses I and II were both less than popular. But, all the Georges have been Hanoverians/Saxe-Coburgs/Windsors. “Charles III” would express continuity with the pre-Hanoverian monarchy. And Charles II was one kewl dood! 🆒 (I mean, you know, for a king.) Or maybe I’m taking too much from [_Restoration_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_%28film%29) as historical. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/31 "2010-11-30T04:11:29Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Things like talking to plants, an air of unworldliness, having a servant squeeze his toothpaste, the whole Diana thing… > > Basically, he’s a flawed character. > > I’ll also note that recently the good monarchs have started young - Victoria, Elizabeth, George VI. Edward VII is a good example of a bad old monarch. I’ll admit that Edward VIII was rather a disaster too, but he did the Right Thing by abdicating. How was Edward VII a bad King? He was considered to be an excellent diplomat and was rather popular with his subjects. As a private person, he may have left something to be desired, but he was hardly a bad monarch. And George VI wasn’t all THAT young – he was forty-one years old when he became king. Victoria was 18, and Elizabeth II was 26. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/32 "2010-11-30T05:16:43Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Exactly. I personally feel on the strength of our SDMB acquaintance that no such circumstance could make you a lesser person - nor indeed could any other. I’m not sure where this is coming from, but I don’t really see any way of reading it other than as a personal insult. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/33 "2010-11-30T05:19:01Z")
> [@SeldomSeen](#): > > Not you personally. Should have said _ **a** _ lesser people. It’s difficult to put in quantifiable terms, but I think England wouldn’t be…well,.._England_ without the iconic Royals to define them as a nation. And yes, that includes all their foibles follies and personal failings. Just as the USA would be something different if we had devolved into a loose confederation of city-states and fiefdoms instead of a unified nation with a national congress and president at the helm. I know, some would prefer that model. I don’t think it would be a very good thing. Well I’d think it a good thing were all vestiges of privilege by blood to be removed. A weakening of the class structure wouldn’t be a bad thing. And the monarchy, even as a figure head, has lead to unpleasant, anti-democratic consequences. ---
**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:** [November 30, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/34 "2010-11-30T05:20:37Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > After her father inherited the Earldom, he stopped using the Viscount title since it’s a lesser title. Eventually, it went to his heir, Diana’s brother. Earl’s are peers, but their children are not. Their children are called Lord and Lady \ but that’s is mostly just courtesy and tradition. Younger sons of Earls are just “the Hon. \ \”. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/35 "2010-11-30T07:02:19Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I’m not sure where this is coming from, but I don’t really see any way of reading it other than as a personal insult. Apologies. It was meant as a joke insult, not a serious one, but if it’s not funny then the fault is mine. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/36 "2010-11-30T07:20:11Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Apologies. It was meant as a joke insult, not a serious one, but if it’s not funny then the fault is mine. No - my bad. I’m feeling a little cranky at the moment so was willing to assume the worst. It was funny. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/37 "2010-11-30T09:40:49Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > How was Edward VII a bad King? He was considered to be an excellent diplomat and was rather popular with his subjects. As a private person, he may have left something to be desired, but he was hardly a bad monarch. Well, his method of dealing with the constitutional showdown over the Lords rejecting the “People’s Budget” of 1909 was to die and leave then mess for his son to take care of. It was a pretty dicey time in British politics, and he just totally stopped dealing with it halfway through. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/38 "2010-11-30T10:06:59Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Well I’d think it a good thing were all vestiges of privilege by blood to be removed. A weakening of the class structure wouldn’t be a bad thing. And the monarchy, even as a figure head, has lead to unpleasant, anti-democratic consequences. I disagree. I’m no monarchist, I don’t really have any strong feelings either way about the actual people themselves. What I do think is that the current incarnation of the monarchy (ie figure head, no significant governing role) is actually _healthy_ for our democracy. Separating the head of state from political office allows us to “treat our political leaders like the disposable bureaucrats that they really are.” (to quote John Oliver). We are a lot less reverent to our Prime Minister than Americans are to their President for this reason and I think it’s better that way. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/39 "2010-11-30T10:43:30Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I know it’s not because of the current Duchess of Cornwall (even though it didn’t help) but I’ve been hearing of Charles, Prince of Wales should give up the throne for as long as I can remember. Here in the colonies, I don’t remember any really idiotic things he’s done so why are so many Brits against him being King? Cite please? The last poll of opinion put Charles 10 points ahead of his son. ---
**Author:** ![Cumbrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce7236/32.png) [@Cumbrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumbrian)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/40 "2010-11-30T10:49:28Z")
On the OP: I have a very simple reason why I don’t want Charles to be King. He frequently meddles in politics. Type Prince Charles interference into Google and you get sources such as The New York Times and The Guardian pointing out instances of when he has tried to use his status to influence political matters. Type The Queen interference into Google and you get web pages talking about Chess strategy and a UK republican site complaining that Charles hasn’t learned anything from his mother with respect to staying above/out of politics. I don’t want him to be King and start throwing his weight around politically; given his past behaviour, I don’t think he can be trusted to leave the running of the country to politicians and those who elect them. If we wanted an explicitly political head of state, we’d be a republic. Until Charles learns to behave I don’t want him to be King - I, frankly, hope The Queen has similar thoughts and is planning to hang on until she dies - or hopefully he dies before she does. Of course, we can’t be certain that William would be any better at this point either but one lives in hope. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326.md?page=3)