Occasionally I read on the Intertubes, stated as an everybody-knows thing, that Queen Elizabeth II does not want Prince Charles ever to be King, that she is determined to outlive him if she can and would cut him out of the line-of-succession if she could, let the crown pass straight to Prince William. Is that true? Is it just because his marital history has caused her so much stress and embarrassment, or is there more to it? I know a lot of Brits seem to regard Charles as a bit . . . goofy (or, in British-gentry terms, eccentric); I don’t know whether his mother shares that opinion.
While no one can be sure, I have never heard anything to suggest that is remotely true.
There are lots of British people who would rather the throne passed straight to William, for a variety of reasons (amongst the stupid those reasons tend to be Diana related, amongst the less stupid they tend to be because of him interfering in government policy and/or saying sometimes silly things about alternative medicine, agriculture, and architecture).
They seem to get on very well to me. I think on balance he will be an excellent king indeed. But I can understand why some may not want a chap who is in on record as wanting to be a tampon, who talks to his plants, sends odd letters to civil servants that have had to be specially exempted from freedom of information laws, and has big ears from being in charge of what is still a reasonably important country.
As I understand it, his being King of Canada would be pretty much symbolic these days. 
[QUOTE=Simple Linctus;15881820But I can understand why some may not want a chap … sends odd letters to civil servants that have had to be specially exempted from freedom of information laws…[/QUOTE]
Ooh, say more. I’m all ears.
I’ve never heard that the Queen doesn’t get along with Charles or wants to cut him out of the line of succession. I’ve heard rumors that Charles himself may not be particularly interested in being King, but I doubt he feels strongly enough about it to actually abdicate in favor of his son. He won’t have to be King for very long anyway.
Charles, if and when he does become king, will be the oldest person ever crowned as a British monarch. A lot of shallow people probably want the crown to pass directly to William, because he and Katherine would be a lot more photogenic at the coronation.
I’m trying to figure out though, if the Queen died now, while Phillip is still alive, Charles would be a king of England with a living father. Is that unprecedented in the history of the British monarchy? I mean, before a woman was ever crowned(Queen Mary, daughter of Henry VIII) a guy got the job because his father was already dead.
While not the king of England yet, James I (VI in Scotland) became the king of Scotland while his father was still alive. His father was murdered a couple months later at the age of 21.
I’m pretty sure that Phillip isn’t in the line of succession, and that state of affairs was part of the arrangement allowing him to marry Lizzie, so it won’t matter if Charles is king while Phil is still rattling around the palace.
Is there an acceptable mechanism for Lizzie to step down so that the crown can pass to whomever? Or is it traditionally a “from my cold, grey locks” type deal?
I hadn’t heard that Charles doesn’t want to be King: quite the opposite, in fact. I’ve heard that he gets quite heated on the topic of letting the crown skip him for William’s sake, and won’t entertain the discussion anymore.
The vast majority of human beings do not wish to die any earlier than they are compelled to, regardless of whether they are the Queen of England or not. The image of Elizabeth continuing to live just to spite her son is amusing.
He will if he takes after his mother and maternal grandmother in longevity.
Depends what you mean by “acceptable”. She can legally and constitutionally abdicate, like her uncle Edward VIII did. But no monarch in British history ever has abdicated simply to retire. Even George III stayed on the throne for life (of course, by the time it became apparent that abdication might be a good idea in his case, he was too insane to form the intent).
As for “whomever,” the crown passes by operation of law. If she wanted to cut Charles out of the succession, she could not do that on her own authority, that would take an Act of Parliament.
When Elizabeth’s uncle abdicated, it was the first time a British monarch had voluntarily surrendered the throne. Retirement isn’t part of the monarch’s employment package. If Elizabeth becomes unable to fulfill her duties a regent could be appointed, and it would probably be Charles.
Charles is probably irritable about speculation of skipping him because that’s not how it works. He’s the heir apparent; he inherits. The monarch isn’t selected by popular choice. Speculation about skipping him because William is more popular must be annoying on so many levels.
Personally, I’d skip him because coronations are expensive. As you point out, though, the whole “will of the people” thing is incompatible with a hereditary office.
Charles has said he isn’t in a rush to become king because doing so requires that his mother has died. This implies that he has some affection, even love, for the old lady. Elizabeth II seems to care about all her children, don’t see why Charles would be an exception.
Elizabeth shows every intention of holding the crown until she dies, just like every other reigning Queen of England has ever done. Given the longevity of some close relatives she may well reach triple digits before that happens. Charles might yet outlive her, but odds are good that William will inherit before he reaches old age. I don’t think William is in any great hurry for that, either, given that would require both his grandmother and father to die.
They may be royals, but they’re still a family. While interfamily fueds can become lethal (especially among royalty) it also happens that royals may also have normal bonds of affection between themselves, especially these days where there is less incentive to murder the competition.
I don’t think Parliament ever changed the line of succession to remove Philip’s tiny chances (he’s somewhere around 600 right now).
The process used for the last abdication could theoretically have given the crown to anybody or established a republic. It was done by an act of Parliament, and Parliament is supreme, so pretty much everything is acceptable at that point.
Eustace and Henry the Young King, sort of. King Stephen (Eustace’s father) and Henry II (Young Henry’s father) both wanted to secure their son’s succession so they each named their oldest son as co-ruler while they were still alive. Eustace was never officially coronated but Henry was. But both sons died while their fathers were still alive so neither ruled as sole king.
There was also Louis of France. His father, King Philip II of France, was still alive when Louis made a claim to the English throne when a bunch of barons were rebelling against King John. He was able to conquer half of England and many people recognized him as the King of England instead of John. But eventually he lost his support and returned to France where he became King when his father died.
And Philip, the husband of Mary I (and son of the then-living Emperor Charles V), was officially recognized as having the same titles as she did as long as they were married. And there were Acts of Parliament that named them as King and Queen.
But in this case, the will of the people seems to be they want a hereditary Head of State.
Wow, tbh when I said the tampon thing I figured that wouldbe the thing people would pick up on. Perhaps it’s more well known than I thought.
I should imagine you can start here: The Prince Charles letters cover-up only makes his views seem weirder | Joan Smith | The Guardian
We* have a pretty cool attorney general at the moment who is prepared to do controversial things by the way.
*I say we when I mean Britain, but as I think I have mentioned I am actually on the Isle of Man. On the Isle of Man we actually have no attorney general at present because the current one is under investigation for being corrupt, but that is par for the course in IOM government so meh.
Investigators uncovered his malfeasance when they put a tail on him.
Isn’t it worth it?! Such a distinctly British national pageant! Only happens once or twice in a lifetime! And the only time ever the Peers of the Realm get to wear their robes and coronets in public – they’re not even guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords any more! The royal coronation is all they’ve got left!