Will Charles be the end of the Monarchy?

As someone who is in complete agreement with you in criticising his obsession with some bad science, I am untroubled.

A minister who agrees with HRH in, say, expanding homeopathy was always in agreement to begin with, or too dense to verify HRH’s claims. The only weapon in HRH’s arsenal is argument and persuasion - he has no ability to bribe, cannot threaten with dismissal or punishment, and leaking would be traced straight back to him.

As Little Nemo says, it’s easier simply to ignore him, and responsibility for any change in policy due to HRH’s quiet words with ministers is rightfully directed to the minister who was persuaded, who ought to be bright enough to make up their own mind.

Oh, and it would be quite easy for anyone in the NHS to criticise homeopathy policy when he is King. I don’t know why you would think otherwise.

Correct. It would take an Act of Parliament, after consultation with the Commonwealth realms. When Her Majesty and Charles are gone, William by law is king. Only Parliament can change that.

Look if the first two Charlies could not cause the monarchy to end permanently, I doubt HRH will.

Whilst any monarch can abdicate, and a head to head conflict with the parliament and the monarch will force the monarch to abdicate, the succession is a totally different thing. The succession, and the role of the monarch can only be changed with considerable effort. The colonies tend to have something to say about this as well. In principle the UK could become a republic, but few imagine this will happen in any sort of foreseeable future. If ever.

A core plot element of the original (UK) House of Cards series (Series 2, called perfectly - To Play the King) was such a conflict that was engineered to force Charles out and to install a young William.

Replacing the monarchy as an institution would be a long and complex legal business - there are no end of semi-forgotten legal implications that would keep parliament busy for far too long when all likely governments would have much more they would consider much more important. I suspect at least some of the governments in other Commonwealth realms would much rather not have to revive their own debates on the issue.

There is a reason for the old saying “The King is dead - long live the King”.

It can be done, though. There are in fact more countries of which the present British Queen used to be monarch - countries which were Commonwealth realms but are now republics - than there are countries of which she is still Queen. Each of those countries has completed the legal process you outline, so the UK could do it to.

Of course, they’d have to be be motivated to do it, and at the moment that doesn’t seem very likely. But radical political/constitutional change often seems very unlikely until it seems likely.

I don’t think they’d have to revive their debates on the issue. It’s inconceivable that any of them would retain a monarchical system with a Windsor at the top if the UK were to become a republic.

I’m just a 'Merkin spectator but I think your statement here is far too glib.

We recently had a detailed thread on the issues posed for Canada by the idea of republicanism. It’s not a change they’d undertake lightly. The Windsors no longer being monarch of the UK would not necessarily lead to any change in Canada. And even if it did so, the process of deciding what to do instead would be both large and long. Perhaps decades long.

The Aussies chimed in with the same story. Even if they’re not all head-over-heels for the status quo, the process of deciding what to do instead is very daunting. The power of inertia is huge, and generally to good effect, in government.

A lesson somewhere between half and 2/3rds of Americans are just now learning about. Excessively rapid change is inherently dangerous and inherently harmful.

See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=814722 starting at post #66.

I’m always a little surprised when people toss around the idea of the crown going to William, or whether Charles will be King, or end the Monarchy, as these ideas seem highly unlikely to me.

It seems to me that, as expensive as it is to maintain them, they add a lot of cache to England’s position it the world. The pomp of their events draw thousands of tourists and literally a world of viewers, every time.

Why wouldn’t they crown Charles? He’s waited his whole life, literally. It’s his birthright, and tradition is everything to Liz. Plus he’s made sacrifices, including being forced into an unloving marriage possibly. A coronation will surely draw world leaders and attention etc.

I doubt he’ll remain long on the thrown, just long enough for William to raise his family a little longer, then…another coronation! More pomp, ceremony, world leaders, tourists, and world attention. And then a very popular King William steps up to lead the Monarchy into a new era. Out with the old and in with the new.

Charles gets his moment, is on the list as a King, the world gets tons of spectacle and Britain lots of positive attention. I really can’t see them going any other way, to be honest.

I already referred to Professor Edzard Ernst, who essentially was forced out of his job as chair of complementary medicine at Exeter University for criticizing Prince Charles.

Is his story supposed to make other academics and people in responsible positions at the NHS feel comfortable denouncing Charles’ promotion of health quackery, once he’s King and has even more prestige (and buddies in high places)?

A lot of people think current public support for the monarchy is tied to the Queen’s long reign. No doubt Charles will be crowned, but it will be interesting to see what happens to public support for the monarchy.

Charles III (unless he takes the name George VII) will not be the end of the monarchy. Charles I, yes temporarily.

Was Ernst in trouble for criticizing Prince Charles, or for breaching a confidentiality agreement he himself had signed in order to criticize the prince?

Charles has come in for much criticism over his views on homeopathy and other “alternative” treatments, but Ernst didn’t exactly emerge from the Smallwood affair smelling like roses. (And the affair erupted in 2005, while Ernst retired in 2011.)

Precedent was established in 1651 and reinforced in 1688.

I’ve said it before here but I hope and expect that Charles will not stay King for very long. He’s just not the right man for the job. The PM of the day will likely have a quiet word with him on his accession and he will abdicate in favour of William as his first and only act as King.

That would be quite funny Just think of all the tedious funeral fuss followed by equally tedious coronation fuss, then with scarcely a moment to draw breath and be able to read news again, surprise! Another blooming coronation.

It would be a a lovely happy time for trashy papers and magazines, though. And for the manufacturers of horrible little ornaments and commemorative plates.

If it takes acts of a bunch of parliaments to give effect to an abdication, he would quite possibly have to be king for at least a month or two. There’s a good chance that, at any given time, one of the parliaments will be dissolved and simply not able to be recalled.

A king doesn’t have to be crowned to expertise the powers of the office.

Edward VIII was never crowned, but he gave Royal Assent to his own Act of Abdication.

True. But that’s not to say all their politicians would be happy to have to face a question they’ve previously found difficult (Australia voted not to change, not so much because they were so devoted to the monarchy, but because they didn’t like the politicians’ alternative - ams Canada has its own complications). There are almost always more important issues to hand.

Twaddle.

If there’s an abdication to allow someone else to succeed, then following the 1936 precedent, once the decision is made and formally announced, an abdication act would go through Parliament in a day, and everything would proceed as before with a new face.

If the entire family announces it’s had enough, they’re all going on an extended holiday and it’s up to Parliament, then the political process of deciding on the form of a replacement would take who knows how long, and then disentangling all the legal implications could tie parliament up for quite some time, even if they simply transferred everything to the replacement President and then reviewed/replaced previous provisions as they came up.

And why would parliament be dissolved without a new election? The monarch can’t do it on their own initiative, if that’s what you had in mind, and since the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, neither can the PM.