The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[wyevale]

Is there even a mechanism for someone in the line of succession to remove themselves

Easy-peasy.. convert to Catholicism...

 

[Skippyboo]

I've allowed myself to number your questions.

1 - He would be behind William and Harry.
2 - No need to. He's done nothing wrong. On the contrary he may be praised for being unselfish.
3 - Absolutely.
4 - He would retain a court, but much smaller and ever decreasing as he gets older and less able to work.
5 - Would be less.
6 - I think the BRF can find a spare palace somewhere.
7 - Prince Charles, Duke of something.
8 - Are they that significant anyway?
9 - To an extent it already is. A monarchy that is not relevant to the people loose "likes" so to speak. That goes for the individual members as well.

Answer 1 - Harry isn't in front of George and Charlotte. So you want an abdicated Charles behind George and Charlotte and then Harry ?

The Queen Mother as a Dowager Queen Consort was only behind the Queen and Philip ahead of Charles. Precedence is determined by the Monarch.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Lots of discussion about Charles not becoming the next king - through choice or via abdication or whatever, but what would happen to him?

1. What about his place in the family?
2. Would he have to go into exile, like D of Windsor?
3. Could he continue his charitable work?
4. What about the risk of "2 courts" if he stayed?
5. What about his income?
6. Where would he live?
7. What is his status and title?
8. And what about the inevitable comparisons of his achievements and Williams?
9. Will the monarchy become a popularity contest?


Easy to say "he should step aside" - but the consequences would be enormous, not just for him but for William and, more importantly, the Monarchy.

As Muhler, I've also allowed myself to number your questions.

1. In Precedence: Thats up to King William, but he will be behind everyone in the royal family when it comes to being in line of succession.

2. We live in 21st century (in a democratic UK) and the circumstances with Charles is completely different from those in 1936, so there is no need for him to go into exile.

3. That will be a big problem: Whether or not he continues to be a working member of the royal family, he wont have the income/status to raise money and do the things he does today.

4. Again, we live in 21st century and he wont have any income (apart from what he is given from his son) to have a large court.

5. That will be a big problem. The state can decide to give him a pension if he desided to retire (I think a retirement will do him no good, and he's likely to very unhappy), but most likely (whether he is going to be retired or not) his income will be the responsibility of King William.

6. In one of the palaces.

7. Most likely HRH Prince Charles, Duke of something (thats up to King William to deside).

8. I don't think that is going to be a problem.

9. Yes it will, and the media will later demand William to abdicate in favor of the younger George.


None of the above is going to happen anyway - why? Because it will destroy the monarchy.

3 points from me:

1. Charles will as King have to abdicate from several countries. Yes he can convert to Catholicism before his accession to the throne, but I don't think that is somthing he will ever do. And most inportantly, the Queen will be against it.

2. And what about being the Head of the Commonwealth, because that position is not automatically following the crown.

3. Some commentators/experts will want Charles as monarch while other will support William - its going to be a media war.

 

[Muhler]

Answer 1 - Harry isn't in front of George and Charlotte. So you want an abdicated Charles behind George and Charlotte and then Harry ?

The Queen Mother as a Dowager Queen Consort was only behind the Queen and Philip ahead of Charles. Precedence is determined by the Monarch.

They are still children.

 

[Mbruno]

3 points from me:

1. Charles will as King have to abdicate from several countries. Yes he can convert to Catholicism before his accession to the throne, but I don't think that is somthing he will ever do..

Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles in the Catholic Church and, although she is not a Catholic herself, she was once rumored to have Catholic leanings. Formally converting to Catholicism would be an easy way out for Charles and Camilla, which I wouldn't rule out that easily.

Having said that,in this day and age, I am pretty sure that Charles being excluded from the Throne for converting to Catholicism would spark a debate on the succession law and lead to calls for the law to be changed on the grounds of religious discrimination. The debate could then spill over to other Protestant monarchies that also use religious tests for succession to the Crown, most notably Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

 

[Muhler]

Really?

I don't think you could find another royal in history who has had so much direct, positive impact on so many of their people's lives. I mean, there are close to a million people whose lives have been directly impacted and improved by The Prince's Trust.

I was talking about whether the comparison between Charles and William would be that significant.

 

[wyevale]

If the PoW were to convert..I think it would be to Orthodoxy NOT to Catholicism..[which is the ONLY sect specifically barred in the Act of Settlement]...

 

[hel]

I was talking about whether the comparison between Charles and William would be that significant.

And implicit in your comparison is the idea that William has done anything of any significance to rival Charles.

My answer to that was, clearly, no. I cannot think of any modern royal whose achievements approach Charles' positive impact with the Prince's Trust. Certainly not William's.

If you're going to claim that there will be no significant difference between the achievements of Charles and William, I'm afraid I have to disagree absent any evidence of equality between the two.

 

[Denville]

It isn't going to happen.

 

[Muhler]

And implicit in your comparison is the idea that William has done anything of any significance to rival Charles.

My answer to that was, clearly, no. I cannot think of any modern royal whose achievements approach Charles' positive impact with the Prince's Trust. Certainly not William's.

If you're going to claim that there will be no significant difference between the achievements of Charles and William, I'm afraid I have to disagree absent any evidence of equality between the two.

That's an awful lot you've interpreted...

We are talking about a hypothetical situation where Prince Charles may give way to king William.
In such a situation would a comparison between what the two of them have accomplished be significant? Charles who has been an active adult royal for more than 40 years and William who has been active for a little more than 10 years.
Would that be significant in the eyes of the public regards to Prince Charles giving way? - I don't think it will matter that much. It sure will not be the most important thing people will consider IMO.
Other factors will weigh heavier I think.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles in the Catholic Church and, although she is not a Catholic herself, she was once rumored to have Catholic leanings. Formally converting to Catholicism would be an easy way out for Charles and Camilla, which I wouldn't rule out that easily.

Having said that,in this day and age, I am pretty sure that Charles being excluded from the Throne for converting to Catholicism would spark a debate on the succession law and lead to calls for the law to be changed on the grounds of religious discrimination. The debate could then spill over to other Protestant monarchies that also use religious tests for succession to the Crown, most notably Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Two points here:

1. The religious issue was debated, in the UK and the other realms between 2011 and 2015 as it was dealt with in the Succession to the Crown Act. Only the monarch now has to be in communion with the Church of England while their spouses can be Roman Catholic. That is why Prince Micheal was returned to the line of succession after that law came into effect in 2015. They aren't going to go back to that issue having just done so.

Everyone focuses on the first born daughter not being replaced by a younger brother but it also did two other things.

It fine tuned the RMA by making it so only the first six in the line of succession now need consent to marry (Beatrice on downwards do not need to ask HM for permission to marry); it also removed the ability to apply to parliament for permission is denied by the monarch.

It also fine tuned the Act of Settlement by making the monarch have to be CoE while their spouse can now be Roman Catholic.

2. Would anyone really expect the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to be of any other denomination of Christianity or any other religion other than that of CoE? That would be like saying the Pope didn't have to be Roman Catholic.

Those other monarchies aren't also the 'head/supreme governor' of a specific church as it the monarch of the UK and NI. Many people don't realise that Britain has an established church of with the British monarch is the actual head.

 

[MARG]

Prince Charles or Prince William?

Prince Charles is the most prepared Heir in the world. His achievements as Heir have been both diverse and successful.

Prince William is totally unprepared. The number of state occasions alone he has participated in can be counted on the fingers of one hand. He has done tours which basically were just flags and flowers and knows little of diplomacy or international affairs. Given time, this will change.

If it aint broke, don't "fix" it!

 

[Skippyboo]

Not only would you be replacing the experienced Charles with the relatively inexperienced William, but you are basically missing the heir to throne being a key working royal for 25 years as George has to grow up first.

 

[Osipi]

We cannot say that these scenarios will never happen as although they seem very improbable, they're also possible. The Queen could live another 10 years putting Charles, for almost a decade, in his 70s. People in their 70s are not spring chickens and there's a possibility of Charles' health declining with maybe even some medical issues that would prevent him from being physically and mentally able to ascend the throne. The Queen may even outlive her heir.

I'm sure the "Firm" has plans in motion for anything that could happen in the upcoming years but the idea that Charles would just "step aside" for William is really preposterous. William, also, would lead the first brigade to talk his father out of doing so. I don't see any kind of indication that William would ever want to step on his father's toes and usurp his reign. He respects his father and the monarchy too much to do that.

As Marg has said, Charles is the most prepared heir to a throne in the world. If it ain't broke, they ain't gonna fix it but they're astute enough to face the reality that just about anything can happen when you least expect it.

 

[Skippyboo]

Even if Charles was mentally or physically unable to be on the the throne. A regency for him would be put into place. You can have a regent for the regent if needed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not only would you be replacing the experienced Charles with the relatively inexperienced William, but you are basically missing the heir to throne being a key working royal for 25 years as George has to grow up first.

They managed that idea twice in the 1900s - from 1937 until 1945 - when Elizabeth was still growing up and then again from 1952 - until Charles started working for the firm full-time in the late 1970s.

The Firm don't need to have the heir working at all. It is what we have been used to due to the longevity of the BRF.

One thing we do know is that young and very old are beloved and respected while middle-aged and moderately old are the least liked and always engender calls for them to step aside.

The added wrinkle in the popularity of Charles is the Diana card and the very real impression that William and Harry have given out this year that they weren't supported by Charles when Diana died - that has given a great deal of ammunition to the anti-Charles brigade.

Until this year I would have agreed that William wouldn't want to step into him father's shoes while his father was still alive but not I am not convinced. I actually think he would like nothing more - Diana's ultimate revenge of Charles - to stop him becoming King through the machinations of William and Harry. I am not getting any 'family' vibes from them anymore at all. I am getting the opposite feeling - that the younger princes are distancing themselves from their father as much as possible.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I don't see it as machinations. I personally don't think W and H are doing this to usurp anyone/anything.

But I do think they have made clear that they were burdened by the role they were asked to play in the cortege. And have been honest about that. And it makes a number of people look not so swell.

As they are not doing interviews or TV shows about how they are making/have made peace with the adults surrounding them when their Mum passed, we don't know. But counseling is about coping/dealing with/forgiving and moving on. And I am convinced they are having healthy relationships with the people that surrounded them then. They are moving on.

I am convinced that the message they want to send to adults today is "Take care with the littles and what you ask them to do." And that sending that message is part of their process of healing and moving on.

Mostly, it is clear that they know no one gets "do overs" on this kind of experience. That it is a non-starter, health wise to say "I wish the grown ups had done this instead." Because that does not help you heal. But to spread the message "Here is what you might try or avoid" if you are ever in this situation... I think it is part of them moving on.

They have never said (nor will they) "I wish my Dad had...", "I wanted Granny to...", 'If only my Uncle had..."

Instead, they are playing the cards dealt them and trying to win a hand two decades on. I understand and respect them for what they are doing. And frankly, I don't think the message is anti Charles and the Monarchy after Elizabeth II. I think the message is more about mental healthiness. JMO

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Camilla as queen

[]...on the subject of Charles being next as king, or William, there was a poll published in one of the British newspapers a few days ago. Afraid I can't remember which one nor do I have a link. But it asked people surveyed about this very question, including different scenarios. Three I can remember are 1) Charles becomes king and Camilla becomes queen. 2) Charles becomes king but Camilla is named a princess consort instead of queen. 3) Charles is passed over for William. I think over 50% , maybe something like 51% favoured no 2. That's the one I myself favour.

I realise that there's no legal precident for no 2, but if queens have a prince consort I don't see why kings can't have a princess consort. Even if technically Camilla were queen, as she is currently Princess of Wales technically, but chooses not to use that title out of respect for Princess Diana.

I don't favour no 3, but for a different reason to those mentioned. It's simply that being monarch is a huge burden. Prince Harry has said none of the BRF really want the job, and having Charles as king first would give William a few more years of the relatively less onerous job of heir instead of king. I think William himself would agree with this reason, and quite besides any other arguement, Charles would too, to protect his son.

 

[MARG]

I have no problem with the idea of Princess Consort with all future consorts being styled Prince or Princess Consort.

The obvious problem that first presents itself is that Charle's and his heirs would no longer be a Prince or Princesses so what could their Consort be prince or princess of?

 

[cepe]

I have no problem with the idea of Princess Consort with all future consorts being styled Prince or Princess Consort.

The obvious problem that first presents itself is that Charle's and his heirs would no longer be a Prince or Princesses so what could their Consort be prince or princess of?

I don't understand - sorry

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I have no problem with the idea of Princess Consort with all future consorts being styled Prince or Princess Consort.

The obvious problem that first presents itself is that Charle's and his heirs would no longer be a Prince or Princesses so what could their Consort be prince or princess of?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. Could you please clarify? Because it seems to me, Charles would be King, so no longer a prince. His sons would still be princes and Royal Dukes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have no problem with the idea of Princess Consort with all future consorts being styled Prince or Princess Consort.

The obvious problem that first presents itself is that Charle's and his heirs would no longer be a Prince or Princesses so what could their Consort be prince or princess of?

Why wouldn't Charles and his heirs be a Prince or Princess?

If the throne past to William then George and Charlotte would be HRH The Prince George and HRH The Princess Charlotte.

Like ALL the princes and princess of xxxxx in the UK the xxxx shows their line and relationship to the monarch while they are all Princes and Princess of the United Kingdom. The 'of Wales', 'of Cambridge', 'of York', 'of Kent' etc are there to show which actual line of UK princes and princesses they are and that is all.

Think back to Queen Victoria - how many of her grandchildren were either Victoria or Albert. The 'of Wales' or 'of Albany' etc helped distinguish where they were in the line of things while the real 'of' was 'of the UK' or 'of Prussia/Germany' etc

 

[Curryong]

Yet another new poll (a YouGov one) shows Charles's popularity sinking.

The YouGov poll finds 36% of the British public think that Charles has been beneficial to the monarchy compared to 60% in 2013. 27% think he has had a negative impact on the royals in contrast to 15% four years ago.

Ranked in order, 78% thought William had a positive impact, 77% Harry, 73% Duchess of Cambridge, 36% Charles, 18% for the Duchess of Cornwall. Only 14% want Camilla to become Queen when Charles becomes King.

https://www.metro.news/charles-popularity-slumps-before-diana-anniversary/716703/

 

[hel]

Yet another new poll (a YouGov one) shows Charles's popularity sinking.

The YouGov poll finds 36% of the British public think that Charles has been beneficial to the monarchy compared to 60% in 2013. 27% think he has had a negative impact on the royals in contrast to 15% four years ago.

Ranked in order, 78% thought William had a positive impact, 77% Harry, 73% Duchess of Cambridge, 36% Charles, 18% for the Duchess of Cornwall. Only 14% want Camilla to become Queen when Charles becomes King.

https://www.metro.news/charles-popularity-slumps-before-diana-anniversary/716703/

I honestly wonder how responsible it is to poll on the question of whom should be the next monarch. I'd argue that the act of polling gives people a false sense that they have a choice in the matter. That false sense itself is bound to affect the results, too.

 

[Rudolph]

Polls are conducted on everything. YouGov just did a poll on how much money the tooth fairy should leave children for missing teeth.

People probably know they can't pick the next king but nevertheless the question gets asked and people give their choice.

The institution of monarchy is very strong in Britain and I think it's good the 'young' royals are popular. A high tide lifts all boats.

Charles and Camilla just has never been able to get over the War of The Wales in the eye of the public.

Still his approval rating rating is probably higher than the prime minister's

 

[Curryong]

hel, this wasn't a poll on a choice of monarch, but how beneficial to the monarchy each particular Royal person is in the opinion of the person being polled. The question 'Who would you like as monarch?' wasn't asked.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I find it interesting that a person who has raised millions for charity and set up a programme that has helped 100,000s of British young people is seen as less beneficial to the British monarchy that a part-time royal who does very little and has even said he isn't sure was a 'working royal' is.

This is simply evidence of the damage all the recent publicity about Diana is doing to Charles and Camilla and no doubt William and Harry will be pleased at this turn of events. They set it in motion with their 'we weren't helped when mummy died' and by not even suggesting that their father tried the inference is clear 'their father didn't care enough to even try to help'. Not mentioning any support from their father has hurt him. They either wanted it to happen or are so stupid they didn't realise that it would happen and anyone with half a brain would have realised this outcome. That says then very clearly that they want it to happen.

 

[hel]

hel, this wasn't a poll on a choice of monarch, but how beneficial to the monarchy each particular Royal person is in the opinion of the person being polled. The question 'Who would you like as monarch?' wasn't asked.

::sigh::

You know, I posted from my phone, looked at my post, thought "ugh, I should go back and edit this to clarify that I understand that *this* poll didn't ask that particular question but, because of the inclusion of the Camilla question triggers thoughts I have had percolating about all of these polls" but the mobile app doesn't easily let one edit one's posts, and then I had to come downstairs and make my kid's lunch for camp.

So, yeah.

The larger question, IMO, stands, whether *this poll* asked the question or not.

 

[Curryong]

Fine, hel. Understood!

 

[hel]

Polls are conducted on everything. YouGov just did a poll on how much money the tooth fairy should leave children for missing teeth.

People probably know they can't pick the next king but nevertheless the question gets asked and people give their choice.

The institution of monarchy is very strong in Britain and I think it's good the 'young' royals are popular. A high tide lifts all boats.

Charles and Camilla just has never been able to get over the War of The Wales in the eye of the public.

Still his approval rating rating is probably higher than the prime minister's

I've recently seen FB posts from what one might call -- in this context -- "low-information voters", who credulously post those "queen is going to skip Charles and give the throne to William" articles, and then defend them. I don't think we can rely on people knowing that that's not how it works, TBH.