Charles and the Commonwealth

[Huddo]

as Prince Charles is heir to the British throne and commonwealth has he ever been considered to be appointed as a governor general in one of the commonwealth countires such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc. which require him to reside in the said country for a period of 3 to 4 years in which time he can familarise himself with customs and culture of one of the countires he will one day be head of state of?....

[btsnyder]

There was talk in the early 80s of Charles becoming Governor General of Australia, but the idea was never a popular one in Australia, I understand. There is precedent - Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester was GG of Australia for a time and the Duke of Windsor was GG of the Bahamas during WWII. I think times have changed, though. It seems the post of GG is now reserved for accomplished people from the country itself. The relationship between the Crown and it's former colonies and dominions has changed since the old days. I don't think having a member of the royal family serve as GG would be embraced as it once was.

[Saragli]

Yes, When he was young and lost he didnt know what to do. There was no definition as to what a Prince of Wales is supposed to do. He didnt want to live in his palace and do nothing but he didnt know how to carve out a role for himself yet. They considered making him a GG of Australia I think but that was turned down. Soon after the beginings of The Princes Trust began and he developed into the most active Prince of Wales in hundreds of years.

I would like actually for the heir to the throne to become a GG. It would provide excellent training and experience but I dont think it would be that popular of a choice in the commonwealth realms. Shame in my opinion. I think it would be a great idea.

[Humera]

I dont think the idea would be popular with people in the Commonwealth countries either.
I know in Canada most people see the monarchy as irrelevant in their daily lives. Many even question the relevance of the position of GG. Most prefer having their fellow Canadians become GG. We've had only 10 Canadian GGs so far anyway, they used to be British until the 1950s. There's no way we'd go back to the old system.

[Australian]

I would never want to see Charles as GG of Australia, or any member of the royal family (nothing against them) it's just that I would like to see an Australian as GG of Australia like we have now.

[Princess BellyFlop]

Originally Posted by Princejohnny25

I would like actually for the heir to the throne to become a GG. It would provide excellent training and experience but I dont think it would be that popular of a choice in the commonwealth realms. Shame in my opinion. I think it would be a great idea.

I do have a GG and I say NO . It took us so many years to have a Canadian at this position. We might be part of the Commonwealth but we are no longer a colony!

So Princejohnny25 you are absolutely right when you say it wouldn't be a popular choice in the concerned countries.

[Australian]

I think it's safe to say that NO commonwealth countries would want a British GG, they would want a representative of someone form their own country.

[Elspeth]

After the incident where the Australian Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister, I think the fact that it's part of the job to get involved in politics pretty much ruled out the possibility of a senior member of the royal family taking the job even if the countries themselves were interested.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

After the incident where the Australian Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister, I think the fact that it's part of the job to get involved in politics pretty much ruled out the possibility of a senior member of the royal family taking the job even if the countries themselves were interested.

Yes, as was revealed here in 1975 the Reserve Powers of the Crown are not just a theoretical concept. They are very real and would place a Royal GG in an impossible no-win situation if they were called upon to directly involve themselves in the political process.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by Princess BellyFlop

I do have a GG and I say NO . It took us so many years to have a Canadian at this position. We might be part of the Commonwealth but we are no longer a colony!

So Princejohnny25 you are absolutely right when you say it wouldn't be a popular choice in the concerned countries.

It may not be a popular choice, but you can't really say that the latest choice has been much of a winner, either. There are obvious reasons why she was chosen, but I think a less obvious reason as well. Martin and his clique were in general not pro-Monarchy, and I think the purpose of appointing such a controversial GG is to make Canadians question the necessity of such a position making future attempts at making Canada a republic all the more easy.

[KathyMoore]

If Prince Charles becomes King, does he automatically become King of Canada as well?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by KathyMoore

If Prince Charles becomes King, does he automatically become King of Canada as well?

Short answer - yes - if there is no change in the current Constitution

But...

It is possible that Canada, Australia et.al. could have become republics by then

Or

Possibly have held referenda that state that they become a republic on the death of the present Queen.

In either of those scenarios then no.

[Pook]

Can a divorced man become King or will the Queen skip Charles and name Prince William as King?
Purrs,
Pook

[Elspeth]

The succession is automatic; the Queen can't name a successor. If Charles is alive when the Queen dies, he becomes King immediately. That's the case in all the countries where the Queen is head of state.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by KathyMoore

If Prince Charles becomes King, does he automatically become King of Canada as well?

Yes. In 1952, the succession was automatic, as well. (I believe it was even proclaimed in Canada before it was in the UK.) Now, some people (Ted McWhinney, namely) will try to state that this is not the case, and that Canada can simply refuse to proclaim the new sovereign. This runs into several problems, though. Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 pretty much demands that the sovereign exist in Canada as a legal institution. Section 17 also names the monarch as a part of Parliament. I think it would also be seen as an unconstitutional attempt to abolish the monarchy in contravention of Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Then they'd run into the problem of what to do when the GG dies or decides to retire and they can't find anyone to sign the proclamation appointing a new one. Precedent is also a part of Canadian constitutional law, and in 1952 and January 1936 (the two really relevant cases, as before that the Statute of Westminster hadn't gone into effect and the abdication involved a change in succession law), it happened automatically.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Possibly have held referenda that state that they become a republic on the death of the present Queen.

It would take more than a referendum. All ten provincial legislatures and the House of Commons (and the Senate to speed it up) must approve of such a major change to the Constitution. Some provinces require a referendum within the province, and there is a history of having the entire country vote in a nonbinding referendum, but all it takes is one provincial legislature saying no and it can't happen.

[Iluvbertie]

By saying 'referenda' I should have said whatever is needed within each respective country as opposed to saying only what is needed here in Australia.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Pook

Can a divorced man become King or will the Queen skip Charles and name Prince William as King?
Purrs,
Pook

Technically, Charles isn't divorced. In the eyes of the church he was divorced, then became a widower and is now married. It's not him that poses the problem for ultra-religious people, it's the fact that Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, so Camilla was divorced when she married Charles.

[KathyMoore]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Technically, Charles isn't divorced. In the eyes of the church he was divorced, then became a widower and is now married. It's not him that poses the problem for ultra-religious people, it's the fact that Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, so Camilla was divorced when she married Charles.

???

How does Princes Charles qualify as a widower?

does Prince Charles have the legal right to refuse to become king upon the
queen's death? or does he have to become king first, in order to give it
up and hand the throne to his son?

speaking of Camilla... what if there's a "King Ralph" situation where the
the entire royal family is wiped out in a freak electrical accident? if
she is the only one surviving, does she become the new monarch?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by KathyMoore

does Prince Charles have the legal right to refuse to become king upon the
queen's death? or does he have to become king first, in order to give it
up and hand the throne to his son?

Technically, nobody has the right to refuse or give up the throne. Edward VIII had to ask parliament to pass an act making him no longer the King. I imagine Charles could do that if he wanted at any time.

Originally Posted by KathyMoore

speaking of Camilla... what if there's a "King Ralph" situation where the
the entire royal family is wiped out in a freak electrical accident? if
she is the only one surviving, does she become the new monarch?

It would be highly unlikely for the entire line of succession (all the descendants of Electress Sophia of Hanover) to be wiped out. There are something like 5,000 people in it as of 2001. Anything that killed all of those people would probably kill everyone else, so there wouldn't be a need for another monarch.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by KathyMoore

???

How does Princes Charles qualify as a widower?

His first wife is dead. Some people argue that because he was divorced at the time of Diana's death he remained a divorced man and others argue that as he didn't have a living wife he was technically a widower. The late minister at my Church of England church said that it would vary within the COE as to the interpretation. He regarded him as a widower from the moment of Diana's death but that other COE clergy might still see him as a divorcee but with no living spouse so no problem marrying within the COE unless marrying a woman who contributed to the original divorce (e.g. Camilla).

does Prince Charles have the legal right to refuse to become king upon the
queen's death? or does he have to become king first, in order to give it
up and hand the throne to his son?

He would have to ask Parliament to pass the relevant legislation in either case - either before his mother dies, in which case she has to sign the legislation, or after he becomes king in which case he has to sign the Instrument of Abdication. He can't simply say - "No I don't want to do it." Parliament has to agree (along with the Parliaments of his other future or actual realms at the time).

speaking of Camilla... what if there's a "King Ralph" situation where the
the entire royal family is wiped out in a freak electrical accident? if
she is the only one surviving, does she become the new monarch?

No - she can't claim the throne in her own right as she has no legitimate claim. (any more than Diana had a legitimate claim in her own right). They are both descendants of Charles II but as Charles II had no legitimate children none of his descendents can claim the throne through their descent from him.

As the entire list of claimants are never in the one place at one time the possibility doesn't exist (and another baby on the way to add to the list - Princess Marie, wife of Prince Joachim of Denmark is expecting next year so another new claimant down the order to be born).