Will Charles Ever Reign?

[scooter]

Except for the fact that Charles married before his accession with the full approval of the Queen, Church, and government and has met no legal opposition and would see no reason to abdicate due to Camilla. Yes, very similar.

I have to disagree. They did NOT have the approval of the church. They were NOT allowed to marry in the church. They had a civil service (I believe the 1st British royal ever to do so) and a service of dedication in the church. I think the jury is still out regarding the coronation and the Church of England. We shall see.

 

[Vevi]

of course, he will. why he shouldn't reign? he only won't reign when he dies before his mother

 

[jcbcode99]

Why in the world are we even discussing the topic of abdication? Does anyone really believe that after Edward VIII;s abdication that any member of the Royal Family would ever consider that? Charles is not going to abdicate--he has important ideas and beliefs and he will be a true asset to Great Britain when he ascends to the crown and thusly, the role he was born to fulfill. He and Camilla will be the King and Queen Consort, not the next Duke and Duchess of Windsor. To even entertain such discussion is rather silly.
Why the discussion about Charles becoming King? Why is it such an issue for some? Is it really because of Camilla? That is illogical and unreasonable. Charles is distinguished, has done his job as PoW, married a lovely girl and produced two heirs, dealt with harsh criticism in the media (who really don't count as far as I'm concerned--I can't stand yellow type journalism), and married the love of his life, who is a stepmother to his children and he to hers. Honestly--in many ways, they mirror the lives of the citizens they represent. Why the uproar? I just don't see any real reason for Charles to not ascend.

 

[Al_bina]

Why in the world are we even discussing the topic of abdication? Does anyone really believe that after Edward VIII;s abdication that any member of the Royal Family would ever consider that? Charles is not going to abdicate--he has important ideas and beliefs and he will be a true asset to Great Britain when he ascends to the crown and thusly, the role he was born to fulfill. He and Camilla will be the King and Queen Consort, not the next Duke and Duchess of Windsor. To even entertain such discussion is rather silly.
Why the discussion about Charles becoming King? Why is it such an issue for some? Is it really because of Camilla? That is illogical and unreasonable. Charles is distinguished, has done his job as PoW, married a lovely girl and produced two heirs, dealt with harsh criticism in the media (who really don't count as far as I'm concerned--I can't stand yellow type journalism), and married the love of his life, who is a stepmother to his children and he to hers. Honestly--in many ways, they mirror the lives of the citizens they represent. Why the uproar? I just don't see any real reason for Charles to not ascend.

I truly enjoy reading your witty and apt posts. However, I do not understand your outburst in regard to possibility that Prince Charles might abdicate. Not all members would like to see him as a King. Although I do agree that Prince Charles is to become the next King, the course of life may surprise us.
I would say that Prince Charles used a lovely girl and produced heirs, as well as dealt with harsh criticism in the media because he was unable to keep his family life private and orderly. Right you are stating that personal life of Prince of Wales “… mirror the lives of the citizens [he] represent” (jcbcode99, 2007). However, it is detrimental to the royals and nobility to mirror the lives of their subjects too much.

 

[milla Ca]

I truly enjoy reading your witty and apt posts. However, I do not understand your outburst in regard to possibility that Prince Charles might abdicate. Not all members would like to see him as a King. Although I do agree that Prince Charles is to become the next King, the course of life may surprise us.
I would say that Prince Charles used a lovely girl and produced heirs, as well as dealt with harsh criticism in the media because he was unable to keep his family life private and orderly. Right you are stating that personal life of Prince of Wales “… mirror the lives of the citizens [he] represent” (jcbcode99, 2007). However, it is detrimental to the royals and nobility to mirror the lives of their subjects too much.

The British monarchy is built of succession. Charles is the heir to the throne and he will be the next King. Why should he abdicate? He had learned his whole life to fulfil this ´role´ one day. Nobody else could do this better than he can do in the near future. Everyone who follwed his life and his ´job´ as Prince of Wales know that.
The critizism of his private life is your opinion, my is that his life is a very human one, with good and bad times, with many great things and some mistakes too.
But it is not really important wheater some poeple here wants to see see him as a King or not: He is the future King and he will reign!

 

[Al_bina]

The British monarchy is built of succession. Charles is the heir to the throne and he will be the next King. Why should he abdicate? He had learned his whole life to fulfil this ´role´ one day. Nobody else could do this better than he can do in the near future. Everyone who follwed his life and his ´job´ as Prince of Wales know that.
The critizism of his private life is your opinion, my is that his life is a very human one, with good and bad times, with many great things and some mistakes too.
But it is not really important wheater some poeple here wants to see see him as a King or not: He is the future King and he will reign!

Dear milla Ca,
I did state that Prince Charles, whether you love or hate him, is to become the next King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, I am glad that his learning to fulfil this role still continues.

 

[selrahc4]

He couldn't "abdicate" until he became king. Has any one ever heard of abdicating the throne before having the throne? It's impossible. I suspect people sometimes use the word abdicate when a different word is actually meant.

 

[Martha]

I don´t want to be pessimistic, but Charles has a lot of problems. Iam not sure, but I think is more less popular than his sons.

 

[scooter]

He couldn't "abdicate" until he became king. Has any one ever heard of abdicating the throne before having the throne? It's impossible. I suspect people sometimes use the word abdicate when a different word is actually meant.

He took the calculated bet that he would be able to marry Camilla in the face of the constitutional/coronation issues. Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time. By no means do I assume that it will be the present one. Whomever is the A of C will be in the position of saying yea or nay to the coronation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it must be the A of C as the highest churchman in the land to perform the actual coronation ceremony. Charles must also, as part of the oath, vow to uphold the established Church of England...the same one that would not marry Charles and Camilla. The EXACT same situation caused Uncle 'David' to relinquish the throne to marry Wallis. Can someone explain to me how it's different? In some ways it's a more toublesome situation as the extramarital affair between Camilla and Charles was the cause (at least partly) of the demise of both the Parker-Bowles and also the Wales marriages.

I dont begrudge happiness to any of the parties, but I am very concerned about the constitutional issues, and from what I have read, so is QEII.

 

[Al_bina]

He took the calculated bet that he would be able to marry Camilla in the face of the constitutional/coronation issues. Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time. By no means do I assume that it will be the present one. Whomever is the A of C will be in the position of saying yea or nay to the coronation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it must be the A of C as the highest churchman in the land to perform the actual coronation ceremony. Charles must also, as part of the oath, vow to uphold the established Church of England...the same one that would not marry Charles and Camilla. The EXACT same situation caused Uncle 'David' to relinquish the throne to marry Wallis. Can someone explain to me how it's different? In some ways it's a more toublesome situation as the extramarital affair between Camilla and Charles was the cause (at least partly) of the demise of both the Parker-Bowles and also the Wales marriages.

I dont begrudge happiness to any of the parties, but I am very concerned about the constitutional issues, and from what I have read, so is QEII.

When the time comes , the constitution and legality of the actions will be attuned to fit the circumstances of Prince Charles.

 

[JessRulz]

He couldn't "abdicate" until he became king. Has any one ever heard of abdicating the throne before having the throne? It's impossible. I suspect people sometimes use the word abdicate when a different word is actually meant.

You're right selrahc4, I shouldn't have used 'abdicate'. "Steps down" is the better phrasing for a heir

 

[COUNTESS]

He took the calculated bet that he would be able to marry Camilla in the face of the constitutional/coronation issues. Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time. By no means do I assume that it will be the present one. Whomever is the A of C will be in the position of saying yea or nay to the coronation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it must be the A of C as the highest churchman in the land to perform the actual coronation ceremony. Charles must also, as part of the oath, vow to uphold the established Church of England...the same one that would not marry Charles and Camilla. The EXACT same situation caused Uncle 'David' to relinquish the throne to marry Wallis. Can someone explain to me how it's different? In some ways it's a more toublesome situation as the extramarital affair between Camilla and Charles was the cause (at least partly) of the demise of both the Parker-Bowles and also the Wales marriages.
I dont begrudge happiness to any of the parties, but I am very concerned about the constitutional issues, and from what I have read, so is QEII.

I am impressed with your insights. I never considered the the chuurch could still object. I assumed it was a foregone conclusion.

 

[branchg]

It is highly unlikely the Government and the Church could take a stand similar to 1936 with Edward VIII with regard to Charles being married to Camilla. For one thing, he already married her with the consent of the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury and she shares his rank and titles as his lawful wife. However, if there is a public outcry when he becomes King at the prospect of Queen Camilla, the situation becomes very tricky indeed.

Legally, there is no way to deny her the rights and precedence of being Queen unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth consent to a change in the title of the consort by passing legislation. If they choose not to do it, Charles would have no choice but to abdicate in favor of William. There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.

 

[love_cc]

It is highly unlikely the Government and the Church could take a stand similar to 1936 with Edward VIII with regard to Charles being married to Camilla. For one thing, he already married her with the consent of the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury and she shares his rank and titles as his lawful wife. However, if there is a public outcry when he becomes King at the prospect of Queen Camilla, the situation becomes very tricky indeed.

Legally, there is no way to deny her the rights and precedence of being Queen unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth consent to a change in the title of the consort by passing legislation. If they choose not to do it, Charles would have no choice but to abdicate in favor of William. There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.

You are so right. But I hope that this will not happen. I believe that Prince Charles will be an excellent king when the time comes.For me, it will be a huge waste and a pity that he would be forced to choose abdication because of his marriage circumstances.

 

[Elspeth]

One of the main objections to Edward VIII, even as Prince of Wales before Mrs Simpson came on the scene, was the increasing concern of people around him that he wasn't suitable to be King for a variety of reasons and even that he wasn't particularly interested in the role. Because of that, I don't think the government had a lot of incentive to find a way round the Mrs Simpson problem as long as they could use it as an excuse to force an abdication. I don't think Charles has quite the same baggage in terms of being uninterested in or unfit for the position.

The Archbishop will be in an awkward position if he tries to deny Charles a coronation on the basis of his second marriage since the current Archbishop gave his consent to the marriage and officiated at the blessing. I suppose a more hard-line future Archbishop might take a different line, but it isn't as though Charles married in the teeth of united opposition from the Church, so it'd be unlikely.

And to be honest, if an Archbishop did try to pull a stunt like that, I think it might backfire rather badly. If Charles outlives the Queen, he'll be King from the moment the Queen dies, coronation or no coronation. I presume it'd be legal for him to continue to be King till his death even if he's never crowned. It just means that he couldn't wear the crown at state occasions, but he'd still be King. I think if an Archbishop tried to force the issue by refusing to crown him King or refusing to crown Camilla Queen Consort, questions might be asked about why the Church is all of a sudden overruling the law and deciding who's suitable to be King and who isn't, especially given some of the questionable characters who've been crowned in the past. I think it'd be every bit as likely to result in disestablishment of the CofE as in abdication by Charles.

 

[Al_bina]

It is highly unlikely the Government and the Church could take a stand similar to 1936 with Edward VIII with regard to Charles being married to Camilla. For one thing, he already married her with the consent of the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury and she shares his rank and titles as his lawful wife. However, if there is a public outcry when he becomes King at the prospect of Queen Camilla, the situation becomes very tricky indeed.

Legally, there is no way to deny her the rights and precedence of being Queen unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth consent to a change in the title of the consort by passing legislation. If they choose not to do it, Charles would have no choice but to abdicate in favor of William. There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.

Who is going to organize the public outcry against Queen Camilla? Are there any serious groups that do not wish to have Queen Camilla? As far as I can judge from various posts of the members and article links provided by the above members, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has appreciated better sides of Duchess of Cornwall and can accept the situation of having her as a Queen or Princess Consort (whatever title she may prefer to have).

 

[pinkie40]

Charles does face public ridicule due to his quirks and personal issues...talking to plants, Defender of Faiths, admitted adultery of Diana and, sadly, his big ears...and such ridicule and mirth was exactly what the Queen Mum did not have in mind when her favourite grandson would have to face when it was his turn to reign...but she was well aware of all of this and knew it was part of the "landscape" so to speak...

Yet what Prince Charles has, due to a lot of credit to Camilla's influence behind the scenes, are deep and powerful friendships, sponsors and support from some very good and very important people aorund the globe.

Prince Charles will face some twittering, some deep ridicule and unflattering comparisions but his reign will be surpirisingly strong.

 

[wbenson]

Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.

The Archbishop has absolutely no say whatsoever in who the next monarch is, except for his one vote in the House of Lords. Succession is set forth by Act of Parliament, and only Parliament can change it.

I think that if the Archbishop were to go that overboard anyways, he would be "resigning" fairly quickly under pressure from multiple sources.

 

[scooter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage. The fact that it does not recognise divorce and remarriage was the reason that Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a service of dedication in the church, rather than marrying in the church. If he is 'not in good standing' as it were, how can he swear to uphold the church? As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla. When they were getting engaged, there was a site where about 90% of the posters were saying if Charles and Camilla waned to get married, he should step down from the line of succession. I am personally not in one faction or another. I just think the remarriage has created a consititutional mess re: the coronation. Technically Charles is a widower in the eyes of the church, it's Camilla who is still regarded as a divorcee, unless APB dies before the coronation. Now, if APB dies, start the conspiracy theories!!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.

Forget it! Who is the public anyway? A lot of people believe only because there was such a public outcry after Diana's death that there will be enough emotion from the public against a king Charles? why should that happen? The public is so used to the idea that Charles is the next king that close to nobody sprang on Diana's bandwagon when she tried to push her own son forward. And today is 10 years later! people will mourn some day the then late QEII and look to her grieving son with a lot of sympathy and hope for a reign that preserves all they held dear in the current reign. They will see a mourning new monarch with his supporting and loving wife and good-looking sons doing their duty for their people. Where should the revolutionary emotion come from that is needed to actually change the form of organisation of the demoracies of the Commonwealth states?

It's not that Charles in any way threatens anyone! And come on, his private life is rather boring compared to the lifes of quite a lot of his younger future subjects. So why should they bother?

As for the Church of England: Charles will be king of Scotland as well and the Church of Scotland would have no problem at all to see him crowned along with his wife. That some of the Scots don't want to see him as their new king is something else entirely....

As for the government: believe me, the Prime Minister knows exactly how important it is to have a seperation between head of the state and head of the government. You can see it in mayn countries where the leader is one and the same that this causes problems other countries don't know. Because the head of the state is there for anybody while the head of the government may be as partial or biased as he well pleases, being the leader of the leading party and not of the state. Has to do with PR, I guess.

So where should be the political interest in removing Charles - for no reasons other than that he married the wrong first wife and choose the second more wisely? Germany at one time had a chancellor and foreign minister who all in all had married eight times - each one of them has had four wifes! Did it matter for their political success? Of course not! So why should such a private episode matter to a politician?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage.

There had been quite some kings before who swore that oath without living according to the church's idea of morality. And upholding IMHO does not mean you have to become the slave of a church's idea of living, it just means that you protect this church.

 

[ysbel]

Well the point of a coronation may be moot if the Government decides to do away with the coronation upon Charles' accession. I don't think any of the major European monarchies have coronations any more so they would be keeping with the norms in Europe. Not necessarily that the British institution has wanted in the past to keep up with Europe but if the coronation is going to be a sticking point for Charles and Camilla's acceptance, it is far easier to just do away with the coronation on the excuse that its no longer appropriate for a modern monarchy.

 

[scooter]

The plot thickens. I just read on another site that because of the Marriage Act 1836, Charles and Camilla may not be legally married. It states 'Civil unions shall not extend to the marriage of any members of the Royal Family', as such why would they have a civil service if there was the possibility of a religious service? The only answer that makes sense is that they were not ALLOWED a religious service. If that is the case, then it does not bode well for coronation.

 

[ysbel]

The plot thickens. I just read on another site that because of the Marriage Act 1836, Charles and Camilla may not be legally married.

scooter, that plot was thickened ages ago and this particular act was discussed quite a bit before in one of these threads as well as another act that followed it and made the outcome ambiguous.

I don't remember the details of the discussion but I'm sure that you can find out as much as you want about it by simply searching the forums.

 

[Al_bina]

Charles does face public ridicule due to his quirks and personal issues...talking to plants, Defender of Faiths, admitted adultery of Diana and, sadly, his big ears...and such ridicule and mirth was exactly what the Queen Mum did not have in mind when her favourite grandson would have to face when it was his turn to reign...but she was well aware of all of this and knew it was part of the "landscape" so to speak...

Yet what Prince Charles has, due to a lot of credit to Camilla's influence behind the scenes, are deep and powerful friendships, sponsors and support from some very good and very important people aorund the globe.

Prince Charles will face some twittering, some deep ridicule and unflattering comparisions but his reign will be surpirisingly strong.

What do you mean by saying "his reign will be surprisingly strong"? Is Prince Charles going to dissolve the Parliament and become an absolute ruler?

 

[Skydragon]

which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage.

Very many clergy are willing to allow a church service for divorced couples. Therefore they do recognise divorce and remarriage and have done so, in some parishes since the 80's.

Who knows what the church, in it's efforts to retain it's power, will accept in 10 - 20 years time. Who would have thought 20 years ago that they would accept women or gay clergy?

As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla. When they were getting engaged, there was a site where about 90% of the posters were saying if Charles and Camilla waned to get married, he should step down from the line of succession.

The UK population has become more accepting of Camilla and some of the sites and their polls were the ones that you could vote dozens of times. The Royalist is a pro Diana site, if they can write something derogatory about Camilla, they will. The majority of the population do not go onto sites like this in the first place and most of the polls could not represent the entire population if they are only asking, as they did recently, 1005 people.
I was involved in a poll a short time ago (first one ever) and it asked me if my opinion about Camilla had changed since the wedding. I answered no, as my opinion has not changed, I always thought she was perfect for the country and for Charles. Then look at the interpretation they probably used and it looks as if I don't like her.

 

[Skydragon]

There had been quite some kings before who swore that oath without living according to the church's idea of morality.

As there are many 'christians' who also fail to live up to the moral code of the church, there are even more members of the church who fail to abide by the church's own message of forgiveness.

 

[Charlotte1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage. The fact that it does not recognise divorce and remarriage was the reason that Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a service of dedication in the church, rather than marrying in the church. If he is 'not in good standing' as it were, how can he swear to uphold the church? As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla. When they were getting engaged, there was a site where about 90% of the posters were saying if Charles and Camilla waned to get married, he should step down from the line of succession. I am personally not in one faction or another. I just think the remarriage has created a consititutional mess re: the coronation. Technically Charles is a widower in the eyes of the church, it's Camilla who is still regarded as a divorcee, unless APB dies before the coronation. Now, if APB dies, start the conspiracy theories!!

The Anglican Church does recognise civil divorce and there is an allowance for remarriage in the church. But it is left up to individual Anglican ministers as to whether or not they will marry someone who has been married before. The exact wording is something like 'keeping in mind the church's teaching on marriage' ( This information can all be found on the official Anglican Church information site)
Charles and Camilla were never refused a church wedding, they never asked for one. They went for the simpler option of a civil wedding and a church blessing which is the Anglican church's favoured approach to a remarriage. ( Stated on the website too, on remarriage in the church)

The Anglican church considers Charles as a divorcee, not a widower. Since the church recognises civil divorce, at Diana's death he was not married to her in the eyes of the church, his divorce was recognised and he was considered a single man. Being single meant that he didn't have a wife and therefore he isn't a widower.

In regards to support for Camilla, the Daily Mail I think, commissioned a Yougov poll. At the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement, 9% of those polled were happy to have Camilla become Queen. Two and a half years later ( just before Diana's memorial) the poll was taken again, support for Camilla becoming Queen has risen to 28%, it's tripled in just 2 and a half years. At this rate in a few years time the majority will support her becoming Queen. Taking into consideration too you will have younger people with little or no memory of Diana and are only aware of Camilla.

So a poll taken at the time of their engagement on a website ( which may or maynot be pro-Diana) doesn't reflect the view of people now.

There is no constitution mess, the church recognises divorce and allows remarriage, either in the church or a blessing of a civil marriage. The marriage act for royals has been changed which is why the constitutional lawyers threw out the objections to C & C's marriage before they were married. There were legal attempts to stop it and they were unsuccessful.
Charles will be king as soon as his mother dies, the coronation will follow as the church accepted his remarriage.

 

[diamondBrg]

I personally see no reason why Prince Charles should not become King and to be honest here the Duchess of Cornwall Queen. It is my understanding that it would take an Act of Parliament to prevent her from becoming Queen anyway? The Church of England has blessed the marriage, I cannot see any other obstacle.

Diana, Princess of Wales is part of history now, the truth is she was unfaithful in her marriage to Prince Charles just as he was unfaithful to her, according to numerous published reports and on record testimony of friends of both parties. Both deserved to get some happiness in their life. I have read numerous reports that Diana was intrigued with the thought of marrying the Prince of Wales, not necessarily Prince Charles. Diana was not prepared for the rigors of Royal life and duty as presented to a future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, in fact why should she have been. She was a child herself. Her "family" was pushing for the marriage and the "connection" to Buckingham Palace and the "perks" that would bring.

The Duchess of Cornwall will NOT be giving birth to a Royal Child, the line of succession is secure and cemented. We live in the 21st century not the 1700s.

 

[Al_bina]

I personally see no reason why Prince Charles should not become King and to be honest here the Duchess of Cornwall Queen. It is my understanding that it would take an Act of Parliament to prevent her from becoming Queen anyway? The Church of England has blessed the marriage, I cannot see any other obstacle.

Diana, Princess of Wales is part of history now, the truth is she was unfaithful in her marriage to Prince Charles just as he was unfaithful to her, according to numerous published reports and on record testimony of friends of both parties. Both deserved to get some happiness in their life. I have read numerous reports that Diana was intrigued with the thought of marrying the Prince of Wales, not necessarily Prince Charles. Diana was not prepared for the rigors of Royal life and duty as presented to a future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth, in fact why should she have been. She was a child herself. Her "family" was pushing for the marriage and the "connection" to Buckingham Palace and the "perks" that would bring.

The Duchess of Cornwall will NOT be giving birth to a Royal Child, the line of succession is secure and cemented. We live in the 21st century not the 1700s.

At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty.