Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Chimene]

I think the love story or Camilla and Charles is the greatest love story of the previous century. I think we should each WISH that someone would PERMANENTLY love us in that way, no matter what.

Exactly, it's a fairytale of the grown up, even Cinderella kind. It is for that reason that those who loved Diana wish to punish the Prince of Wales for ruining their dreams.

Charles will reign if he lives long enough. Otherwise, what would be the point of the monarchy?

 

[wbenson]

Who can stop Charles from reigning? Getting down to the legalities involved here? It is my understanding that he has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to take the throne? Have I misunderstood something here? This is still a Monarchy, correct, not a democracy?

He can be stopped by Act of Parliament (Parliament is the one with the absolute right to choose a monarch), but that's not going to happen. He doesn't have an absolute right, but only the right granted to him by the law.

Not to stray too much, but democracy can take many forms.

 

[diamondBrg]

He can be stopped by Act of Parliament (Parliament is the one with the absolute right to choose a monarch), but that's not going to happen. He doesn't have an absolute right, but only the right granted to him by the law.

Not to stray too much, but democracy can take many forms.

Which would entail abolishing the monarchy, no? Are you suggesting that Parliament can say skip him and give the throne directly to Prince William? If so, please CITE THE LAW that you are basing your opinion on.

 

[wbenson]

Which would entail abolishing the monarchy, no? Are you suggesting that Parliament can say skip him and give the throne directly to Prince William? If so, please CITE THE LAW that you are basing your opinion on.

Would it abolish the monarchy? No. "Monarchy" isn't even incumbent on being hereditary. The pope is a monarch, as were the elected Kings of Poland.

The current succession is based on Acts of Parliament, and they can be changed, so yes, Parliament can do whatever they want with the succession. They've done it before and they can do it again. See the Act of Settlement 1701 for a reference. Parliament overruled the succession rights of the descendants of James II and gave them to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

They removed Edward VIII from office (on his request, but they still did it), which was the only way he could be removed. See His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 for a reference here.

The British Parliament is completely supreme. Any Act of it is the supreme law and cannot be invalidated by any authority (well, now the EU is involved some, but that's by Act of Parliament as well). If all three parts of Parliament (2 houses and the Queen) pass a law invalidating Charles' succession rights, he will not be the monarch upon the Queen's death. That's probably not going to happen, though.

 

[diamondBrg]

Would it abolish the monarchy? No. "Monarchy" isn't even incumbent on being hereditary. The pope is a monarch, as were the elected Kings of Poland.

The current succession is based on Acts of Parliament, and they can be changed, so yes, Parliament can do whatever they want with the succession. They've done it before and they can do it again. See the Act of Settlement 1701 for a reference. Parliament overruled the succession rights of the descendants of James II and gave them to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

They removed Edward VIII from office (on his request, but they still did it), which was the only way he could be removed. See His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 for a reference here.

The British Parliament is completely supreme. Any Act of it is the supreme law and cannot be invalidated by any authority (well, now the EU is involved some, but that's by Act of Parliament as well). If all three parts of Parliament (2 houses and the Queen) pass a law invalidating Charles' succession rights, he will not be the monarch upon the Queen's death. That's probably not going to happen, though.

I have just reviewed the Act of Settlement 1701, in fact BEFORE seeing this post, nowhere within it does it state that Parliament can jump around within a Royal family and pick and choose? It clearly definies a line that is to be followed.

Yes, King Edward VIII did sign a ABDICATION, if he would have refused to do so and married Wallis anyway, his "government" ministers would have resigned? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Once again, Parliament could CHOOSE to abolish the Monarchy, but really nothing else would have been available.

Here is my bottom line point in all of this, YES, the British people through their elected government can throw the Monarchy out on it's ears, that goes without saying. It also goes without saying that is NOT going to happen, the British public are way too enamored with both the pomp and ceremony and as a whole that they too may someday, somewhere in their lineage be aristocratic and somebodies and we both know that.

 

[Chimene]

What purpose would it serve if Charles were to be skipped in the line of succession?

 

[wbenson]

I have just reviewed the Act of Settlement 1701, in fact BEFORE seeing this post, nowhere within it does it state that Parliament can jump around within a Royal family and pick and choose? It clearly definies a line that is to be followed.

And as it is an Act of Parliament, it can be amended, as no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament from changing the law. I was using it as an example of Parliament changing its mind about succession, anyways. If Parliament wanted, it could amend the Act of Settlement with a new Act removing Charles from succession. That won't happen, however.

Parliament doesn't need a legal authorization to pass an Act. It's authorization is its complete and total supremacy over the law.

My point is that "can," "will," and "should" are all different things. Can Parliament remove Charles? Yes. Will they? Most likely not. Should they? No.

Yes, King Edward VIII did sign a ABDICATION, if he would have refused to do so and married Wallis anyway, his "government" ministers would have resigned? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Once again, Parliament could CHOOSE to abolish the Monarchy, but really nothing else would have been available.

Edward VIII didn't have the power to stop being the monarch. Only Parliament had that power. Parliament could have said no had they been in a cruel mood.

Here is my bottom line point in all of this, YES, the British people through their elected government can throw the Monarchy out on it's ears, that goes without saying. It also goes without saying that is NOT going to happen, the British public are way too enamored with both the pomp and ceremony and as a whole that they too may someday, somewhere in their lineage be aristocratic and somebodies and we both know that.

I agree.

What purpose would it serve if Charles were to be skipped in the line of succession?

It wouldn't serve a purpose.

 

[Al_bina]

Dear wbenson,
You have put valid arguments in defending your point of view. I have learnt the things about the succession rules I have never expected to exist. If the parties concerned do not approve Prince Charles due to some valid reason, who will be considered as the next in line (i.e., Prince William or Prince Andrew)?
Although highly unlikely, hard core traditional monarchists, if such people exist, may play the morganatic marriage card.

 

[wbenson]

Dear wbenson,
You have put valid arguments in defending your point of view. I have learnt the things about the succession rules I have never expected to exist. If the parties concerned do not approve Prince Charles due to some valid reason, who will be considered as the next in line (i.e., Prince William or Prince Andrew)?
Although highly unlikely, hard core traditional monarchists, if such people exist, may play the morganatic marriage card.

If they did such a thing and merely invalidated Charles, it would go to William. I'd imagine that if they were ever so petty, they may just pretend Charles never existed and strike all of his heirs, too, but they don't have to.

I'd like to see them try to play a Morganatic Marriage card, considering there's no such thing in UK law. It would be fun to disprove them!

 

[Al_bina]

Thanks for explaining about the morgnatic marriage situation in the United Kingdom. Well ... Now I understand why Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Charles exert every effort to appease the society at large and, thus, gain a wide acceptance of people. This slightly resembles presidential campaigns.

 

[diamondBrg]

And as it is an Act of Parliament, it can be amended, as no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament from changing the law. I was using it as an example of Parliament changing its mind about succession, anyways. If Parliament wanted, it could amend the Act of Settlement with a new Act removing Charles from succession. That won't happen, however.

Parliament doesn't need a legal authorization to pass an Act. It's authorization is its complete and total supremacy over the law.

My point is that "can," "will," and "should" are all different things. Can Parliament remove Charles? Yes. Will they? Most likely not. Should they? No.



Edward VIII didn't have the power to stop being the monarch. Only Parliament had that power. Parliament could have said no had they been in a cruel mood.



I agree.



It wouldn't serve a purpose.

Well, when I look at the course of recent British history, I see the Prince of Wales BEING DIVORCED, I see the Prince of Wales and his long term companion LIVING TOGETHER and finally I see the Prince of Wales MARRYING his long term lover companion and she receiving a Title and place in the Royal Family, even though she had previously been married and of course was not a virgin.

I still see HRH Prince Charles ascending to the throne and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall being his Queen Consort.

 

[wbenson]

I still see HRH Prince Charles ascending to the throne and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall being his Queen Consort.

As do I. I hope they drop that silly "Princess Consort" thing, too. (I think the very beginning of his reign would be the easiest time, because who would dare criticise a grieving monarch?)

 

[TheTruth]

I think the "Princess Consort" stuff is non-sense. If the whole situation had gone the other way round, Charles divorcing Camilla and marrying Diana (boy, that sounds weird lol) and if the people's love for her had been the same, there wouldn't have been such a question. So I do hope Camilla gets that "Queen Consort" title.

 

[LOSSEAN]

The Gods will decide. But we can say all we want.

Thank you to all those who have explained the law. It has been a revelation.

 

[diamondBrg]

I totally agree that Camilla should be Queen Consort, of course, she is married to the future King.

I am going to STRETCH the reach of this thread to include a brief discussion of Prince Philip, his role as father to Prince Charles and will justify it on the basis of the whole question of whether or not Charles could, would, should ascend the throne is predicated on his marriage to Camilla and Prince Philip certainly had a major impact on both of Prince Charles's marriages.

If that gentleman would have allowed his son to make his own decisions, regarding whom he was going to love, would have ever shown him any fatherly concern other than for public consumption, things might have been entirely different. The only time Prince Philip had a problem with the disaster known as the Waleses marriage was when he perceived it was having a negative effect on the Monarchy. I don't think he has ever cared about what was best for his son.

I will go a bit further and say I really don't accept and give a great deal of credence to a person who preaches family values, while himself married and openly cheating with a relatives wife and that is certainly documented about Prince Philip, I believe?

The truth is British Monarchs have been having sexual liasons outside the confines of their marriage vows for centuries.

 

[wbenson]

I will go a bit further and say I really don't accept and give a great deal of credence to a person who preaches family values, while himself married and openly cheating with a relatives wife and that is certainly documented about Prince Philip, I believe?

I don't think it was ever documented.

 

[diamondBrg]

I don't think it was ever documented.

I have three separate published sources in my possession that says that it is. I am basing my opinion on this.

 

[wbenson]

I have three separate published sources in my possession that says that it is. I am basing my opinion on this.

I think it's one of those things like the thread about "who is Prince Harry's father?" We're just never going to know because the people involved have no desire to tell us.

 

[Madame Royale]

because who would dare criticise a grieving monarch?

You would probably be surprised. A grieving son, but a constitutional monarch nonetheless. And such delicate matters shall invariably arise, and with swift fortitude at that.

Unfortunately the matter can make them look rather stupid if nothing is decided upon sooner rather than later. To remain steadfast with such a suggestion all the way to the throne, only to drop it at the last minute...such indecisiveness has the capability to create some rather unwelcome backlash.

Whatever her title, I think Camilla shall fulfill a wonderful supporting role with much conviction and though I haven't met the woman, I'm inclined to think of her as a perfectly warm and kind hearted indavidual who it would seem has a splenid sense of humour.
​

 

[Incas]

Short of Charles being proven to have caused his mother's death, there is no legal barrier to his ascension. All the polls are just fillers for a slow news gap.

 

[diamondBrg]

This is VERY TRUE and Diana, Princess of Wales will still be a fond memory and regarded as "Queen of Peoples hearts." So all will be well.

 

[wbenson]

Short of Charles being proven to have caused his mother's death, there is no legal barrier to his ascension. All the polls are just fillers for a slow news gap.

Even then he'd still become the King. They'd find a way to get rid of him quickly though, even if he refused.

This is VERY TRUE and Diana, Princess of Wales will still be a fond memory and regarded as "Queen of Peoples hearts." So all will be well.

I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...

 

[Incas]

I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...

LOL!! I may join you in that regard.

 

[jcbcode99]

Even then he'd still become the King. They'd find a way to get rid of him quickly though, even if he refused.



I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...

I think I will join the republic as well! wbenson, you make me laugh!

As I have stated many, many, many times, Charles will ascend the throne, Camilla will be by his side, and then WIlliam will ascend when the time arrives. It would be foolish and petty, not to mention unprecented to pass Charles over. Besides, the Queen made it quite clear that Charles will ascend upon her death. Personally, I think this whole passing Charles over thing is distasteful. Had Diana not given that perfectly awful interview where she stated that she didn't think Charles was fit to be king, well, we would never have this conversation. Why should the monarchy be based on the thoughts of a manipulative, bitter ex-wife? Makes no sense to me.

 

[diamondBrg]

I think I will join the republic as well! wbenson, you make me laugh!

As I have stated many, many, many times, Charles will ascend the throne, Camilla will be by his side, and then WIlliam will ascend when the time arrives. It would be foolish and petty, not to mention unprecented to pass Charles over. Besides, the Queen made it quite clear that Charles will ascend upon her death. Personally, I think this whole passing Charles over thing is distasteful. Had Diana not given that perfectly awful interview where she stated that she didn't think Charles was fit to be king, well, we would never have this conversation. Why should the monarchy be based on the thoughts of a manipulative, bitter ex-wife? Makes no sense to me.

Precisely and there is something else that has ALWAYS puzzeled me to no end.

However Diana felt about Prince Charles, however angry she might have been and right or wrongly for that matter, HER SON, let me repeat that, HER SON was right in that mix and ANYTHING that negatively affected Prince Charles would have to have a NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HER SON, as the NEXT KING??

However angry you might be at your husband/ex-husband, doesn't the welfare and best interests OF YOUR CHILD come first?

 

[jcbcode99]

However angry you might be at your husband/ex-husband, doesn't the welfare and best interests OF YOUR CHILD come first?

Well said, diamondBrg! This whole War of the Waleses was completely unfair to Princes William and Harry--but they seem to have handled it well. But, in all honesty, why would Diana want to push William into being King so young? Let me live a bit, enjoy his life, but she was so upset with Charles that she was willing to put William on the line very early. It didn't make much sense to me!
I will have to take a moment and say that the Duke and Duchess of York showed everyone how parents should strive to behave when there are children involved--

 

[Jo of Palatine]

But, in all honesty, why would Diana want to push William into being King so young? Let me live a bit, enjoy his life, but she was so upset with Charles that she was willing to put William on the line very early. It didn't make much sense to me!

Because then Charles would be humiliated, stripped of his august position while she would be "the mother of the king" aka "King's Mum", a very important person at her son's court. Does that make sense?

 

[momo]

Hi all as I'm new here, If the Queen signs the final treaty with Europe in July 2008, Great Britain or England will effectively not exist any more. (England will be nine regions of the state of the UK in Europe). If this does go ahead our constitution will not exist and there will be no need for a Royal family at all, so maybe Charles and William will not reign. Mo.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Hmm. Not quite sure about that. The Lisbon Treaty has already been signed. It's not in effect yet but it's signed and sealed, done and dusted and the UK is still here. I think you've been reading a little too much of the Daily Mail.

 

[wbenson]

Unless Parliament ceases to be Supreme (it won't, as I'm pretty sure it can still do whatever it wants to nullify the treaty), then the treaty wouldn't be able to effect Charles' or William's future ability to reign at all. Unless EU tanks start rolling down Whitehall, I don't think there's really much to worry about.