HRH Flt Lt Wales
I'm sure it's not as easy as just saying "OK, I'll pass it on to William". When the reigning sovereign dies, the next in line becomes sovereign whether they like it or not.
There is no law that allows for abdication, when Edward VII did it an act of parliament was needed, a new one would be needed for Charles. When Edward abdicated he gave up any rights of succession for his heirs, if he were subsequently to have any.
The act directed that his brother Albert (who became George on succession) would succeed:
but the next para in the act
removes any right of succession to his heirs if he were to have any. He had no children, but Charles has, so the 2 paras would directly contradict if applied to this case.
All too complicated for me, I'm off for a lie down.
There is no law that allows for abdication, when Edward VII did it an act of parliament was needed, a new one would be needed for Charles. When Edward abdicated he gave up any rights of succession for his heirs, if he were subsequently to have any.
The act directed that his brother Albert (who became George on succession) would succeed:
and accordingly the member of the Royal Family then next in succession to the Throne shall succeed thereto and to all the rights, privileges, and dignities thereunto belonging.
(2) His Majesty, His issue, if any, and the descendants of that issue, shall not after His Majesty’s abdication have any right, title or interest in or to the succession to the Throne
All too complicated for me, I'm off for a lie down.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a very good point Plastic.... So if the POW abdicates...who is next in line to pick up the tab...?
Is it the DOY perhaps?
So if the POW abdicates his heirs and successors would forfeit their rights to the throne and it would fall to The Duke of York.... and then when he dies we get Queen Beatrice.
Is it the DOY perhaps?
So if the POW abdicates his heirs and successors would forfeit their rights to the throne and it would fall to The Duke of York.... and then when he dies we get Queen Beatrice.
Realms of Fantasy
Given earlier posts, if an abdication requires an act of parliament, then it would be phrased in a way that suits the peculiar circumstances.
When King Edward VIII abdicated, the need was to ensure any children he might produce later did not come back into the equation. If Charles abdicated, a similar act would be drafted to suit his peculiar circumstances to ensure that the succession was determined in advance. (There is still the thorny issue of - can't spell - 'primo geniter' to get a female of the line to succeed).
The other issue is that if the Queen lives to a very grand age and (say) Camilla was unwell, Charles might 'disclaim' before he gets to be king. Presumably, that also requires an act of parliament.
Anyway: let's just wish Prince William and Miss Middleton a happy and contented life together.
O-D
When King Edward VIII abdicated, the need was to ensure any children he might produce later did not come back into the equation. If Charles abdicated, a similar act would be drafted to suit his peculiar circumstances to ensure that the succession was determined in advance. (There is still the thorny issue of - can't spell - 'primo geniter' to get a female of the line to succeed).
The other issue is that if the Queen lives to a very grand age and (say) Camilla was unwell, Charles might 'disclaim' before he gets to be king. Presumably, that also requires an act of parliament.
Anyway: let's just wish Prince William and Miss Middleton a happy and contented life together.
O-D
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other issue is that if the Queen lives to a very grand age and (say) Camilla was unwell, Charles might 'disclaim' before he gets to be king. Presumably, that also requires an act of parliament.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What succession problems are those then? The succession is not the X-factor or Strictly come dancing whose outcome is governed by public sentiment, despite the the media stirring. It is crystal clear. That is the beauty of it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loyal servant and now subject of HM I maybe, but it is intriguing why we have such a discussion on here ...a military aircew thread...especially when the FAA and RAF are in the process of being devasted by our "elected" polticians.....a touch more signifcant for all of us perhaps? I feel sure if HM had the law in her direct hands as used to be....things would be very different...Ah Well......
BTW Whenever I have had the pleasure of working with (in the past!) or seeing him in professional or social circumstances, I have no doubt that HRH Charles has the potential to be a great King....despite the fact he will probably have little time to make a real impact. There's too much of the Diana sympathy vote surrounding William...which will not help him in the long run despite his developing qualities..and the fact he's a SARBOY of course!
BTW Whenever I have had the pleasure of working with (in the past!) or seeing him in professional or social circumstances, I have no doubt that HRH Charles has the potential to be a great King....despite the fact he will probably have little time to make a real impact. There's too much of the Diana sympathy vote surrounding William...which will not help him in the long run despite his developing qualities..and the fact he's a SARBOY of course!
Me Thinks You Doth Protest Too Much
Talsar,
Because our government is chopping its armed forces to bits, does not mean that all we do and say must perforce be doom and gloom. Many threads on this site deal with the more serious and contentious events; this thread happens to deal with the Royal family (in part).
Enjoy the thread but if it's not for you, there are plenty of other topics.
O-D
Because our government is chopping its armed forces to bits, does not mean that all we do and say must perforce be doom and gloom. Many threads on this site deal with the more serious and contentious events; this thread happens to deal with the Royal family (in part).
Enjoy the thread but if it's not for you, there are plenty of other topics.
O-D
Gentleman Aviator
She might, like my own grandmother, outlive Her elder offspring.
But indeed likely to be a bit Queen Vic as followed by Ed VII. In fact, IIRC, both Queens produced their heirs at age 22.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What succession problems are those then?
Not much new to say on this thread now so I'll just pick up on a couple of scraps
Think I'm right in saying that we are now no longer subjects, Tallsar, but UK citizens (various sub- divisions of citizenship depending on your origins).
That's 'primogeniture', OD, always happy to oblige (once a teacher, always a teacher ).
Loyal servant and now subject of HM I may be,
There is still the thorny issue of - can't spell - 'primo geniter'
).
Thank You...
... Tankertrashnav, I'm obliged to you for the spelling.
As to Blacksheep's comments; whilst I take the point that the PoW's wife might be an issue, I think the longer time passes, the 'Diana Factor' lessens. I also understand that de facto and de jure, when Charles becomes King, his wife becomes Queen and it would take another of, the much mentioned above, acts of parliament to change the status from Queen to Queen Consort. In any event what does Queen Consort mean? In the case of the Duke of Edinburgh's status, there was never an issue and he takes his precedence behind the Queen and has and never has had, any right of accession.
Whatever title is given to Camilla, other than Queen, it will only be a sop to the great unwashed who hanker back to Princess Diana. It is interesting to see an apparently warm relationship between the Princes William and Harry and their step-mother and I suspect any sort of statement from them to say that she should and will be their father's Queen will smack any debate firmly on the head. I also think that we could find our present monarch making some comment on the matter and it is also worth noting that the Duchess of Cornwall takes a full part in the discharge of royal duties both with her husband and in her own right.
O-D (pontificating over for today!!)
As to Blacksheep's comments; whilst I take the point that the PoW's wife might be an issue, I think the longer time passes, the 'Diana Factor' lessens. I also understand that de facto and de jure, when Charles becomes King, his wife becomes Queen and it would take another of, the much mentioned above, acts of parliament to change the status from Queen to Queen Consort. In any event what does Queen Consort mean? In the case of the Duke of Edinburgh's status, there was never an issue and he takes his precedence behind the Queen and has and never has had, any right of accession.
Whatever title is given to Camilla, other than Queen, it will only be a sop to the great unwashed who hanker back to Princess Diana. It is interesting to see an apparently warm relationship between the Princes William and Harry and their step-mother and I suspect any sort of statement from them to say that she should and will be their father's Queen will smack any debate firmly on the head. I also think that we could find our present monarch making some comment on the matter and it is also worth noting that the Duchess of Cornwall takes a full part in the discharge of royal duties both with her husband and in her own right.
O-D (pontificating over for today!!)
Old-Duffer,
Not quite. There can only be one monarch, so the wife of the King is not the Queen. She will only ever be Queen Consort. She is called "Queen", but not THE Queen. Whatever she is called, Camilla will be Queen Consort, but as you said, as a "sop to the great unwashed" the plan was to simply call her Princess Consort instead. Diana would have only have been Queen Consort too.
Our current Queen is THE Queen, because she is the monarch (Queen Regnant). Her husband could never be King, which is why Philip is a Prince Consort, but is called "Prince" in much the same way.
Jolly confusing this.
Nobody mention the Statute of Westminster 1931.
I also understand that de facto and de jure, when Charles becomes King, his wife becomes Queen and it would take another of, the much mentioned above, acts of parliament to change the status from Queen to Queen Consort.
Our current Queen is THE Queen, because she is the monarch (Queen Regnant). Her husband could never be King, which is why Philip is a Prince Consort, but is called "Prince" in much the same way.
Jolly confusing this.
Nobody mention the Statute of Westminster 1931.
Gentleman Aviator
I think the longer time passes, the 'Diana Factor' lessens.
In fact, Camilla is at the moment Princess of Wales - cos that's what you call the wife of the Prince.
In the same way as O-D's wife would be Mrs O-D, whether she chooses to call herself that or not!
Personally I think "Countess of Chester" has a nicer ring to it, although of course a junior title to that of a Duchess.
The Monarchy was Joint.
Jolly confusing.
Let's hope HRH Prince Charles chooses another name as King, as we all know what happens when a King Charles is on the throne.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary was Queen and William of Orange was King because we had kicked out Marys father (James II) and the joint monarcy solved the problem of sucession as far as parliment were concerned (had to give William something to do the dirty work!). Cannot see Charlie having any good reason not to call himself "The third", because the "Second" snuffed it due to old age/illness, not because he suffered the same fate as his old man..