<
To start with it’s worth noting that Monarchy isn’t a popularity contest. The fact that there is a fixed line of succession is what makes it a Monarchy and to deviate from that, regardless of intention, would undoubtably cause questioning over the succession altogether. Why have a Monarchy if you’re going to choose the heir?
Next we have the problem of whether it can actually be done. The answer to this is in fact a surprising yes. It is a well established fact that Parliament controls the succession to the crown and that Parliament can legislate for anything under a doctrine known as Parliamentary supremacy. It is, therefore, not The Queen who determines who succeeds her but Parliament.
However, it is not just constitutional points which would create problems in a move to pass over the Prince of Wales. There is also the issue of whether Prince William is ready to succeed to the throne. The general consensus is that William, and his wife, needs more time. Currently, they don’t have any experience of being a full time working royal and limited experience of state affairs, which his eventual time as heir to the throne will give him the chance to learn about. The Prince of Wales, on the other hand, has been training for the role for over 60 years and has a deep understanding of the affairs of state.
Being king is a no mean feat, despite what republicans would say of the role of the Monarch. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will surely be thankful for the extra time they’ll have together before taking the reigns eventually.
If Prince William succeeded The Queen we’d also then have the problem of an infant heir. That is to say, if anything did happen to the Duke, it would be Prince George who succeeded and an infant King is never good for any Monarchy as history shows and doubtless, even less good in Monarchy in the 21st century.
Whilst opinion on Prince Charles can often vary year on year there is no doubt about his commitment. Despite what people say, he genuinely cares about the country he lives in (and will one day reign over) – he doesn’t just sit idly back whilst the world moves around him, he involves himself heavily in charity work and his passion for the environment and other important causes mean he’s using his position for good – there are many of his predecessors of whom that could not be said.
In conclusion, it’s fair to say whilst popularity may swing in favour of Prince William becoming king, the number of problems likely to be encountered in such a move outweigh possible benefits for Monarchy by a long shot.
photo credit (composite): chego-chego and Jason Simpson via photopin cc]]>
I’m not a fan of some of things he has done, but I actually think he’ll make an excellent King. After all, he has had one of the best teachers you could ask for in HM. He may not be someone I’d ever be friends with (under different circumstances), but I have complete faith in his abilities to be a good and effective Sovereign.
It has to be utterly disheartening to know that people dislike you so much. He has been preparing for this his whole life and to know that some of his subjects have so little faith in him has to be awful.
There are just as many and more who do like The Prince of Wales and who believe he will be a very good King.
And so say all of us who do Kathleen Ames
That is because the man is awful he is the worst example out of the royal family
So sad to see what ghastly, uninformed and cruel folk there are on these ‘pages’ but thankfully there are some of us who will be LOYAL subjects of the Monarch to be when the time comes.
And is a sensitive person and probably is saddened by it.
Happily I’m not English. Charles is bad enough, but his wife is a piece of work.
His wife, who has supported him through thick and thin you mean? Not the one who went off with every soldier boy with a twinkle in his eye?
Yes his lovely wife is a piece of work. A beautiful kind hardworking piece of work who is loved and who loves. Unlike Diana who w’s merely seeking attention!
I happen to be of English Ancestry, and I happen to think that Prince Charles is a pretty awful human being, but you are right about his wife. She is even worse then him !
Maybe if you met Prince Charles may think the same about you and in fact you could end up really liking him. Whatever he will be our next King and as his lawful wife, Camilla will be our queen. This is as it should be. Remember Charles fell in love with Camilla during the 70’s. He was not allowed to marry her because she was not a virgin. How ridiculous. His love has lasted all that time. He had to find a virgin to marry, what a difficult task. I honestly do not think he would have married Camilla while ever Diana lived but now that he has I and many others can see just how happy she makes him, unlike Diana who was more in love with the thought of being Queen than she was with Charles himself.
‘’and I happen to think that Prince Charles is a pretty awful human being” please explain to all of us how you know Prince Charles is “a pretty awful human being”. Have you spent many years by his side day and night? We can all see that Harry is not his son and it’s well known about Diana’s affairs.
He cares for nobody but himself, just like the rest of the so called nobility.
Royalty are not nobility. They are very different.
If you say so.
A noble and royal are two different things………. Robert is right. But “if you say so”……
I think charles would make a good king, will and kate on the otherhand useless and self-centered not what the monarchy needs
The truth of it is: If he wanted to marry Camilla, he should have done so in the first place. Clearly HM didn’t feel as if she was appropriate material for the monarchy then, why would she feel as if CPB is appropriate material now. I don’t believe she wants to pass the crown to Charles, and I’m certain she’s mulling over all of her options before abdicating the throne. HM approved of William’s marriage to Kate, unlike Charles’ second marriage…If you feel Charles isn’t self-centered, you should watch the documentary about his misdeeds during his marriage to Diana. He is a hot mess…and ill-suited for rule.
DEBRA BLONDEEL…Just out of curiosity, what makes you say that William and Kate are useless and self-centered? :o/
Well for a start they are not interested in undertaking Royal duties if they can get out of them or unless they are in Norfolk. William, by his own admission, is ‘busy learning to be a good parent’. Their favourite occupation is taking freebie holidays in hot countries.
How do you know what their “favourite” occupation is? Prince William works flying Air Ambulances for “East Anglian Air Ambulance (EAAA)” 80 hours a month, on top of being father to Prince George and Princess Charlotte, he and Kate also do a lot of Charity work.
Actually Prince William is scheduled to work forty hours per fortnight. That is twenty hours per week. To date he has not completed that task. How do I know their favourite occupation? Unlike you , obviously, I look at their engagements/duties, I note the number of freebie holidays they take and the absence of them in London or elsewhere carrying out any duties, but rather, hiding away in Norfolk. It’s quite easy to know what they like by simple observation. By William’s own words he is busy “being a parent”. All fathers should be so lucky!
Why would I be interested in looking at their engagements/duties? I wouldn’t even begin to know where to look. I have no interest in knowing where they go, on their “Freebie Vacations”, that’s for all you Brits, to follow.
You, obviously, mistook me for someone who’s interested in British Monarchy, but you were wrong. I have no interest, in any of it. I just wondered how you knew about their “favourite” occupation.
Whoever takes over the Throne, be it Charles, or William, after QEII passes away, or abdicates (which is highly unlikely) I hope they rule with a kind heart.
Now, if we (the USA) could find someone who’s better than either one of the Shmegegges running for POTUS, I’d be happy! Don’t care for either one of them! Oh Lawdy, only 2 weeks from this coming Tuesday, and we’ll know which one is the new POTUS…Scary! :o/
Well you asked the question! I told you the answer! That’s how I know their favourite occupation – holidays – more of them than anything else. Yes.. You have problems of your own. Good Luck.
While I understand the potential drawback to having an “infant king” if something (heaven forbid) should happen to William, the odds of that are astronomically low. Prince George wouldn’t be a active ruling king until age of maturity, as he would likely have a regent appointed to temporarily handle state matters until he is ready to handle the responsibilities of the throne. His Uncle Harry would be well-suited for the role of Prince Regent, and would be the obvious choice.
Prince Charles, although he does have a few redeemable qualities, has placed an unforgivable black eye upon the monarchy with his choice to maintain a relationship with his mistress turned wife, Camilla. While I realize the throne is not a popularity contest, his divorce from Diana and decision to remarry this pretender to the throne, should be enough to disqualify his succession. I realize that kings used to murder their wives in order to remarry (Henry VIII), but those times have passed…and the continuance of that adulterous behavior into the future of this monarchy would set a poor precedent.
Although I’m uncertain of what Queen Elizabeth’s decision will be, I’m sure this has weighed heavily upon her mind for some time now. She is well-aware of the drawbacks of both, but in the end, I pray she chooses William with the understanding that Harry could serve as Prince Regent if something should (heaven forbid) happen to William before Prince George is prepared to take the throne. It is a logical choice, and the right one for the future of this monarchy. They young royals have breathed some much needed life into their popularity, a fact that I’m sure HM appreciates.
Well said. Like any good mother, there is no question Her Majesty loves her children, and would not want to deliberately hurt Charles. But she also has an enormous respect and love for “The Firm,” and I think she is intelligent enough to think the matter through logically and unselfishly, placing the greater interests of the country first. The Queen went through the crisis in the wake of Diana’s death, and she is aware that support for the monarchy is not guaranteed forever fixed and firm, and would want to do her best to ensure its survival.
I think she deplores the “unforgivable black eye” you spoke of as much or more than anyone.
What Charles did, did give him a black eye. The Queen does, has always, deplored the “the unforgivable black eye.” However we learn from our mistakes and this was a big mistake for Charles even William and Harry developed a distaste for him because they loved their mother. It was a selfish act, for Queen Elizabeth II she lives with the aftermath of Diana’s death everyday she sees her son. If he has truly grown up in her view he can succeed her. If she feels differently then she will put in her say. As a descendant countrywoman of the U.K. I am not a fan of Prince Charles.
Well we are and HM is much fonder of Camilla than she ever was of Diana, Not only has she been made a Privy Counsellor but has also been awarded HM’s personal honour. Neither was afforded to Diana!
Her Majesty has had her say in agreeing to Charles marriage and in being extremely fond of and respectful of Camilla and in continuing to teach her eldest son his role. Camilla regularly takes pride of place with Her Majesty as on Xmas morning. Charles can and will succeed Her Majesty and whether or not HM likes it (which she does) she has absolutely no say in the outcome. Succession is a matter of Law in this country and almost nothing (short of death) can alter that line, Charles made a mistake – don’t we all? But Diana made many many more, Charles is the rightful heir and will accede his mother. As a ‘descendant’ countrywoman I am sorry that you are not a fan of the Prince. But hey – tough – he will be our next King with Camilla at his side as his Queen, whatever they choose to call her at the time,
I said it would give him a black eye, if that implies I didn’t like him, I apologise. People do change and since William and Harry have kids of their own it is better to make change. When this mess happened all hate went toward the prince without seeing the other side. Since then I have gained a great deal of wisdom that include don’t judge without knowledge and don’t get into politics, it’s too stressful. As a martial artist you learn quickly not to promote negatively. I admire that my British brothers and sisters have true leaders outside of the parliament. I have followed Her Majesty since the tragedies have occurred, I admire her strength and wisdom still I say, she has had enough of negatives and has turned it into roses. It takes a lot for a person to do that. Prince Charles has grown up and I see that he loves his mother he always has. Honor is due.
I agree with some of what you said. Here is the deal.. I mentioned it in another posting.. If we hadn’t had Diana, we wouldn’t have had William and Harry or those precious babies. Who knows what the children would have turned out like. Diana gave her boys a good grounding. William has become a wonderful husband and father.
And just WHO had told you about the ‘dislike’ Princes William and Harry have for their father when all we see is the AFFECTION they have for him? You must be privy to some very private moments between them?
Good grief. His marriage failed. I have news for you: He is not the first person to have a bad marriage. It is no reason to deny him his right to inherit the throne.
This ^^ .. Does nobody consider that perhaps Camilla was and is Charles soulmate? He has been with her for over 20 years without infidelity.. so………..
You can’t assume that he is the same rat-bastard he was 20+ years ago!! OMG
People change!
are you sure he hasn’t had a mistress behind Camilla’s back, remember him saying that he will not be the only Prince of Wales without a mistress.
And people are saying that Diana cheated first, why did the marriage break up anyway, it was mostly because Charles was still having the affair with Camilla while he was married to Diana
Yes, you are. And I feel confidant in saying that this is not the first time you have been so arrogantly stupid.
James was NOT stupid in making that statement about Prince Charles possibly having something to do with her death. We DON’T actually know, and I have seen several articles suggesting that the Royal Family had SOMETHING to do with her death. Frankly, I would put nothing past Prince Charles, a person that I never believed had any “Moral Compass” !
You are in appropriate company.
Rubbish. You conspirathists pop up everywhere.
It most definitely is NOT rubbish ! Sometimes people fail or refuse to see, what is right in front of them !
Arielle, you have said nothing about the matter of the Seat Belt Kathleen Ames has mentioned which is a FACT you cannot argue with as the man that DID wear a seat belt did survive.
In reply to your response, your theory is rubbish. If Diana had been sitting down with her seatbelt on instead of – as usual tormenting the paparazzi from the rear window – she would be here today just as her Security Officer in the front seat and who took the full impact of the crash – the only one wearing a seatbelt – is. Diana was a victim of her own insatiable need to be the centre of attention
And I suppose you think Diana did.
How insulting, plain Wrong and LIBELLOUS are your statements Arielle .You are lucky that the Royal family do not SUE. so folk like you can continue making your wicked, fantastistical allegations.
There have been numerous kings and queens with failed marriages. Marriage is NOT the criteria upon which a successor is chosen
Quite so . Prince Charles is not some ‘popular celeb’ and has been ‘trained’ for the position he will one day have to do.
Our Nation is thick with divorced folk and single mothers etc What irony then that some seem unaware of this FACT
And I’m sure HM well realizes the part she and Prince Philip had in causing that marriage in the first place. They were the ones at fault. They and the court. They pressured him into marrying someone who was totally unsuitable for him. Completely. Diana was quite possibly the worst choice that could have been made. Even her grandmother, Ruth Lady Fermoy, knew it but kept her mouth shut because she was anxious to further her family.
Where on earth did u get the idea that our Queen and Prince Philip ’caused; that marriage Cheryl Clair? It was Diana Spenser who was nicknamed ‘Duchess’ as she wanted to be one and had a pic of Prince Charles apparently in her room as she head obviously set her sights on him.
Try doing a little research. Though it is said now that he didn’t meant to, Prince Philip bullied Charles into the marriage by writing a letter to Charles, telling him to stop leading her on and just get on with it. The Queen also encouraged it as did the Queen Mother. They thought Diana was suitable, which she clearly was not. If her grandmother had spoken up about Diana’s mental problems, the marriage probably never would have taken place. Diana had her head set on him, but he was still bullied into it. They both had doubts before the wedding.
A ‘little’ research? Have read as much as there is to read Cheryl Clair re: this affair and was horrified when I learned of the differences in age and character between the Prince and Diana and feared a marriage would not work and said so at the time. Prince Philip did suggest that Prince Charles made up his mind asap as it would be hurtful for Diana after all the publicity there was if he did not accept her. That is hardly bullying but a statement of fact. So it is simply your own view not borne by fact.. Diana’s sister also commented when she got cold feet and said it was ‘too late’ as mugs had already been produced to commemorate the marriage or a similar comment. Furthermore, the Duke’s early correspondence to the Princess was very warm and supportive. Her grandmother did know about Diana’s habit of fibbing and commented.
I did say that I don’t think that Philip meant to bully him, only advise him. But given their relationship, Charles took it differently. Her sister’s remark was “Too late Dutch, your face is already on the tea towels”. HM went along with Philip as she liked Diana and assumed she would settle into the job. And it was the fairy tale the country wanted. So if you think it’s just my opinion, that’s up to you. Not much I can do about nor am I interested in trying to change your mind. I’ve been studying this family for some 60 years, and I am not talking about the tabloids and things like Andrew Morton’s book. You are entitled to your opinion of both the royals and myself. I’ll keep my opinion, thank you very much.
I remember the day I was told of the BIRTH of a new Prince way back in the 1940’s in a far off British colony who was to be called Charles!! I was joyful to hear it and remain so today so wish him WELL as he and his family are NOT part of the Illuminati nor the ogres they are being made out to be so remain as loyal as I was then as I consider the UK fortunate to have a Head of State who represents All of its people and have their welfare foremost in mind so ‘God bless our Monarch and confusion to his/her ENEMIES some of whom happen to be my fellow compatriots sad to say.
And I agree.
But then again, there would not have been William, Harry and the babies. Those precious beings would have come from another woman, and who knows WHAT the Monarchy would have been left with.
In actual fact the Queen Mother and Diana’s grandmother, Lady Fermoy arranged the marriage between them to join their families together!
Yes they did.
But like a good mother she has forgiven it and the parties involved. She is extremely fond of Camilla who took pride of place on Christmas morning grovelling in the car with her and she has also made her a Privy Counsellor and granted her her own Personal Order. Neither was done for Diana.
You know you right let old things die. I am glad The Queen is able to do that. As humans we really shouldn’t hold grudges forever it’s a waste of positive energy that could be placed somewhere else. Wisdom from the past teaches us to learn from our mistakes and grow older gracefully. While Diana was only human so are we. The news we learn doesn’t tell the whole story. Camilla probably learned a lot from the matter. I personally was a child when Charles married Diana and 29 when Diana passed, however, I dispise the actions of both actions prior to Diana’s death.I am sure the family has closure from it. William and Harry are grown handsome men they can handle it.The Queen is tired and wants peace for the family. I admire her, 98 years is a long time on earth but having a clear heart gives you peace. In her mind all this messiness of Charles’ past is just that “the past”
time to move forward. The order you mention for Camilla given to her, consider this it is twenty years later everybody has aged and grown wiser that might have something to do with it as well. Is it possible that Diana wouldn’t have gotten an order anyway because of other factors going on in her then young life. It takes a lot to uphold a leadership role.
I would love to let Diana lie Noelle. It is the ‘Diana maniacs’ who still believe in her innocence and so-called injustice who refuse to let her lie in Peace.
I actually loved Diana, but I know I will never understand the different family relationships The Queen had with past members. Usually little after is known about as in most families.
I agree, but I keep reading that the choice is not the Queen’s to make, (the Parliament does that). My hope is that Charles “declines” .
Or more accurately, abdicates the throne.
He can’t decline. His only option, if he wants to avoid the throne, is to ask 15 Parliaments to pass an appropriate law bypassing him, or else convert to Roman Catholicism.
He can’t decline. His only option, if he wants to avoid the throne, is to ask 15 Parliaments to pass an appropriate law bypassing him, or else convert to Roman Catholicism.
Why, exactly, can’t he abdicate?
He can. But he can’t unilaterally decline the job before he has it.
Exactly. You can’t resign a job until after you have been hired.
He can abdicate if he chooses, but it is unlikely. He has trained for 63 years for his time on the throne and wouldn’t do anything to harm the Monarchy. That would be worse than even Edward abdicating, at lease he did it for love, even though everyone knew he didn’t want the responsibility of being King. For Charles to abdicate… it would be disastrous to the Monarchy
He could abdicate but that is as unlikely an event as it is that HM The Queen will abdicate.
No he can abdicate, the crown would go to William, but he has been trying to get his mother to retire for 20 years doubtful that he will do that.
My point is that he can’t decline – i.e. you can’t pre-abdicate. He would have to wait until he’s king, and then abdicate. And he hasn’t been trying to get the Queen to abdicate for 20 years, because it’s been apparent from the get go that she never will.
Her duty is til death, she would never retire
That can only happen before he is crowned.
Edward was on the throne for a year before he abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson!
He can’t abdicate before he gets the job! And if he did it would need all the countries in the Commonwealth to agree to it. And he won’t anyway. He has waited his whole life for this role and he has in no way tried to get his mother to abdicate either because he knows her sense of duty because he shares it. Her Majesty will never abdicate.
My first favourite is Prince Harry
It’s not Britain’s Next Top Model, Yudi.
I don’t think they were saying it like that. Her favorite Royal is Harry.
He has no chance.. For Prince Harry to succeed Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Andrew Duke of York would have to die!
Harry is ahead of Andrew in the succession order, and if the Cambridges insist on all flying together (something that would not have been done in years past until Charles and Diana took William to Australia), it’s not extremely unlikely that Harry could become King. It would be extremely unlikely if William and his children flew on separate planes, but since they fly together, it increases the odds for Harry.
He is so far from the throne Harry has absolutely no chance of becoming Monarch. Besides that, he takes only minimal royal duties and has no experience whatever.
The Queen became queen at the age of 25, with far less experience than William or Harry.
Oh God, what a pompous screed. Also, look up “pretender to the throne.” It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Not to mention that she used the term remarry; Prince Charles was never married to Camilla before, so he could only marry her, not remarry her.
Not to mention that she used the term remarry; Prince Charles was never married to Camilla before, so he could only marry her, not remarry her.
Not to mention that she used the term remarry; Prince Charles was never married to Camilla before, so he could only marry her, not remarry her.
Not to mention that she used the term remarry; Prince Charles was never married to Camilla before, so he could only marry her, not remarry her.
He “remarried”, after his prior marriage to Diana. He could have chosen NOT to marry Camilla – the better choice. After all, he wasn’t opposed to having her as a mistress (but we’ll brush those nasty bits under the rug, shall we?)
You mean the same as Diana wasnt opposed to sleeping with James Hewitt BEFORE Charles resumed his relationship with Camilla I assume.
Charles and Diana’s marriage began souring after Prince Harry’s birth. Now for those of us who have been in a trusted relationship means love. Sounds to me likes Charles was not not it love with Diana and vice versa. Was she supposed to be miserable forever? This was not a fairy tale relationship.
you are 100% correct and IF Diana had not died the way she did it probably wouldn’t even be open for debate. Both Charles and Diana were guilty of adultery and were better off divorced. However if Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla in the late 1970’s it would all be a mute point.
I believe you are correct. I don’t believe either of them were in love or that Diana knew what love was until she had her children. What Diana married with was a childish wish to be a Princess and she didn’t care who the Prince was. She had already tried for Prince Andrew – as told by her sister – but he had a lucky escape as he had just met Fergie and preferred her. Poor Charles therefore became the object of her pursuit telling her sister “wouldn’t it be fun if I became The Princess of Wales’ (read Diana’s sister’s story). She even had Charles’ poster on her bedroom wall as if adoring a pop star! Sadly others thought she was suitable (although her own Grandmother did not, and many years later apologised to HM The Queen that she had not been entirely honest about her granddaughters’s previous mental health.) No one wanted Diana to be miserable and I am sure that applied to Charles because she made them both miserable. Sadly that’s life sometimes. But it is all history and should be left in the record books to allow those left to live their lives and especially for Diana to Rest in Peace. Sadly because of the vitriol again an innocent Camilla this does not happen. Like millions of others I would prefer never to hear of Diana again – poor dear she is dead – but as long as her ‘bitter lovers’ continue to slag off Camilla others will continue to support her. Regards
You can’t blame it all on Diana. Sure she had lovers, but what’s worse? Many different or the same one for years?
And it was’nt just Hewitt either. What about the affair with Oliver Hoare and and all those denied phone calls.? Then there was the Rugby player , the former boyfriend and the Pakistani surgeon supposed to be the love of her life but then so was Barry Manakee apparently. Charles did not have a string of lovers. of he was not in love with Diana , why did she say he was ‘all over her like a rash etc?Others witnessed his affection for her too and it could have worked but she insisted on him adhering to what she wanted.Did not approve of his friends , made him get rid of his dog and wanted 100% attention he could not possible give in his position and as her other partners realised too. She did have good qualities but why has she been ‘sainted’ with all her faults??The Queen is a traditionalist which is why she will not abdicate and Prince Charles , whilst he is still alive is the heir to the throne. Nothing but nothing unless he loses his marbles( he nearly had a break down when unable to deal with Diana’s foibles) can change that.
Apologies for my intrusion, but I couldn’t let your words go unnoticed. Charles never ended his affair with Camzilla. His heart was hers from the minute he fell in love with that wench. Just because he pretended to love Diana enough to marry her, doesn’t mean he loved her and forgot about his heart’s affair. He just needed an heir for the throne should anything happen to him.
Yes, they quieted down for a number of years, but it was only because the wicked woman was married to someone else. Diana knew going at the very start of her marriage that there were three people in her marriage, even though she was completely in love with her husband.
The ONLY reason Diana turned to others is because of the verbal and emotional abuse she was getting from Charles. Do the research…there are video clips of interviews with Diana saying the very things I am telling you here.
Also, last time I did research, Royal Protocol states that to ascend the throne, one must not be divorced. Charles is most decidedly, just that when he divorced Diana. So the only logical heir to the throne is Prince William, as it should be.
The rules were changed in 2002 I believe, to allow Charles to remain heir to the throne. If you notice, The Queen didn’t attend his service when he married Camilla. I’m sure it hurt him, but as Queen and as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, she felt she couldn’t possibly attend.
Camilla only became Prince Charles’ mistress – as you call her – after Diana became the mistress of James Hewitt.
Camilla & Charles were in love many years before but Camilla was already married. Charles married Diana to provide an heir & a spare. It was never a true love match
We all know that and it is irrelevant. Diana Was the first to commit adultery.
Do you have proof of that? Do you have proof of Charles sexual activity as well? Apparently the Queen may know as she knows everything. I have more respect for Queen Elizabeth II.
In Prince Charles’ own words he resumed his relationship with Camilla when his ‘marriage’ had irrevocably broken down’, i.e. after Diana told him she had an affair with Hewitt. Do your homework.
I don’t think that is correct. Why in the world would Camilla give him those cufflinks if there wasn’t anything going on still
Have you never heard of friends exchanging gifts? They were very long standing friends and probably exchanged gifts every year. We don’t even know when the cufflinks were given. When Charles’ engagement to Diana was announced, Charles gave identical bracelets to three of his ex girlfriends, Camilla, Kanga Lady Tryon, and the Mountbatten cousin he had also escorted. To give a gift does not mean you have to be in the throes of an affair in my book!
You’re half right. Camilla and Charles were together for years BEFORE she married Parker Bowles. The story is Charles wanted to marry her but Lord Mountbatten interfered and the relationship ended.
Prince Charles & Camilla have been having an affair since their school days, they only ‘publicly’ seperated because he became of age to take over the throne. Even while she was married and raising children they were together.. Diana was chosen for Charles it wasnt a love marriage, solely to produce an heir to the throne. Everyone needs to feel loved, she did her thing.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Prince Charles had an affair with Camilla either before or after his marriage (until Diana strayed that is). Yes he and Camilla were lifelong friends. That does not make them lovers. Never understood why some women can’t understand a man/woman can be deep friends without a sexual content.
Camilla went around with her ‘own set’ after the Prince got married and was contacted when those around him noticed his distress and when he was on the verge of a breakdown. Lady Pamela and othera knew what he was going through when Diana hit him over the head with cushions whilst he was praying and she called him a saint with putting up with all had. All this is was not known until now in the latest book recently published.
Seachelle. How inaccurate, you must have know the Prince and Camilla when in school to comment . Charles met Camilla when she was well past ‘school and was older than Diana. On the contrary. Diana chose to be with Charles and those nearest and in the know unlike yourself told how she went ”all out to get him’ She even said how wonderful Balmoral was when she absolutely hated it and was very much a Sloaney and could’nt stand the countryside. Penny Romsey and others noticed before the marriage how she kept repeating that one day she would be Queen as if in a dreamworld etc and were concerned . She was also called ‘Duchess’ by her sisters as it was what she wanted to be. She also later admitted how naive she had been later.
He was married before and got married again to someone else, so he got remarried!
But by royal standards are they married legally???
Yes. The same laws apply to the royal family as others when it comes to the legality of marriage. At the time, if the Queen had opposed the marriage it would not have been legal. The law has since changed – if the same thing occurred again, the married would still be legal even if the Queen objected, but Charles would lose his place in the line of succession.
Yes.
Since Camilla’s former husband is still alive, in the eyes of the Church of England she is not married to Charles. They were married in a Civil ceremony, don’t forget, and the Queen, the Head of the Church of England, was not present.
I don’t think the Church of England will accept a divorced man as its spiritual leader – that’s what I have read, anyway.
sorry you’re thinking of the Catholic church. Don’t forget Henry VIII founded the Anglican church and he was divorced and remarried a number of times.
Peter – Edward the VIII was not allowed to be king because he was in love with a twice-divorced woman. I’ve been told the Anglican Church has relaxed it’s once-rigid ban on divorce, so perhaps Charles can be king after all. I just wonder what the British people think about having Camilla as the King’s consort.
Fine by me.
The fact that the law has changed AND that The Queen approved of his marriage to Camilla is why he is still heir to the throne. If the law had changed and The Queen disapproved, it would be legal, but Charles would lose his right to the throne and William would succeed The Queen.
How ironical, as it was King Henry 8th who divorced and thereby went against the Roman Catholic Pope and thereby chose to follow the Protestant faith which he made the Church of England of which he was head. Our monarchs are called Defender’s of the Faith as that particular Faith they had to defend was, in fact, the Roman Catholic church!!
Anne – True and indeed ironic. The title was granted by Pope Leo X in 1521, and Henry VIII kept the title, even after excommunication by the Pope!
Well it accepts divorced (and remarried) men and women as members of the clergy, so I see no problem with a divorced head of the Church of England.
It did not work out with his first wife. He married the person he wanted. Who gives a poo? Prince Charles will be King.
It did not work out with his first wife. He married the person he wanted. Who gives a poo? Prince Charles will be King.
Queen Elizabeth has LITTLE, OR NOTHING to do with it–according to the article, the PARLIAMENT will decide. (Caps for emphasis only).
Did you not read the article? The Queen DOES NOT choose her successor! Her successor is determined BY LAW and that is Charles. Only Parliament, by much effort, can change that. The Queen has no control whatever over it.
But the Queen can speed things along by formally asking Parliament to change the Law . . .
HM The Queen has no say in who succeeds her. Also it is well known that she fully intends Prince Charles to follow her. He is her heir and rightful successor. Your thoughts really are ‘holier than thou’. This is the 21st century and people do, believe it or not, change partners without it precluding them from having a career. Prince Charles has worked long and hard to learn his role unlike his son. Prince William is not interested in learning the job as is evident from his lifestyle of ‘being a good parent’ (his words) and taking freebie holidays. God forbid we get him on the throne – it will surely be the end of the Monarchy. I believes Prince Charles will be a really good King.
Wrong, Parliament can…………The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).
When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had ‘abdicated the government’ and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James’s young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.
It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia – the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I – are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.
Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne.
The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015. It is also a well established fact that Parliament controls the succession to the crown and that Parliament can legislate for anything under a doctrine known as Parliamentary supremacy. It is, therefore, not The Queen who determines who succeeds her but Parliament.
I’m afraid it is not HM The Queen’s choice as to who succeeds her. We have Laws of succession and HRH Prince Charles is the lawful successor. I do wish all you hypocrites on here would get over the fact that Charles changed partners. I wonder how many of you have had only one partner throughout your life? At least Charles had only one, a woman he loved then and loves now, unlike Diana who tried out at least six partners as long as they were rich and could keep her in the public eye. Prince Charles will make a fabulous King with Camilla at his side. Unlike her predecessor she does not seek the limelight for herself but aims and succeeds in supporting her husband quietly and with dignity.
Pretender to the throne, Camilla, .Katie Kane??FEW Redeemable qualities indeed. Prince Charles as the above ‘article’ says has dedicated himself to our Nation and the causes that concern ,not just our Nation but the WORLD. Have u any conception at all how our former Monarchs have acted.? How very hypocritical of those in the UK & the West to cast aspersions when Divorce is so high and Marriage completely ”out of vogue’.
All we saw and read was how hard our heir to throne,after his marriage to Diana, tried to make his marriage work. Are you so completely unaware of all those things she made him give up and do? and she did admit she had been very naive and her blatant fabrications. In my view she was well suited to be a celebrity with a wealthy husband who could dedicate himself a 100% to her and her alone. That is what her later lovers and staff concluded. . She always had her way. even when she insisted on flying together to Australia with Prince William? Heaven forbid but what would have transpired if an accident had occurred?
Even Diana admitted that her book (Diana , her true story) was anything but and her public ‘attack’ upon the woman who escorted her children, was that redeemable. Would a mother who cared about her unborn child behave in such a manner as to throw herself down the stairs.? At the time of the engagement, ,some of us were shocked to note the difference in age between the couple and wondered how a Sloane ranger, pop person would fit in? The book, the TV appearance, had she no regard for anybody at all? Pity she did not have anyone to give her a ‘pep talk’ before her marriage as she was mesmerised with the fantasy and not reality and admitted to being VERY NAIVE. Such a shame she did not marry a Duke as she was nicknamed ‘Duchess. Also, she herself had parents who were divorced and her mother was only 18 when married too. Her brother, the Earl has had 3 partners ?? I do not believe the Queen alone can make a decision at all, again as above article states.
For man who dedicated himself to his Nation where Divorce if RIFE and single parenthood so much in vogue whom even foreigners agree has served it well for 60 years to be set aside, leaves them and us ‘scratching our heads’ in disbelief.
Well said. I get so tired of everyone talking about Diana as if she was a saint and a victim.
Diana was a victim
…. yes of her own mental health and her vicious jealousy!
She did marry a Duke. Charles is a Duke
You obviously don’t know much about our Constitution. Her Majesty has no say whatever in who succeeds her. We have Laws of Succession in this country and Prince Charles is the rightful and worthy successor. Mistakes were made on both sides but Diana, was the first to begin a relationship outside the marriage – with James Hewitt, by her own admission, and then and only then did Prince Charles resume his relationship with Camilla. Much is made of the fact that HRH and Camilla remained in contact during his marriage. Was he not allowed friends then? Men and women can be very good and dear friends without hopping into bed with each other. This is the 21st century and people do believe it or not, change partners. Have you had more than one relationship in your life. Many of those who criticise HRH have and do regular change while at the same time criticing him. There is so much hypocrisy in this story. Even the Church of England who you hold as being wronged here, recognises divorce. Diana was disturbed when she joined the royal family and disturbed to the end with an insatiable need to be the centre of attention, a minx who destroyed everything in her wake; the epitome of a woman scorned; a disaster waiting to happen, and it did. Had she not been tormenting the paparazzi from the rear window of the car she might still be here today but she just could not resist. Camilla will make a much better and infinitely more suitable Queen. She does not spend her whole life hogging the limelight and posing for cameras. She has a quiet dignity and grace. She helps and supports her husband in every way. Qualities Diana knew nothing about.
I understand your dislike of Charles as he is not my ideal choice for king wither however Diana was not a perfect wife either. At least 1 year before the divorce she was having an affair. IF Charles had been allowed to marry Camilla in the 1970’s like he wanted non e of this would have happened.
Diana’s death has made her a martyr and no one wants to remember anything she did wrong. They forget she had a thing for Muslim men and bedded at least 2.
As for calling Camilla “pretender to the throne” you have no idea what you are talking about.
i thought it said in the article. That the Parliament decides , who will take over for the Queen. She does not decide.
Royal lineage is determined by the Law of Succession, and the Queen has no say in the matter. Since the Church of England has relaxed it’s once-total ban on divorce, Prince Charles can become King. In addition, the Monarch can now marry a Roman Catholic, although he/she must remain in the Church of England.
Historical Note: On his deathbed King Charles II, the “Merrie Monarch,” converted to Roman Catholicism, but was still given a state funeral and buried in the Anglican Westminster Abbey.
“Although I’m uncertain of what Queen Elizabeth’s decision will be” – it’s not her decision. As the article points out, it’s up to parliaments, and they show no inclination to make any change.
Prince Charles is heir to the throne which our Queen understands only too well and will succeed her .
R. I honestly don’t think the Queen has given it a 2nd thought. There is no way that she would ever consider requesting Parliament change the law to allow Charles to be skipped. She has her duty and Charles has spent his whole life training to be King. Queen Elisabeth is nothing if not loyal to her subjects and duty. Charles is the same way. Even if he only serves a couple of years, he will take his place on the throne and the King and will do his duty as he’s been taught.
Charles will also make significant changes to the monarchy when he does away with having all of these family members living of the crown that do noting (ex Princess’s Beatrice and Eugenie), regardless of what Andrew has threatened. If you aren’t a full time working royal, you lose your benefits.
Queen Elizabeth has no choice in who succeeds her. It is a matter of British law. All these stories about her choosing William over Charles are ridiculous nonsense/
Parliament can alter the line of succession by passing a bill. And if The Queen gave word to the Prime Minister she was in favor of it, that could initiate or hasten the process.
It’s a bit of a long shot, but by no means impossible.
It would take 16 acts by 16 parliaments, actually. That is unless, of course, sub-national polities such as Queensland, Western Australia or Nova Scotia among others choose to exercise their sovereignty and have their own acts.
Quite so Mr Smith. I may not be alive to see it but I would say. Long Live our KIng, and have written to my GREEN Prince and told him how grateful I am for All he has done for ENVIRONMENTAL causes .The most important CAUSE of all and much more such as the Princes Trust in support of our young folk. . If he does NOT become KING I shall not be disappointed as his life has been dedicated to what matters most of all . He is just the man for our times.So Ironic so many in Britain talking about divorce etc when so many have done so or are just living together or worse. That rich that is. Viva Prince Charles , a man for our time of such environmental devastation.
Absolutely Anne. So many hypocrites on here as I have noted many times. I bet not one of them is still with their original partner. “Let not him cast the first stone………” comes to mind. Apologies if that is a misquote before someone has a go at me for that!
I WILL GLADLY CAST THAT FIRST STONE NOT ALL OF US ARE ADULTERERS
True but Diana was so what’s your answer to that. She w’s one SIX times over. At least Charles had only one affair – a love affair. Move on with your life Diana is dead – had you noticed?
Are you saying that Diana cheated on Charles? I have only heard of her seeing other men when her marriage was completely broken. Question, is it worse to have had several lovers or one long standing affaire?
All valid points, but I still prefer William, I never liked Charles. He is married to a divorced woman too, I suppose that does not matter much these days though. I hope the Queen hangs on another 5 years and William will have a bit more experience etc.
William is never going to gain experience at this rate because he is only interested in paying ‘daddy’ and taking freebie holidays. Work is not on his agenda.
Oh stop, the Queen goes all over, it’s called putting yourself out there so people can get a feel for what they are about
We are not questioning The Queen’s workload, it’s William who is the lazy one
You must be a high church Anglican or RC Mr Martin. Have you noticed the UK Divorce rate, folk who never marry but just cohabit and single women who have umpteen kids by different partners. Far better a divorced woman who is steadfast than a pretty but unstable young consort. You never liked Charles because he worked hard for Causes that really mattered which obviously many do not while the Earth is ravaged around us. He liked Opera and was NOT a Pop personality and Fun person and was always a shy . I remember him being shy as little boy and as he grew up. He did not go boozing or rough housing and was NOT brought up to be a CELEBRITY.
Not a chance. HRH Prince Charles would be a great king after her majesty.
Did anybody think about Prince Harry?
I think he could well succeed if given a chance
I mentioned Harry as a potential for Prince Reagent if something should happen to William, and George suddenly cast upon the throne as an infant king.
I’d go for Anne.
YUDI NOTTHINGHAM…The line of succession goes like this; Charles, William, George, Charlotte, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, and so on…That means Harry has no chance, what-so-ever of becoming King, even if he wanted too! :o/
Haryy cannot succeed unless both Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George and Princess Charlotte have died,
Queen Elizabeth decide herself on who should succeed her? True, a prospective monarch cannot be divorced, but he was a widower when he married Camilla. If they are legally married and they had a ‘blessing’?
I cannot envisage Prince Charles being passed over. From what is going round, it is Camilla who is the fly (or is it flea) in the ointment. The word that keeps cropping up is ‘morganatic’?
The only thing standing in the way of Charles’ happily ever after with Camilla, was Diana’s life. So while you sing his accolades, I’m more inclined to question his motives.
Charles wasn’t a widower. He and Diana were divorced. A widower is someone whose spouse dies WHILE married, not after the divorce.
Technicality only. His first wife was died therefore he was a widower.
100% wrong
And he therefore became a widower – legally.
Legally they were divorced, no longer married, at the time she passed. If someone is no longer married then they can’t become widowed at the time of their ex’s demise.
Sorry but legally they do. I have two divorced friends. Neither remarried nor did their husbands. Both husbands now deceased and they are ‘widows’ for purposes of Pension and other legal formalities. Charles became a widower on Diana’s death.
But he had not remarried and his status changed. As it does for any of us. It moves on. I have two divorced friends, neither remarried. Both sadly lost the ex’s this year.Their Pensions and access to benefits now classes them as widows.
Since Camilla is past child Bering age the question of morganatic cannot possibly come into anything.
No the queen cannot
I can’t even believe you guys are really discussing this.
I am Danish and I have been living in the UK for quite some time now. I am a monarchist and I think you should keep your Monarchy the way it is. One cannot say “I am royalist, but I prefer HRH William over HRH Charles.”, because that way you are messing with the very soul of the Monarchy – namely – the Succession and having an UNELECTED Head of State.
Chosen and elected are not synonyms.
So, in your opinion, in order to support the Monarchy, one must feel exactly the same about every member of the royal family?
Of course you can be a royalist while having preferences about whom you’d prefer rule.
Not if you believe in our Monarchy as it stands as this country has a Law of Succession. You can of believe you like one more than another (bearing in mind most of us will never ‘know’ any of them), but you cannot alter the succession and believe you are a Royalist.
Monarchs don’t rule the UK any more, they reign over it.
A great many folk do think he has served the most important cause of all. Our environment and much else. It really is rich coming from so many who think nothing of having sex with all and sundry . woman who have many kids by several fathers. divorce at the drop of a hat. Life together without benefit of marriage and expect our monarch not to and marry a Virgin. That’s the biggest laugh of all. Please look at KING HUSSEIN of Jordan who divorced twice and remained the much loved King by his people and the highly respected across the world. The late Sainted Princess admitted she was very naive , in love with the position and a fantasy and lied into the bargain about how much she loved the countryside when she was a Sloaney at heart. So many untruths it does’nt bear thinking about. Whom did she canoodle with A VERY RICH drug taking man who broke his engagement as soon as his father ordered after having many love affairs. All completely forgotten. A film star, they all fell in love with and was called Duchess , something she always wanted to be. What if she had been just a very quiet plump , very plain Jane whom Prince Charles was happy with. What then.??
It has nothing to do with divorce, put that aside charles still is a spoilt brat who tries to poke his big nose into stuff that does not concern the royal family, charles no matter what people say cannot help himself, he is unsuitable to rule end of
How very uninformed you are Rosina Griffin or have chosen to deliberately ignore the work of . Prince Charles who is certainly NOT a spoiled brat but an environmentalist who has hugely influenced his sons.There is also the Prince’s Trust he has long been engaged with and has not ‘poked his nose into anything but in ALL that Matters most. As such he is eminently suitable to be our Monarch and I hope I live until he does as I feel the Queen should now take a back seat due to her age. END OF
Oh really is that why he tries to dominate in poitics when they are supposed to remain neutral, example the black spider memos, and he is a spoiled brat, he gets everythng done for him, and he throws tantrums when things do not go his way, or he stomps out of a room when other people do not agree with him or have other views, he is not fit to be a king, and i quote his own buttler Paul Burrell……
“His face was puce red. ‘WHY?’ he bellowed. ‘Because you were out, Your Royal Highness’.
“Puce turned to virtual purple. ‘Why couldn’t you simply have said that you just couldn’t find me?'”
Shaken, Burrell asked whether the Prince was telling him to lie.
“With the temerity of that question from a servant, he exploded: ‘Yes! YES! I am!’
“In a flash, he picked up a book from his table and hurled it in my direction, Burrell said Charles was still ranting and stamping his foot, and stormed: “I am the Prince of Wales and will be king!” The butler made a sharp exit.
According to many who know him, rather than engage in debate, he will shut it down — or even simply leave the room.
Prince Charles remains resistant to ideas that contradict his intuition, even when he is presented with compelling new research. He loses his temper with staff and has alienated some of his most senior officials.
David Airlie, the Queen’s close friend and long-time senior adviser, considers him ‘a very emotive person. He gets very worked up about things. He can be very difficult to handle’.
the Queen’s former Comptroller, Sir Malcolm Ross. Stated ‘I was called names I hadn’t heard since my early days in the Army,’ added Ross. He also sensed a pervasive fear among the other employees.
Charles saw no contradiction, for instance, in spending £5.6 million in public funds on refurbishing Clarence House for his own use, plus £2million of his money on redecoration.
And you say he is fit to be king. NO HE IS NOT FIT
M/s Griffin , I note that you have filled up these pages with your adverse and insulting comments , all SIXTEEN of them and appear to have a chronic PHOBIA or mania regarding the Prince with not a single good thing to say so I think you ought to have a word with some young folk who have prospered and altered their lives because of the Princes Trust . A great many completely disagree with your opinions and vitriolic outbursts . I recommend a course of meditation and stress reducing medication before it affects your health. I do hope you will survive to see our Prince CROWNED and attain the position he has been trained for since birth so long live the Prince of Wales and confusion to his enemies.
Oh really?? When most of his subjects lead such immoral lives, young folk sleeping around at will, divorcing willy nilly or just living together, having affairs left right and centre, swingers et al,.Free marriages , etc etc. ” Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. King Hussein divorced at least twice and remained a much loved and respected monarch by all his people. If you want a Saint better become a Republic and choose one instead.What would you all say if Prince Charles had tried out some woman for size first like Prince William etc have done??Prince Charles was always criticised as he was NOT a Pop Prince, liked Opera, and being an organic farmer and was interested in the important things in life.He was called an Old before his time etc.because he was not ‘Cool’ as the Princess was and rather shy from his boyhood.Moreover, there were banners to say, ” We want Diana NOT Charles” when the couple were together. If you want a POP princess and glamour film star , say so. I asked someone what if the Princess had been a plump, very plain but kind lady , what would you say then. I well remember how Sarah Ferguson was treated and what was said about her appearance even before anyone knew her. As for Kate , has anyone seen the photo of her naked posterior as her very short dress flew up. Thank heaven the Princess had more sense than that she was far too young and naive as she admitted herself. Did no one see how lovingly the Prince treated her when they were first married and how he bowed to her needs? As her lovers and others proclaimed she needed a partner who would dedicate himself to her needs 100% and full time. A Prince or King cannot do that nor can a most humans. Viva prince Charles a man for our times
Boy, you can sure tell that Prince Charles is in charge of the media in the UK. This article reeks of him. WILLIAM should ascend to the throne.
No he should not. We have Laws of Succession and Prince Charles is the rightful successor
What a load of twaddle. Whilst parliament can (and recently has) changed the order of succession, why on earth should it?! Charles is an excellent Prince of Wales, and I have no doubt he will make an excellent King when his time comes. And Camilla will be an excellent Queen Consort!
Actually she will be his Queen. Whether or not they decided to call her that at the time. The title Queen Consort would have to be bestowed upon her by the King.
She won’t be Queen Consort (you are correct), but she will queen consort; just as the current monarch is not Queen Regnant, but she is queen regnant.
Exactly. I wish I had a pound for every time I have explained this! Regards
Ok I’m confused. Please explain the difference?
Firstly a monarch may not have any political involvement, charles has actually failed this many time over by trying to butt his nose into politics he is not a good example of a ruling monarchy at all, i guess you all refuse to remember the amount of tantrums he has had. And like it or not people and many of them will not accept charles as king, so parliament also has to consider all that because there could be a uproar and that will not be good for this country. therefore parliament could very well actually see charles as unfit on those terms alone.
Please give an example of one of these so called tantrums, he’s supposed to have had? As he is NOT yet our monarch, he is free to lobby parliament as he sees fit.
I strongly believe this will happen, but only because the Queen will live to at least 105 yrs of age. That will make Charles in his late 80’s and too old to be expected to take the role. The Queen though should NOT abdicate. My prediction is Charles will become Regent when the Queen is around 95yrs old as she can’t be expected to carry on working as hard as she does forever and when the sad day comes that Her Majesty does die, Charles will Abdicate due to age and the crown will move to William, who by then will be in his mid 50’s. So, just to clarify, I’m not saying Charles shouldn’t be King, I’m saying that he may too old for the job once he does get the chance. Diana was right, but only due to the fact that the Queen will live so long, hopefully. God Save The Queen
are you saying that Charles will serve for a while? or that he will abdicate upon the Queen’s death?
Charles will become King the minute Her Majesty stops. That is the norm, but would you want to take on that job in your 80s? The Queen is going to be around for a very long time yet, hopefully.
I think it is highly unlike that at whatever age Prince Charles accedes the throne, that he will abdicate. It is not the tradition of the English Monarchy to abdicate. However short, I believe he will reign. We leave abdication to the Dutch!
The fact the Prince Charles continued his relationship with Camilla even after marrying Princess Diana disqualifies him. Marriage to a divorced woman also disqualifies him immediately.
Her marital status prior to their marriage is irrelevant, she’s not the person succeeding, he is. And his marital status is constitutionally fine (widower, remarried).
Why did Edward abdicate then? Because Wallis Simpson was a 2x divorcee and had carried on an affair, and had a child if the news is to be believed, with Edward while still married to her 2nd husband.
Because in 1936 the CofE did not allow remarriage after divorce. They do now.
Wallis Simpson had divorced two husbands and both were still living. There was never any mention of her having a child in fact her sexuality was questioned over and over. Both her ex-husbands did go on to have children but in three marriages she did not. Secondly she was American and that, at the time would also have made her unacceptable as the wife of a King. Parliament was not prepared to allow him to marry Wallis. He was determined and threatened to abdicate. They called his bluff and he lost out.
He didn’t get your facts. After the engagement was announced Charles did not see Camilla again – except at one public function in full glare of publicity – until after Diana admitted to her second (of SIX) affair. Being divorced no longer disqualified either ofo them. It is 2017 and the world had moved on! So should you.
But didn’t the Queens father only become king bc he married a divorced woman and they made him abdicate? How is the prince of Wales and his marriage to the duchess any different?
Also, I’m doubting the Queen knew much about royal affairs at 20 something when she succeeded….
Because his first wife is dead, therefore his status is remarried widower, not remarried divorcee. There’s no constitutional problem with him being married to Camilla.
I wish people would look up a word before using it. Again, Charles is NOT a widower. He was divorced from Diana when she died. The constitutional argument with Edward, was that she had 2 ex husbands.. both still living. He had to apply to Parliament to abdicate, there had to be a special act voted on. Edward had no interest in being King. Even if Edward and Wallis had children the title of Duke of Windsor would have no royal value.
The only constitutional problem with Charles remarrying would be that the Church doesn’t recognise remarriage after divorce (because it doesn’t recognise divorce, marriage is for life). However, because Diana died, in the eyes of the Church he is widowed (his wife, they aren’t recognising the civil divorce, remember, is dead). SO no problem remarrying.
I know a divorced and remarried CofE priest. There is no absolute CofE ban on divorce or remarriage.
I was talking about the constitutional issue, not the current attitude of the Church to divorce.
So the Church of England claims but have you actually tried looking at the number of people who have divorced and remarried and are accepted by the Church of England?
It’s not a problem for the Church per se, it’s a problem constitutionally. Or would have been if were not a widower.
For A START……To be married again in the church of england you have to prove you did not commit adultry, how do i know ? because i had to do this myself, They will not allow an adulterer to marry in the church at all and charles was an adulterer and was a divorced adullterer at that and could not get married in a church and had to have a registry office marriage.
Sorry to correct you yet again but the Church of England gave up it’s blanket ban on remarriage (with or without adultery), in 2002. Over the past four years we have attended remarriage in CoE churches three times. In each case at least one party admitted to adultery, in one of the cases both parties admitted to adultery but they were still married in Church. Each Vicar has complete discretion who he will or will not marry in his church. Your Vicar either did not like you or your attitude or did not believe in your sincerity. By the time Charles remarried he was a widower therefore the questions of adultery and divorce had passed for him. Had he NOT been a widower, Constitutionally, his divorce might have become a problem and that was the reason for his not remarrying in Church.
They did not MAKE him abdicate. He didn’t marry Wallis until 6 months after he abdicated. He chose to do it because he wanted to marry her and there was the constitutional issue of a divorced woman with 2 living ex husbands being queen. He never wanted to have the responsibility of being King.
Well actually they did. He was told that under no circumstances could Wallis Simpson be accepted as Queen, firstly because she had two husbands still alive, and secondly because she was American. At that time this alone would have made her unacceptable. He called their bluff and he lost. He delayed his marriage to Wallis because he was fighting for status and a title. He was created Duke of Windsor four months after his abdication in March 1937 with the title Duchess going to Wallis Simpson. He then spent months fighting for her to be granted the title of HRH but this was so continually and irrevocably denied,
EDWARD VIII ABDICATED BECAUSE PARILMENT WOULD NOT ALLOW WALLIS WALES TO BE ACKNOWLEGED AS QUEEN OR EVEN PRINCESS CONSORT. THE KING WOULD NOT ALLOW HER TO BE TREATED AS A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN. THE KING ABDICATED IN FAVOR OF HIS BROTHER BERTIE. BERTIE WAS THEN KING, HIS WIFE QUEEN AND HIS DAUGHTERS WERE THEN HEIRS TO THE THRONE.
The late Edward VIII was determined to marry Wallis Simpson, an American, twice divorced with both husbands living. Furthermore it was the 1930’s not the 2000’s. There was never any question of this being allowed to happen. Divorce was absolutely non-no in those times. The title she was denied was HRH but that was after he was created Duke of Windsor and after they were married – not a question of what she would be called as the wife of a King. A divorced person could not even be introduced to a Royal person let alone marry in those times. Thankfully, the years and the world and the way people react have moved on. He called Parliament’s bluff by threatening to abdicate in the belief they would give in. He lost out.
On the contrary. HM The Queen, as Princess Elizabeth was one of the heirs to the throne from the moment of her birth. At the time of her birth the heirs were David Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII) and herself and the position remained so until the Prince of Wales/Edward VIII had children. As neither of those things happened she would and did hold that position. As such she was schooled to be monarch from a very early age and was in fact only 12 when Edward abdicated and she became the heir.
Nobody wants his deceitful old butt as King (along with his homely mistress wife Camilla), just like no one wants that lying Hillary as President 🙂
So….at least half the people want it?
Oh yes they did then and they still do! Want Camilla as Queen that is.
No you want , get it right, there are a lot more who want neither of them
And you know that how? Have you done a personal census the length and breadth of th ecountry?
I for one am tired of people harping back to Diana Spencer and blaming Charles for the collapse of their marriage. I am equally tired of the celebrity-fans of Diana living in a deluded state, not only over Diana’s supposed perfection and how badly she was supposedly treated by Charles, a man she cuckolded long before he resumed his relationship with Camilla Shand, (Parker-Bowles.) For all the good deeds that Diana performed, she did so entirely for the sake of manipulating public opinion and playing the media. Diana was neurotic, hysterical and selfish. She knew exactly what she was getting in to when she married Charles and certainly did not make herself attractive by throwing herself when pregnant down the stairs of Clarence House in one of her hysterical moments. Charles and Diana may have divorce, he however, behaved with great decorum. He certainly did not go flaunting affairs with totally ineligible people and embarrassing his sons as did Diana. Camilla was already divorced when they resumed their relationship, where as Diana thought nothing of breaking up at least two marriages leaving misery in her wake. One could go on endlessly, but it is not worth going any further when people choose to remain ignorant and also choose to ignore the enormous good that Charles performs, from the Prince’s Trust and all his other endeavours that directly impact and benefit the nation.
HOw true
Can’t you read?? The Queen does not control the succession, it’s fixed by law and Charles is next!!
Can you not read it is Parliament not the queen who decides and they can overrule charles if they deem it is not in the best interests of this country
They can in theory but first, which you seem to ignore, is that there has to be a reason to do so and there isn’t one. Then, if there was it would need each and every one of th eCommonwealth countries and territories to agree. It’s a non-starter.
It is Charles’s since the day he was born and he deserves it. The Queen should have stepped down as the other heads of European countries have done…To me she is a stubborn old lady and loves the role she plays. Hopefully by the time it is Williams turn there will be no more royal family..
It is the tradition in Holland for the Monarch to retire, but I believe even there it wa started as recently as the late Queen Wilhelmenia. I cannot think of any other European country where this happens. Her Majesty gave a pledge that she would do her duty throughout her life ‘whether that be short or long….’. It is not a tradition of the British Monarchy to ‘retire’ and there is no reason why HM The Queen should start such.
Juan Carlos recently retired from the Spanish throne.
Yes but only because he is involved in a scandal of massive proprtions
I would say “Partly” rather than “Only”: he wasn’t forced out. And there’s been no chance of Spain establishing a tradition of retirement, so we shall see what happens with Felipe. King Albert of the Belgians also retired not so long ago, and the Luxembourg Royal monarchs now retire. So it’s an increasing trend. Mind you, the Queen isn’t going to retire, and we have the Regency Acts to cater for incapacity.
We don’t know he wasn’t forced out. We only know he resigned and today the scandal involving his daughter and son-in-law is believed to be much bigger than has emerged.
Forgot to say that King Albert of the Belgians retired for the reason that it was his son Philippe who had been designated heir to the throne by the late King Baudoin in the absence of his own child & heir, Albert was never expected to take the throne. However, with Baudoin’s early death Albert took the throne to give his son time to establish and learn his role and when he thought the time was right he retired in favour of the designated heir. There have been no previous ‘retirements’ in the Belgian line.
Baudoin died without issue. His younger brother Albert inherited, and then retired (at age 79). Albert’s son Philippe then became king (at age 53; he was about 33 when Baudouin died, and so quite old enough to become king if he had been the designated successor). So it’s a retirement, just like the Dutch retirements. There are always going to be reasons why monarchs retire, but retirement is increasingly common.
With respect I am fully aware of all of that and you have missed entirely the point that Baudoin and his Queen Fabiola, following their fifth miscarriage and the need for the Queen to have an hysterectomy, actually designated – by public proclamation – their nephew Phillipe as their heir. Albert was not expected to reign as Baudoin expected to see his nephew to maturity. That was not be be and Albert ‘stepped’ in to bridge the gap until Phillips was considered of age and of experience and that is believed to be the reason for his ‘retirement’. We shall only learn whether or not it becomes a trend to retire when it is Philippe’s turn. The Netherlands have so far been the only Royals to consistently (well for four generations only), to retire.
Clearly if Philippe was proclaimed heir (I can’t find any evidenced that this happened, only comment that it was rumoured to be likely, but didn’t actually happen), then the Belgian state thought must have thought very little of Philippe if they didn’t consider him to be of “Age and Experience” until he was 53! Or perhaps it was simply that, as Wikipedia states: “Since 1991, Belgium practises absolute primogeniture among the descendants of King Albert II (then Prince of Liège)”.
Sorry to conflict or confuse, but I was a huge fan of HM Queen Fabiola and her continued miscarriages and I am old enough to remember the actual Declaration and it was also widely reported on radio/TV and newspapers here in UK as it was – shall we say – a ‘new’ situation for European Monarchy. The age of Phillipie on Accession I cannot account for but it can only be attributed to his father’s desire to hold the throne once he got it!
I think you are wrong on all points apart from the fact he may not live as long as his mother.
Never known of a man more ‘crucified’ by his (hypocritical) countrymen who even had to have a ‘break’ at one stage on a Scottish island. Can we think of another so rejected??
The difference between HM and Prince William is that Princess Elizabeth started learning the job front a very young woman. Something William has failed and continues to fail to do.
Says you. Do you actually live with them and are around them 24/7 i think not, you are so self opinionated all the way through your comments one notices
No sadly not but I do read the Royal circulars and follow the duties undertaken by all the royals and it is a fact that William and Catherine together, have carried out less than half the duties of their 96 year old grandfather. No wonder he retired to get William off his backside! He would be a disaster as Monarch. Thank you for the compliment!
Prince Charles should become King and thats it,just look back in History other Royals have done far worse than him,is anyone out there aware of the good things he has done,get over it
Prince Charles can abdicated the thrown. Just like his uncle Edward VIII in the same case he did it for the woman he loved. Through this HRH Prince William can become King and HRH Prince Charles may create a Duke of Winsdor. Long live Queen Elizabeth II
It is highly unlikely that Prince Charles will abdicate and more than HM The Queen will do. The British Royal Family do not dismiss their duties. The late King Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor, was forced by Parliament to abdicate because they were not prepared to accept Wallis Simpson. He called Parliament’s bluff and he lost out.
Putting the apple cart before the horse, are we.
William cannot be ‘made’ King. We have Laws of Succession in this country abd Prince Charles is the rightful heir. William can only be King if his father dies or abdicates. The latter is most unlikely.
Wrong Parliament can change that, Parliament controls the succession to the crown and that Parliament can legislate for anything under a doctrine known as Parliamentary supremacy.
That’s a matter of opinion Debra Cooper, To us he HAS lead by example Prince Charles does lead by example and cares for our ENVIRONMENT the most Important cause of ALL also organic farming. He continuously supports our farmer and even bought a listed manor to SAVE it for the Nation.The Princes Trust etc Is that not leading by example.Furthermore, he never had umpteen lovers and sported himself on the yacht of a drug taking person in high summer on the Med.What kind of an example is that.? Our Prince had the misfortune to fall in love at a time when he was doing his duty by serving on a Ship and was heartbroken when she married another; In a Nation where fidelity etc is NOT valued, that really is rich.” He must stay faithful while all around behave as if it was the fall of the Roman Empire. We have just heard today what transpired from the mouth of a footballer who had threesome with his pal and faced a charge or rape certainly not uncommon.
Some of us just hate the thought that Charles could make Camilla a queen…. yuck!
And millions don’t. We love Camilla. She is far more suited and suitable than Diana ever could have been. Diana was interested in one thing only herself.
If there is no question, then why are people questioning?
Since the Monarch is also the Head of the Church of England, how can Charles, a divorced man, married to a divorced woman, take such a position?
The Church of England dropped its blanket prohibition against the remarriage of the divorced in religious ceremonies back in 2002. The reason Charles and Camilla were not married religiously is that the Church now leaves it up to the discretion of individual clerics to decide whether they are willing to perform a religious ceremony for people who have been divorced. Since Diana is dead, Charles’s first marriage and divorce were not at issue; Camilla’s were, because her first husband is still alive
The Queen herself never had much experience at being the Queen and Price Charles was an “infant”. That argument doesn’t hold water.
With respect, like Charles, HM The Queen knew from a very early age that she would one day be The Queen – from the age of 12 in fact and she was ‘trained’ earlier than that because of the possibility. The difference between her, Charles and today’s younger royals, not only did they want to learn but learned to work hard. Something Williams and Harry have yet to do,
Don’t understand how Charles can become king married to a divorcée….his uncle couldn’t married to Wallis…how can Charles?
Henry VIII had two of his wives executed. Why can’t Charles? Because it’s the 21st century.
During that time period he couldn’t. Primarily because she had 2 ex husbands, both still living.
What was not mentioned in the article and bears including in this discussion is that it is if there is to be a change in the Act of Succession it will also involve the Parliaments of all the Realm nations of the Commonwealth to pass the same legislation, which is not a fairly easy thing to do. In the case of making changes such as this Parliament tends to defer to The Queen. So, unless The Queen makes a request to the PM to look into making the changes than it will likely not happen.
I can see though if The Queen lives to 100 like The Queen Mother did that depending on the health of the Prince of Wales he may renouce his rights due to poor health.
He can’t renounce. There is no provision for that in law. He could convert to Roman Catholicism (which would rule him out), but the Queen would NOT be amused. No, if in terrible health, he’d succeed, but there would be a regency. This has all been thought of.
Well, if there is no question, why do people keep asking it (and, btw, the answer is ‘no’).
This is an excellent article. They are quite right that the monarchy is not a popularity contest. It is also much more than a tourist attraction. It is an essential element of the British government. Charles received permission from the Government to marry Camilla. To deny him the throne on that account would be outrageous. He has had the best training for the job. He will be a splendid king. In a few more decades, so will William.
Charles is not the problem, it’s that Witch Camilla that should never be queen, she should have zero title, it was this Witch who drove the beautiful princess Diana to mental health breakdown. This devious Witch should be banned from court. They took a immature 18yr and destroyed her through their deceitful affair which was happening before Charles picked Diana.
She is disgusting and evil, put her on the throne and it will be the beginning of the end of the monarchy.
No actually it was the mentually disturbed right from the word go Diana who was the evil witch. She was a serial adultereress having at least SIX affairs with anything in trousers. When they dumped her, as they all did because she was impossible to live with she then hounded them until two had to bring in the Police to get her stopped, she stalked the famous surgeon and ruined his life and his career, she tore two fathers away from their children and was cited in three divorces. Anything that has been said about the whole affair has come firm Diana’s warped lips and mind. True mistakes were made but at least Charles had only one affair. A love affair unlike Diana who was evil personified.
Everything you wrote may have some truth, but from the age of 19 she was chosen to be Princess the Queen, she was chosen to be the mother of the future heirs, this was all done my Royal officials and Members of the Royal Family in full knowledge that Charles was in fact in love with the witch, and that this was an arrangement to suit their public image. The Queen and Royal officials made it very clear to Charles that he could never marry the witch, that she will never be the mother to future prince’s and Princess.
So they plucked Diana and told her to be a good girl, take it for the sake of the country. So from the 1st minute she was very much aware that she was not the love of Charles or even part of the family.
Now you are free to criticise her for her behaviour and actions.
But try empathy for a minute – really put yourself in her shoes. Could you guarantee that you would happily submit to a loveless life, and that your behaviour would be entirely appropriate?
If Diana had those affairs it was a direct result of the lack of love, affection, intimacy or friendship.
The witch purposely made her a outsider on their supposed Honeymoon at Barmoral. Because she failed the “kill wild game/animals & butcher it (yes she expected/wanted Diana to pluck the pheasant, then cut it open and separate the waste).
Diana became a figure head for the untouchables, the sick, the forgotten. This was something that the Palace actively discouraged, changing her personal staff without notice so the new staff wouldn’t have the experience/knowledge to help Diana, and when they did they were moved again.
The Palace hated that she was seen as “better” than the other Royalty. This was because she was better than them.
I presume you agreed with Charles and the witch and the other senior Royals that Diana should have kept silent, endorsed Charles and the witch. She should have handed her kids to the Royal household only seeing them occasionally. She should have appeared at public events with Charles and smiled pretending everything is good.
She should be grateful to Charles for letting his mother the Queen pick Diana to be his wife (in the way a wife was recognised in the 1800s).
I mean how selfish of Diana to expect being someone’s wife should mean love and affection.
I guess you would be happy for your husband to just have 1 longtime affair, whilst showing you zero love and affection?
NO rubbish. Diana’s affairs were an insatiable need to be in the pubic eye. She only chose men with a high profile who could keep her in the news and furthermore she subjected her sonsto each of her lovers! She was disturbed before she arrived and even more disturbed in the end by her vicious jealous mind and need to be ‘top dog’ in the public eye. The so-called wonderful mother left her sons every summer to sail the European trail and had not seen them for a month before she died. Diana had the choice. She knew Charles & Camilla had been in a relationship, her sister warned her against him but she wanted a prince any prince would have done and she had already tried for Andrew. He had a lucky scale because he had just me Fergie and liked her better. She wanted anyone – no love involved!
Diana only visited the sick, the dying and the underprivileged when there were TV cameras present. Camilla was definitely not on holiday in Balmoral during the honeymoon and your story about the ‘blooding’ is absolutely nothing to do with her either, It is a long held tradition amongst the so-called gentry. No one is forced to take part. But that was half the trouble, Diana lied from the first that she loved all Charles’ holiday destinations and his ‘hobbies’. She hated them all, She lied about so many things because she was desperate and determined to marry a Prince at any price.
How can Prince Charles be King, as King or Queen I always thought that you were the head of the Church of England. Prince Charles is a divorcee and could not marry Camilla in the Church of England he could only have a blessing service. So how can he become King and I think if he abdicates it does not do to William but it would go to Andrew. Please correct me on these issues if I am wrong
You need to come into the 21st century. The Church of England allows remarriage and has done for many years.
If Charles were to abdicate, which he can only do if he were actually king, it’s as if he died and the next in line in that circumstance is William. Edward VIII was never officially crowned king, even though technically he was since the minute his father died. The reason that King George came to be is because Edward never had any children. If he had then his eldest child would have become monarch, providing that child is a boy. The reason Queen Elisabeth became queen is because King George only had daughters. If there had been a son then he would have inherited first, then his children and so on
He Married A Devorcey And like his great Uncle Abdicate
The Royal Family knows they are brand. They changed their name. They wouldn’t allow the Tsar to come into the country. They exiled Edward VIII all because they know that without the support of the British people they will go the way of all the other monarchies. 70% of the British people can’t stomach the idea of Camilla as Queen even though they have spent a decade trying to change her image and vilifying Diana only a handful of gullible fools have taken the bait. The people don’t want her and in turn it is making them not want him either. The Royal Family will figure out a way to dump Camilla and if necessary Charles right along with her. She is a liability and their marriage is a liability.
Rubbish. Who says 70%? You just made them up the are millions of us who believe he is an excellent man for the job with the lovely Camilla by his side. She is far more suitable and temperamentally suitable than Diana ever could have been. She was unstable before she married and to the end.
my Q. was, if Charles predeceases the queen who in heredity terms is next in line ANN OR ANDREW I dont see how it could be William as Charles would not have been on the throne to let it be inherited.
Very old question popped up Barrie not sure why but if Charles dies before his mother than sadly it would be William who accedes. Princess Anne has no chance whatsoever. Regards
If Charles never had children, then it would have been Andrew. Anne would have been the last of the children to ascend the throne, providing that Andrew or Edward never had children. As Charles had the boys, if Charles pre-deceases the Queen, then Charles eldest son would inherit. If that son pre-deceases the Charles, then the 2nd son would inherit. There is really so many variables that have to take place for Anne to ever even THINK of being in line for the throne. Until 2011 there was never a question of Anne inheriting before Andrew or Edward. And being that all 3 son’s have children, Anne will NEVER see the throne. neither will Edward for that matter.
Why does this question keep arising? The Abdication of Edward VIII shook the Royal Family to its core and jeopardized the mere existence of the monarchy. HM The Queen and HM The Queen Mother never forgave Edward VIII for abdicating, as they felt it sent HM George VI to an early grave. HM The Queen would never allow or agree to a modern abdication. I also believe that HRH The Prince of Wales (Prince Charles) would never disrespect HM The Queen, his mother, in this way, nor would HRH The Duke of Cambridge (Prince William) ever disrespect HM The Queen, his grandmother, in such a manner as well. This continuing question is silly and futile. (And I have read all the accurate commentaries about Parliament passing legislation and such.)
Charles didn’t turn to Camilla for advice and comfort after Diana made him “crazy”. He was with Camilla from the time they were engaged and married. He had a gift made up for Camilla that Diana found on her honeymoon. I can honestly say that would have caused me to act out myself.
You must be talking about the Fred and Gladys bracelet that was in his office BEFORE the wedding. Not on the honeymoon. Charles had every intention of honoring his marriage vows. Camilla also made it a habit of staying away from functions where he would be. She had her own problems being married to serial cheater Andrew Parker -Bowles. What Diana saw on the honeymoon were a pair of cuff links with interlocked Cs that Camilla had given him. The bracelet was a good bye gift. Charles assumed that real love would come to them. They were totally unsuited for each other. Camilla is his soul mate and the person he should have been with all along. Sorry you don’t approve.
How wrong you D .Maguire. How on earth would you know WHERE the Prince was? Were you part of his security set up? All comments from those who did know the Prince Charles well are that Camilla went about with her own set until he became extremely stressed and virtually on the point of a break down about his marriage so much so that they became very concerned. They then went to the only person who had had a very good rapport with him and asked her to contact him which she did. That is what they have related in stark contrast to your ill founded comments.