To think Prince George will never be King?

[SerfTerf]

Or if he is, the next generation won't be?

We were talking about it at lunch. I just have the strong feeling now that the monarchy will fizzle out at some point in the next 50-100 years.

It's not an active "want" just a notion.

Two of us talking earlier felt similarly but the other three were aghast.

So, AIBU?

Haha. I stand corrected.

In England, such a President would probably be able to replace both Queen and House of Lords.

Hopefully you mean the United Kingdom here.

I was going to put UK, then decided for England. Who knows what would have happened to the rest of the UK by then.

I don't think it is all that unlikely that Charles will abdicate. Don't forget that he is remarried after a divorce to camilla and will have had to seek permission for said marriage from the queen.

The new succession rules were all about modernising some of the rules in relation to the monarchy and shoring up the entitlement of the line from Charles.

Charles has not been acting as a monarch in waiting, that's why he is unpopular, that could be because in exchange for marrying camilla he has agreed to pass the throne on to William. It would also be a very sensible move in order to reinvigorate the monarchy and ensure it's popularity - which is what the queen is most interested in.

I don't think she will want Charles on the throne, now he is married to camilla, even less so.

I have no strong feelings about the monarchy either way to be honest.

I do get the impression that no one really wants the top job and why would they? I think William would be quite happy working in the air ambulance and coming home to his family. And who could blame him?

I don't get the amount of hate levelled toward Camilla either. She seems nice enough. I think it's quite sweet that her and Charles got there in the end. But such a shame that Diana didn't get her chance.

Has Camilla got a living ex-spouse? Charles can remarry within the 'rules', because his ex-spouse is dead. Queen Elizabeth won't be there to either approve or disapprove of Charles on the throne.

Charles and Camilla had to wait til their previous spouses were dead before they could marry each other. So they're not marrying as divorcees, but as widows/widowers.

Totally different prospect.

I don't think there's the slightest suggestion that Charles will abdicate. Why would he? Also the queen and her immediate family appear to have been totally scarred by the abdication crisis and terrified by the instability it may have occasioned. It's been drummed into the queen to do her 'duty' and I'd be gobsmacked if she hasn't instilled the same in her heir.

Lol at the idea of Charles abdicating. He's been writing his nutty letters to Ministers for years, why on earth would he give that up?

No, Camilla's ex is still alive.

Has Camilla got a living ex-spouse?

Yes, Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive, but the questions around remarriage when an ex is still around is usually an issue for the church, as most people can have a perfectly legal civil remarriage

As I mentioned upthread, the point here is whether this is permissible for an heir to the throne, and therefore whether Charles and Camilla are legally married at all. Careful advice was sought at the time but this has been sealed during Charles's lifetime - which raises the question of why

Charles and camilla required the queen's assent to marriage as with all royals at the time. This has been changed by the recent act to only apply to the six royals in immediate line to the throne. The issue with divorce was more to do with constitutional issues Re the Church of England. The subsequent deaths of Charles and camilla's ex spouses did not change the fact that they were both divorcees in the eyes of the law or the eyes of the church and affected how they were able to marry.

I suspect that the issue still remains re the Church of England and divorce and Charles and camilla. I suspect the queen gave assent conditional to Charles stepping aside in favour of William in order to avoid a difficult constitutional situation re Charles being on the throne and married to camilla after a divorce.

It makes no difference. It is the divorces that are problematic constitutionally. Whether the divorces spouses died after being divorced or they are still living is immaterial.

I suspect the queen gave assent conditional to Charles stepping aside in favour of William in order to avoid a difficult constitutional situation re Charles being on the throne and married to camilla after a divorce.

There is no evidence for that at all and runs totally counter to the Queen's view on abdication when her uncle did it.

Charles and camilla are legally married as the queen gave her assent.

What is in issue is whether Charles can be head of the church when divorced.

They had a civil ceremony as the Church of England could not marry them. They had a blessing from the church. The queen did not attend this ceremony indicating the constitutional problems remain.

I think that, in the church at least, remarriage is permissible if the marriage is annulled (Catherine of Aragon) or if the spouse has died/been beheaded etc.

What, so the divorced status stands even if the ex-spouse subsequently dies?

And the queen did give her assent, this is very different to the constitutional crisis created by her uncle marrying wallis simpson without permission.

Catherine of Aragon was catholic as was her marriage to Henry viii. Henry viii created the Church of England, had his marriage to Catherine declared void due to her having been previously married to his brother. It's totally different.

The queen didn't attend the civil ceremony but she did attend the blessing and the reception for Charles and Camilla.

Yes, the divorce stands even if the ex spouse then dies. The divorce happened prior to the death.

To be clear. This is the part that creates the constitutional crisis;

Can Charles be head of the Church of England when he is a remarried divorced?

He had to marry camilla in a civil service, which the queen did not attend.

The queen did attend the blessing. This indicates the constitutional issue re Charles being head of the church if he became king is still an issue.

The queen gave her assent to Charles and camilla. Why? To avoid the massive mess created by her uncle insisting on marrying wallis Simpson without permission from the monarch and against the wishes of parliament.

How then to avoid the constitutional issues presented by a pig headed (like his great uncle) divorcee being head of the church? Allow them to marry in a civil ceremony in exchange for Charles never becoming king.

I think Charles would do anything to be married to camilla, history shows us that.

Charles marrying Camilla was a deal that was years in the making. The queen appears to have approached it very carefully indeed. I don't see any evidence that she did that it in the knowledge he wouldn't be King.

It looks like the following made a difference.

The Church of England is more relaxed now about divorcees marrying, leaving it to the discretion of individual priests to decide, rather than unilaterally banning it.

Camilla will not have the title of Queen, but will go by Royal Consort (or something). That's been thought through, which would fly in the face of a planned abdication theory.

And actually, it looks like there's nothing unilaterally banning the royals from marrying divorcees, but in the case of Wallis Simpson, the cabinet hated her, she was regarded as flakey and she'd been divorced twice already, so all that conspired to but the kybosh on it.