To think Prince Charles will be our last Monarch

[Jemima232]

Given that it could be another thirty years before Prince Charles dies, I was wondering if he will be our last Monarch.

I think that a lot will have changed by the time Prince William is due to accede the throne and that the Monarchy will have been abolished by then.

A lot of people have said that Prince William would be happy if he didn't have to become King.

Yes because replacing the Russian royal family with communism was such a good approach.

Well quite.

Russia was knocking along quite happily until then.

Thanks for that. I'd always thought they could abdicate if they wanted to, I wasn't sure whether there was some constitutional disaster that would be triggered if they did.

Don't forget Edward abdicated before his coronation, making an oath to God in the church you are head of and then breaking that oath has ramifications for that church.

Queen Elizabeth, while still Princess Elizabeth, took over quire a few duties from her father, things like trooping of the colour.

Some of the other Royals have recently abdicated because of age, haven't they? Its hardly the same thing to say 'I'm in my 90's I want to step down in favour of my son' as abdicating in disgrace. There has never been a pope retire either, but they do now. Not that I think she will do it, but it must be a better way to do it than having your 70 year old son waiting for you to die before he can do the job he was born to for a few years.

I think the Queen is very religious and really does believe that she was anointed by God to carry out her role.
Thé Dutch, Spanish and Japanese monarchs have the benefit of their parents still being alive; children who are not too young and being middle aged rather than elderly when taking on the role.
Charles won’t abdicate; but if William becomes king; I wouldn’t be surprised if he does.

Some of the other Royals have recently abdicated because of age, haven't they?

The Dutch and Lux royals also have a recent tradition of abdicating, with the last few having passed on the reins to their offspring in a retirement role.

The Japanese abdication was much more complicated - it took longer than Brexit to sort out as it involved so much.

I think the Spanish one is different - the stories and rumours around the King at the time were seeing a lot of questions asked about the Spanish royals. Then the situation with his daughter and her husband facing prison. Far better to step aside and let his son, beautiful wife and pretty daughters take all the limelight (cynic - moi?). Similar with Belgium - King gets found to have an iffy past and he abdicates in favour of his more popular son and daughter-in-law.

I don't think William will ever abdicate for as much as he might hate the role himself, abdication is just forcing it onto his child earlier.

I would like to see the Royal family reduced, as in only the first few in line to the throne regarded as royalty. So the Queen and Duke, Charles and Camilla, William, Kate and children, Harry and Megan, then when William's children reach adulthood Harry and Co get let go.

Charles won't be king, William will be the next king.
Spoilers!

There has never been a pope retire either, but they do now. Not true actually. Pope Benedict wasn't the first to retire.

Oh really? I thought he was the first Pope Emeritus. In any case, HM could retire if she wanted.

There is no particular reason why Charles won't be King. As soon as the Queen dies; he is automatically king. Question mark over whether Camilla should be crowned Queen or just diplomatically be named Princess Consort. I think that would be more appropriate given the History of Diana, and also she is not the mother of the future King. I think Kate is rightfully the next Queen, even if it is in 25 years time.

Genuine question: does the queen have to be mother of the future king?

I thought the marriage of Charles and Camilla had been presented to the population as "morganatic" but actually wasn't because she has the title HRH.
Edward VIIl was offered that option but wanted Wallis to be HRH - which she wouldn't have been allowed back then - so turned it down.

So surely, if Camilla winds up married to the king, she's legally queen?

She may well be diplomatically called something else, I suppose. But she'll still be queen.

Genuine question: does the queen have to be mother of the future king?

No they don't.

The Queen Mother has to be the mother of the Monarch to use that title (and the mother of a King would still be HM Queen X the Queen Mother).

I thought the marriage of Charles and Camilla had been presented to the population as "morganatic" but actually wasn't because she has the title HRH.

No it wasn't a morganatic marriage. If it was it would have undermined Charles position. They just fiddled the titles a little to make it more palatable.

Edward VIIl was offered that option but wanted Wallis to be HRH - which she wouldn't have been allowed back then - so turned it down.

Edward offered that option, he wished to offer the public the option of Wallis being Queen or the marriage being morganatic, but the government blocked that so he abdicated.

So surely, if Camilla winds up married to the king, she's legally queen?

She will be the Queen, just as she is currently HRH The Princess of Wales. What title she uses is the only question.

She may well be diplomatically called something else, I suppose. But she'll still be queen.

Max & Mathilde in Zealand commemorating the end of ww2

Sorry wrong thread! ( was meant for the Royal style and gossip!)