King Charles won’t hand throne to Prince William

[Cnon]

https://www.aol.com/news/king-charles-won-t-hand-080020164.html

A regency only happens if the monarch is so incapacitated that they aren’t able to make the decision to abdicate. They are still monarch but the regent carries out their constitutional obligations. William wouldn’t be kink, he would be Prince Regent. Charles can’t decide to make William regent because having the capacity to do so would mean the circumstances for a regency hadn’t been met. He would have to abdicate, as Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Queen Margrethe of Denmark did. The former is now known as Princess Beatrix, the latter as Queen Margrethe, but has renounced her constitutional obligations.

And in other news, bears shit in the woods.

The royals don't 'hand the throne' to anyone. Did Queen Elizabeth II 'hand the throne over', even when at death's door? Of course not. There is no such thing as handing the throne over, bar abdication. Duties can be handed over to the counsellors of state, but not the throne.

Just as bad as reading the Daily Fail at least get your info from a reliable source.

They can step down, but I think she didnt want to as she wasnt sure what kind of job Charles would do

In extreme circumstances if Charles really can’t carry out his duties he could declare a regency

No he couldn't. Parliament would need to legislate. (There probably is a Regency Act on the books, but it might need updating for the specific circumtances.)

The whole point of a regency is that the sovereign is incapacitated. If he's incapacitated, he can't make declarations about anything.

the monarch isn’t essential enough these days to need a Regency - other royals would just step up to cover royal duties.

We're not talking about visiting hospitals and opening things. This is about the sovereign's constitutional role. At present, if the sovereign cannot act, two counsellors of state are needed to act in his/her place.

The day before she died, the late Queen cancelled a meeting of the Privy Council. It's thought the then Prince of Wales initially sent for William not because it was thought the Queen's death was imminent, but in order to hold the PC meeting, which needed two of them.

This was only ever (ridiculous) press speculation. It doesn’t even make sense. Elizabeth II wasn’t running a small family business - she was the monarch and Head of the Commonwealth. You don’t just say one day “I could really do with putting my feet up; it’s Charlie’s turn now”.

Not only was there never a realistic possibility of the Queen abdicating, there simply wasn’t a need. She delegated a lot to Charles (and later William) anyway, and it was perfectly fine.

William defo doesn't want it yet

Not the issue. She took an oath,she served it out until the end.

This ⬆️

Well, yes it was, surely? I'm sure she did her best not to die. Most people do.

But...

Talking of pesky relatives!

And was doing her job up to two days before she died

Setting an example to us all.

Not in Denmark or Holland they don't.

Queen Margrethe of Denmark probably only abdicated cause the duties got in the way of her chain smoking.

Poor Daisy. She has a lot of mobility problems and has been in quite a bit of pain. Still on the ciggies though.

Not really relevant when we’re not talking about either of those countries, is it?

She's always seemed like a hoot. Wish we could swap her with Andrew one of our lesser royals.

The rule has been there for hundreds of years it just isn't used frequently. I remember speaking with our uni chaplain at the time and he said it was the first voluntary resignation in something like 400 years. Technically Pope Benedict XVI then became Pope Emeritus. There's etiquette around the title, their clothing and burial rites and rituals. As a different poster stated there were different popes claiming the position concurrently too. Politics, mental health and physical health all had a role to play. There's been a Pope in Rome obviously but they've lived elsewhere too as at one time there were three popes all claiming to be head of the RC Church! Ecclesiastical history is actually a fascinating insight into human nature as well as history when you get into it.

I love how confidently knowledgeable so many people are about these things.

I'm sure I'm not alone but I couldn't give a flying fk about any of them. I accept them as Royals, nothing I can do about that, but I am amused by those who know so much more about succession, regency, council of state (or whatever it's called), abdication, the QE reign, what Camilla is called and so on. All said as if the peasants haven't a clue.

We do.

@SometimesUnsure I agree with you! The history of the papacy is fascinating. Such drama, intrigue and murder.

As far as I know, @Coffeeishot, the only ways this could happen would be if King Charles abdicated, in which case the crown would immediately pass to his heir, William, or he could hand over part, or indeed a lot of the role to William and other senior royals, but would retain the crown.

To hand it over completely, he would have to abdicate.

Rude

In the UK this is true.
In other countries it ain't necessarily so.

Why would a constitutional monarchy need a regent if they became ill? They don’t rule they reign.