King Charles won’t hand throne to Prince William

[Cnon]

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

Last time I looked Charles was king of GB.

Because, even though they don’t rule, they do have constitutional roles that need to be carried out - signing Bills into law, dissolving Parliament, inviting a new Prime Minister to form a government, for example - and if any of these needed doing whilst the monarch was unable to do them, that’s why a Regent would be needed, @JandamiHash.

Not Northern Ireland then, that's a step in the right direction.

Why would a constitutional monarchy need a regent if they became ill?

Because a constitutional monarch is part of the constitution. If the monarch was permanently incapacitated from carrying out his/her constitutional role, a regency would be necessary. If it's expected to be temporary, the counsellors of state will act.

In the past, before modern communications, a regent might also be appointed if the King was overseas, so the business of government could continue smoothly. Catherine of Aragon was Regent for Henry VIII when he was away fighting a war in France.

I'm free in the morning if he wants a lie in.

You mean he won't abdicate? Why should he?

The monarchy can't exist with 'handing over' the roles because then it's about competence. The king would be admitting he doesn't feel competent to be the king. And then that begs the question about who is competent. Clue: It won't be someone born into it.

Why would he 'hand it' to William (odd choice of words anyway, as the order of succession is laid down by law, and is not a gift from the monarch)?

Are you implying that his ill health might require William to act as Regent, or that Charles might actually abdicate?

At present, though Charles has health issues, there is no suggestion that these are on a level to require a Regency.

And he certainly isn't going to abdicate.

Why should he?

Apparently Charles not got a long time before King goes to Wm

... while at the same time, his sister Margaret was Regent for her husband, the king of Scotland. So for a little while there, England and Scotland were ruled by women.
Quite effectively, by all accounts.

Clearly he means he won't abdicate and hence 'hand' the crown to William.

Shame, as he's not a popular King. I think William would be more popular with the public.

Pardon?

To save you from clicking: it's an American website and so caters to Americans, many of whom do indeed seem to believe that our monarchy operates on a Disney basis. It's says that King Charles is not going to abdicate.

Who knew? (We did).

Is the Prince a representative of the Church of Fish and Bread? I think I know him too 😮

he's not a popular King.

Who says?

while at the same time, his sister Margaret was Regent for her husband, the king of Scotland. So for a little while there, England and Scotland were ruled by women.
Quite effectively, by all accounts.

Then later Mary of Guise was Regent of Scotland for her daughter, Mary QoS. Catherine de Medici was Regent of France for her sons. Mary and then Elizabeth were queens of England in their own right. John Knox's Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Such nonsense. She made it absolutely clear that she would do her duty by the country to the end; also that she definitely wanted Charles to be her heir.

Even if he chooses to abdicate, the king doesn't "hand" the Crown to anyone. Parliament does.
I've heard varying reports about the popularity of KC3. Whatever.

24 months max

Absolutely this. Queen Elizabeth even went to the lengths of making it known she wanted Camilla to be styled as Queen when Charles became King. Short of having her wishes tattooed on her forehead, she couldn't have made them plainer.

Erm, long healthy life 😐

Absolutely this. Queen Elizabeth even went to the lengths of making it known she wanted Camilla to be styled as Queen when Charles became King.

And she wanted him to be Head of the Commonwealth.

I know less than nothing about his state of health, but I have a friend who works at St Paul’s, which is the back-up funeral venue in case something means Westminster Abbey can’t be used, and not only do they have a FT staff member dedicated to Operation Menai Bridge, but meetings have ramped up in frequency to several per week. I mean, presumably they have to be very belt and braces about it all, and don’t think KC3 will make 96.

I thought that, if the monarch abdicates, the crown goes to his or her heir. I don’t think Parliament gets to hand it over.

Good grief! Do Fox News journalists not have access to Wikipedia? There are some helpful guides to how our monarchy works if they actually look for them.