I have to wonder how many years ago Charles started fantasizing about going all Game of Thrones on Mom.

Queen will NOT stand aside to let Charles take her duties

http://dailym.ai/2weiUeN

To add -

While I can not prevent the inevitable, the purpose of my post is not to fill it with memes and negative comments about the Royal Family. Some of the members on the site are from the part of the world and likely have some strong opinions on the topic. I'm curious to hear them.

Thanks.

I'd bet they are going to skip Chuck altogether and go right to Prince William. Not sure if they can do that or not, but the Queen has made it pretty clear that she won't step aside for Charles. Perhaps this means that she doesn't think he's up for it or simply just doesn't want him to have it.

I'm not sure what "game of thrones" means, but I recall that Charles was quoted in an interview decades ago saying that one cannot live hoping that one's mother dies.

He has had an unusual life, so maybe his instincts and feelings are different than many men his age.

I'm not sure why one would want the top job, but then, I'm pretty sure I would not want to have had his.

I read last week that she IS skipping Charles and moving the crown to William. But not until they carry her body out.

quote:

I'd bet they are going to skip Chuck altogether and go right to Prince William.

Yep. I think I recall her being quoted many years ago that Charles would never be king.

In the Oxford Dictionary under the entry for Wanker is a photo of Charles.

quote:

Originally posted by BigCity:
I read last week that she IS skipping Charles and moving the crown to William. But not until they carry her body out.

It's not QE2's decision. Charles is first heir to the throne, and will be king after QE2's demise (or abdication). Unless he expires first, or abdicates, which he won't do.

I wondered if it is possible for the Queen to appoint William and find mixed sources after searching.

Could the Crown go to William...

So given the Queen’s longevity, Charles’ advancing age, and the evident popularity of William and Catherine, is there any chance at all of the succession to the throne skipping a generation, with William bypassing his father and becoming King?

No, is the short answer.

The very foundations of the modern British monarchy are tradition and continuity — only in the case of a constitutional crisis, as when Edward VIII abdicated to marry Mrs. Simpson, does the line to the throne change.

Can Prince Charles be Skipped...

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.

The Queen is highly traditional, and has great respect for formality and history.

I think it extremely unlikely that she would bypass Charles.

Absent incapacity or death the crown will go to Charles, albeit hopefully briefly.

As defined by the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, both amended in 2015, Succession to the British throne is determined by descent, gender (for people born before October 2011), legitimacy, and religion. Under common law, the Crown is inherited by a sovereign's children or by a childless sovereign's nearest collateral line. Its not up to her majesty to decide who her successor will be, British law has already done so...

So... I'm not British, but I DID stay with the Blues and Royals once...

As the law of succession currently stands, if Charles were to die before Queen Elizabeth, then his entire line would be out, and his brother, Prince Andrew would become the heir, passing the succession through to his descendants.

And... I fully expect Tac to jump in and correct me soon.

I have never met Prince Charles, but I have met Prince Philip twice and the Queen once.

Prince Philip is very mindful of history and his place in it, and has done his job admirably - sometimes to the dismay of people that are casual monarchy watchers.

But being Canadian by birth and having the Queen as the Head of State until the Constitution was created, it is nice to have a country that has traditions that go back in history (some traditions are better than others).

I think Prince Charles understands that he would not be a very popular choice although he is next in line. The talk of having William or Andrew as the next monarch is an interesting thought exercise but I think that's a long way down the road. Not long ago there was an article that said that neither Andrew nor William were terribly excited about being King. But it is the family business.

Tac - weigh in

Phone, so I cannot embed, but watch this video from CGP Grey for an explanation of how to become monarch in Britain:

https://youtu.be/BUY6HGqYweQ

CGP Grey is an American living in Britain and his videos are generally very well done.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
The Queen is highly traditional, and has great respect for formality and history.

I think it extremely unlikely that she would bypass Charles.

Exactly. The monarchy has accepted some modernity, but deciding succession by popularity like it's the Eurovision Song Contest will not happen.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
Absent incapacity...

That includes mental incapacity, right?

The queen could ask Parliament to support her naming of Prince William as heir-apparent.

The setting aside of the Stuarts and crowning of William of Orange settled a new tradition in which Parliament has ultimate authority over the Crown.

Yep where is tac?

quote:

Originally posted by mk689:
So... I'm not British, but I DID stay with the Blues and Royals once...

As the law of succession currently stands, if Charles were to die before Queen Elizabeth, then his entire line would be out, and his brother, Prince Andrew would become the heir, passing the succession through to his descendants.

And... I fully expect Tac to jump in and correct me soon.

That's easy. You are wrong. If Charles was to die before Her Majesty, William would be next, then George and finally Charlote. After Charlote, it would be Harry, after Harry, it would be Prince Andrew and his two daughters. This pattern follows through the male line and then it hits the Princess Royal and her children. Only for George and Charlote is the male primacy different and that only kicks in if William and Kate have another child and that is a boy. Under the new law, Charlote would be senior to the male younger son.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:

quote:

Originally posted by mk689:
So... I'm not British, but I DID stay with the Blues and Royals once...

As the law of succession currently stands, if Charles were to die before Queen Elizabeth, then his entire line would be out, and his brother, Prince Andrew would become the heir, passing the succession through to his descendants.

And... I fully expect Tac to jump in and correct me soon.

That's easy. You are wrong. If Charles was to die before Her Majesty, William would be next, then George and finally Charlote. After Charlote, it would be Harry, after Harry, it would be Prince Andrew and his two daughters. This pattern follows through the male line and then it hits the Princess Royal and her children. Only for George and Charlote is the male primacy different and that only kicks in if William and Kate have another child and that is a boy. Under the new law, Charlote would be senior to the male younger son.

After some research - I stand corrected.
Thank you.