British Constitution Question about Manarchy?

Question

From Wiki's English Civil War Page.

"Constitutionally, the wars established a precedent that British monarchs could not govern without the consent of Parliament, although this would not be cemented until the Glorious Revolution later in the century."

Does that mean they might refuse Charles since he is divorced?

Also, could different members of the Commonwealth choose different sucessors?

Answer 1

No, Charles is the heir to the throne.  The only way he could be denied the throne is if he were to marry a Catholic.  It might also be possible for the Queen to pass him over in her will, and though she has threatened to do this in the past, it is unlikely.

The member states of the Commonwealth cannot choose different successors, because the successor isn't chosen by the people.  They get who they get.

Answer 2

No, this in essence means that Parliament makes the laws. The succession is another matter, though it could be changed by Parliament. Legally, the only thing that could alter the succession would be if a monarch married a Roman Catholic. That doesn't apply, since none of the monarchs have done so in modern times.

I suppose the Commonwealth members could each individually choose a successor, but that is hardly going to happen, and would only apply in that particular country.

Answer 3

There is little doubt as to whom the next Monarch will be, as Charles is the oldest, however there have been situations where the reigning monarch has seen fit to pass over the immediate heir in Lu of another, and in this case most likely his oldest son, Prince William. William was anointed as heir when he was baptized. The fact that Charles is acting very much like his great uncle 'the duke of Windsor" who abdicated the throne for the woman he loved, it really was the church who pressed him to pass on the throne because she had been divorced repeatedly. The goverment already announced that "Camilla" would not become Queen, but have the same status as Charles' father has with the Queen, the role of consort. The Goverment announced when Charles and Diana were divorced that his position as heir was not effected. The other point of interest...the queen mother lived till she was 101 or so. If the current queen reigns that long, Charles could well be dead before his time comes. Prince Andrew would then become Heir to the throne, and Fergie would be queen because they are not divorced but only seperated. As far as differant Commonwealth nations choosing a differant heir...its not constitutionally sound. It just would not happen.

Answer 4

There are two different points here. Up until 1688, British monarchs had some power to do things without the consent of Parliament. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, they hadn't.

So, amongst many other things, only Parliament determines who is to be the next monarch, and they are not bound by any rules AT ALL. They do not need to stick with any rules that were used previously.

The British monarch is the Head of the Commonwealth, and any member who doesn't like it can secede from the Commonwealth and become an independent democracy, a monarchy under a different monarch, or whatever they want to be. It was precisely because the major members threatened to do this in 1936 that Parliament advised Edward VIII to abdicate before marrying Mrs. Simpson.

So yes, in theory, say, New Zealand could choose to secede on Prince Charles' accession, and invite say Prince William to be their first monarch, but if he accepted, Parliament could decide to strike him off the line of succession to the British throne. Or, again, it could decide not to, so that New Zealand would automatically return to the Commonwealth on Charles' death. What an interesting idea!