Heir to the Throne?

Question

When Prince Edward wanted to Marry Mrs Simpson he had to abdocate, so why is the law changed for Prince Charles and Camilla? where he is allowed to keep his title?

Also If Charles were to abdocate who would be the Heir, Because William would surly lose his right?

Answer 1

I'm really prince cupid sending this message to you I'm not a myth I exist and I just wanted to send you a kiss in this letter xoxo there I know you don't believe me its true I'm cupid and just sent you a kiss >>>>------->

Answer 2

The law has not changed. The lack of a written constitution is the problem. If a constitutional question arise, constitutional "experts" decide what the unwritten constitution says. The "experts" of 1936 were from a different age and had correctly ascertained not that the public had any objection to the king marrying a divorcee, but that they would not tolerate an American queen. The government would not have wished to upset America and instead blamed her marital status. The thought of the queen being native born to a republic was just too much, that was the REAL reason for the abdication.

If Charles were to abdicate, the precident set by Edward VIII, so far the only monarch to abdicate, is clear. His abdication letter stated he relinquished any claim to the throne for himself AND his offspring. Even though Edward was childless and infertile the intent of forcing him to write this line in his letter is clear, (there is no provision in law to bequeath what you never had) and therefore if Charles did this, William and Harry would have no claim to the throne, and the line would pass through the Queen's children. Effectively, when a monarch abdicates, his or her entire line is ignored as if it never existed and the throne, in the case of Charles, would pass to where it would have passed if Charles had never been born.

The attitudes to divorce in 2007 are not what they were in 1936, so I don't see many people objecting to him marrying a divorcee. Charles himself divorced, though since the wife he married in church is deceased, he could be considered to be a widower. Royal attitudes to divorce have not always been to condemn it - Henry VIII created the Church of England solely so he could grant himself the divorce the Pope refused him!

These constitutional questions are the downside of us retaining a ridiculous, antiquated, elitist hereditary monarchy in an age which demands any citizen should be able to be president.

Charles will not abdicate, and the idea that he could, and pass the throne to William, is an invention of the press, who really do not like Camilla. But the press do not decide what the British constitution says on such matters.

Tentofield: you are wrong. The abdication of Edward VIII was the first and only time the British throne has ever been surrendered entirely voluntarily. And the goings on in Holland have no relevence to the UK.

Answer 3

the abdication of Edward VIII was mainly down to his love for an American, like someone else had already stated the country at the time would have never allowed an American divorcee to become Queen of the British Empire, don't forget that back then the Monarch was still Emperor of India and King without the restrictions of a constitutional Monarch. the answer to the second part of your question is thus, the royal house descends through primogenitor, this states that the first born son will inherit the throne, in the case of the Prince of Wales' abdication his first born son would inherit the throne and William would be King.  the point made about the fact that Edward stated he relinquished the rights of his offspring to their right to the throne, was added to make sure that down the line there would not be any blood of his with a better right to the throne than the present Monarch.  you have to remember that at that time the thought of an American descendant having equal rights to the Throne of England and the Empire was preposterous, the rules were not changed to suit Charles they were changed to suit Edwards situation. for another example of this situation you have to look back at the reign of James II, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, James was deemed to have abdicated, thus the throne went to hid eldest child, due to the fact that legally he had no sons via his first marriage, the throne was left to his daughter Mary II, she married her cousin William of Orange and they ruled with equal power as William III and Mary II, on the death of the afore mentioned the throne was left to Mary's sister QuennAnn. the rights of the sons of James II was passed over due to the fact that he was born from James' second Catholic marriage, thus making their claim null and void.

the Abdication of Edward brought the disinherited Stuats back in the minds of the polititions abd he was forced to relinquish any rights his future issue would have had, all to stop any reapeat of the Jacobean resistance

Answer 4

Because Prince Charles always gets his own way and moral standards have declined due to the behaviour of people like him.

William would still be the heir because he is next in line no matter what his father did.

Answer 5

Theoretically The Duke of York should Be the next in line after The Prince of Wales. The laws of succession state that a catholic can not sit on the throne,Princes William and Harry were both christened as roman catholics at a secret ceremony at the insistence of their mother.

Answer 6

As Mrs Simpson was a n**i sympathizer the English authorities basically had to throw Edward out so that England would not be made a n**i state under her control of the King. Camilla has always maintained a very quiet presence and no one would be aware of any of her passions, other then Charles. With William being over his majority (the nice way of saying over 21) if Charles abdicated it would be in Williams favour. Czar Nicholas of Russia abdicated for both himself and his son (aged 12) in favour of his brother Michael. Michael abdicated too, just before the Bolsheviks shot him. William will only lose the crown if he too elects to abdicate

Answer 7

When they were married, it was mentioned over and over that Charles would be King but Camilla would never be Queen but would be known as The Dutches of Cornwall, King's Consort .

As long as the boys are members of the Church of England they are still in line for the throne.

Answer 8

I'm 567,986th in line for the throne. So it doesn't bother me

Answer 9

What a load of old hoo haa.

more tea vicker?

Answer 10

Wabbit is right, the problem was really not that Wallis Simpson was divorced, but that she was divorced twice. And that she was an American. And that Edward VIII was an irresponsible twit, who wanted all the perks of royalty, but didn't want to do the work involved with that position.

Now that we know that both Edward and Wallis were n**i sympathizers,  and that they let slip so many secrets that the Foreign Office had to conceal information from Edward, it all worked out for the best. It certainly didn't for King George VI, a very shy and sensitive man, who didn't want the throne, but did his duty. He was the perfect man for the office during WWII, and his example of courage kept the nation going.

Since the constitution is unwritten, it can be interpreted in many ways. Obviously, divorce will be no obstacle to Charles' succession. Values have changed greatly since 1936.

Answer 11

william would not loose his right.

Incase you haven't been around for the last 59 years, things, laws here in the UK have changed.

ssssssssoooooooooooooif charles abdicates, william is the rightful heir, as the courts would say,william is not responsible nor dismissed because of his father's misgivings.

Answer 12

The royal family is g*y

x x x

Answer 13

not sure why but if charles abdocated it would go to william

Answer 14

Good question! Part of it was that Edward VIII didn't really want to be king, anyway.  He liked the perks, but he wasn't really interested in shouldering the burdens of the monarchy.  No one liked Wallis Simpson because she was seen as an "adventuress", with two ex-husbands. Divorce, back then, was truly a scandal -- it was a long time before Queen Victoria would allow ANYONE divorced to be presented to her at all, even if they were the innocent party in the divorce.  I suspect that Edward VIII was just as happy to be done with it all and go off to live in Paris with Wallis and live happily ever after.  (Goodness knows, the late Queen Mother never forgave him OR her for dumping the monarcy on her husband, and blamed Edward VIII for shortening his life.) Attitudes toward divorce have softened considerably since then.  Back then, the Church of England did not allow remarriage of divorced folks if their ex's were still alive.  That was changed in 2002.

If Charles abdicated, he could only abdicate his own rights -- he could not abdicate his children's rights.  While Edward VIII gave up the rights for his non-existent children, it was more of a sop to the Government in power at that time, since they didn't want to deal with any children popping up later with a claim to the thrown.  Of course, at the age of 42 at their marriage, the chances of Wallis producing any children was slim, anyway. As next in line behind Charles, William would then be the Heir Apparent (or King, depending on Charles' position at the time of abdication.)

Answer 15

As far as I know the laws were changed to allow Prince Charles to be King, however if he did step down the Prince William would be the next King regardless.

Answer 16

What a load of speculative rubbish from most of the previous answerers.

The only rules about succession to the British Monarchy are the rules made by the British Parliament, and it is not bound by any previous rules that it has made. Parliament can change the rules at any time, and agree to pass an Act which alters the line of succession in any way they want, and they can make it as inconsistent as they want. They can depose the current Monarch, and offer the Monarchy to whoever they like. James II did not abdicate, he was deposed in favour of his daughter.

However: King Edward VIII was advised (not compelled) to abdicate, because if he married Mrs. Simpson while still King, the Prime Minister expected that the dominions (Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) would secede from the Commonwealth, and the Archbishop of Canterbury expected that their Anglican churches would secede from the Church of England rather than accept Edward as the Head of their Church. As other answerers have said, attitudes to divorce have changed a lot in 70 years.

The Netherlands allows its monarch to abdicate the throne without giving up their children's rights to it, but in Britain, Parliament would have to decide whether or not to allow it. Since it has been both allowed (Edward II) and disallowed (Edward VIII), it is unpredictable what would happen if Charles chose to abdicate.

Answer 17

"Effectively, when a monarch abdicates, his or her entire line is ignored as if it never existed and the throne, in the case of Charles, would pass to where it would have passed if Charles had never been born."

This is not correct. The Queen of the Netherlands abdicated in favour of her daughter and it has happened in  England too. Edward II abdicated in favour of his son Edward III and James II abdicated in favour of his daughter Mary II and then her sister Anne.

The line of succession is determined by Parliament and the Act of Succession stated that no Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic could inherit the throne. At the death of Queen Anne, the natural successor was her half brother James Edward Stuart but he was a Catholic so Parliament offered the crown to George of Hanover who accepted as George I.

Answer 18

Edward VIII was unmarried and wanted to marry a twice divorced woman. Both her former husbands were still alive and Divorce was still unusual and less acceptable.

Charles was divorced himself, his ex-wife was no longer alive and he's not the monarch yet. Divorce is also much more acceptable in today's society.

William would not lose his right to the Throne he is second-in-line and nothing can take that away. Edward VIII had not been married so had no legitimate heir and the letters patent making him the Duke of Windsor said his children (if he'd had any) that they would have no place in the line of succession.

If Charles renounced his right to the throne then William would automatically become heir, his successor is currently his brother but that will change if and when William has children.

Abdication does not disqualify children from inheriting the throne, James II was forced to abdicate but two of his children (Mary II and Anne) became Monarchs in their own right (Mary II was joint ruler with her husband William III).

The current line of succession has as it's top 11 people, direct descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip (will become 12 when The Countess of Wessex gives birth to her second child).