royal succession

[McClef]

Nothing is being made retrospective so for Anne to succeed, all her brothers and their progeny would have to "pop their clogs" before her.

If it were to have been retrospective Anne would have moved from 10th to 4th.

So still not a very likely chance.

[Chas]

On the subject of abdication... if Charles doesnt take the throne, is william still next in line?

Yes.

Prince Charles has been in training for this, for 50 years. His death is the only thing that would stop him being King.

Regardless of what some might think or say, Charles will be a good King. With age, comes some form of wisdom. He has a genuine interest in people, both their successes and their failures. So many of the programmes of which he is patron, are for people who require a second chance in life.

William, in his turn, will also make a good King, but that will be in no little part because he has a good example to follow.

As an aside, abdication of the reigning monarch in the UK is technically impossible. The monarch must ratify the decision, but cannot do so because they are no longer monarch. The successor cannot ratify, because they will not be the monarch till such time as the decision is ratified. A royal chicken and egg situation. It was called (and still is called) the Abdication Crisis, for the reason that there is no legal framework for it to happen. It was allowed to happen in 1936, only because all the parties allowed it. If the, then, Duke of York had said that he would not take up the mantle of kingship, we would have had a regency till 1972, when they had both died.

Regards

Chas

[davidg]

So if Charlie was to pop his clogs before Her Maj does that mean Princess Anne steps into the breach? Of course that would mean Wills & Harry would be out the window then and Anne's sprogs would be next in line. Won't happen of course.

What Jock says is absolutely correct, the line of succession is a straight line, not one that goes off at a tangent

In any case, the legislation will not be retrospective and if Charles, William and Harry all died the next in line would be Andrew, Anne's younger brother. She will not change her current position in the succession, even after legislation, and will still be ranked below all her younger brothers

[Dixiecat]

Just to add to what Chas has said:

For William to "take over", Charles would have to abdicate first if he is still alive when Her Majesty passes. It would then require a parliamentary bill to be passed to give effect to this desire to which he would have to give his Royal Assent.

The consent of every country where he would be Head of State would also be required.

There is no precedent for "jumping" the line here.

Well, actually there is precedence. Edward VIII? I don't know a whole lot of the politics behind this, but I don't think that the consent of the Heads of State would be required for abdication. Edward's abdication did not change the succession as it stood at the time. Charles' abdication would not change the succession as it stands currently either.

Changing the order of succession though, as it is laid out in the Act of Succession would take considerable more time and political effort.

Of course, this doesn't mean I'm in favour of abdication. Far from it. I have a feeling that if needed there would be a Regency not abdication.


**scurries off to check on Edward VIII history


I was totally wrong. I assumed that because events moved so quickly that consent from the Commonwealth states was not necessary. What the wiki says:

Under changes introduced in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster, a single Crown for the entire empire had been replaced by multiple crowns, one for each Dominion, worn by a single monarch in an organisation then known as the British Commonwealth.[45] Edward's abdication required the consent of each Commonwealth state, which was duly given; by the parliament of Australia, which was at the time in session, and by the governments of the other Dominions, whose parliaments were in recess.[45] However, the government of the Irish Free State, taking the opportunity presented by the crisis and in a major step towards its eventual transition to a republic, passed an amendment to its constitution to remove references to the Crown.[73] The King's abdication was recognised a day later in the External Relations Act of the Irish Free State and legislation eventually passed in South Africa declared that the abdication took effect there on 10 December.[45][74] It was Edward's Royal Assent to these Acts, rather than his abdication notice, which gave legal effect to the abdication

[piperchris]

As "politically incorrect" as this may sound, I do not agree with either the gender nor the Roman Catholic side of this decision. I think it is a mistake to erode some traditions and too much of this will see an end to the Monarchy itself.

[Chas]

As "politically incorrect" as this may sound, I do not agree with either the gender nor the Roman Catholic side of this decision. I think it is a mistake to erode some traditions and too much of this will see an end to the Monarchy itself.

As a practising member of The Church of England, I agree.

Regards

Chas

[Chas]

It was Edward's Royal Assent to these Acts, rather than his abdication notice, which gave legal effect to the abdication.

That is when the fudge occurred. Edward was already 'not the king' when he gave royal assent, so could not assent to anything.

Regards

Chas

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Alright so they are going to move the goal posts, it is hardly a problem(whichever set of rules are being used) that is going to crop up too often when all said and done. The world will carry on spinning around, nonetheless. Now could you please pass me the toast.

Uh, mind passing the jam old boy?

[Jock Scot]

Uh, mind passing the jam old boy?

By all means old chap, but I have eaten all the blackcurrant, so there is either raspberry, or honey comb, at the moment.

[McClef]

A couple of corrections - Edward VIII was King from the moment George V died. He was sworn in during an Accession Council and was de facto Monarch. It is not a Coronation that actually makes someone a monarch.

As to if the Duke or York had refused the crown it would still have followed the established inheritance procedures and his issue, in this case his eldest daughter would then have been offered the Crown though this would have been as a Regency until she turned 18. If she or her sister had also refused it it would then be offered to the next in line which would have been Edward's next eldest brother - Henry Duke of Gloucester, then to George Duke of Kent and only then to Princess Mary, the Princess Royal even though she was older than the latter two.

Even if Edward had kept his throne and had died childless the present Queen would still have inherited the Throne but some 20 years later than she did.