Is The Rumour True?????

A few weeks ago I saw a story in one of the Tabloid newspapers in our local grocery store syting that Queen Elizabeth II is prepping Prince William to become King over her own son who has patiently waited over 40 years as The Prince of Wales to ascend to the Throne now it all seems to have been for naught. And I was wondering if anyone here can shed some light for me whether or not this rumour is true.The article went on to say how pissed of Camilla is because she had seen herself becoming Queen once Prince Charles finally got his chance to become King.

Personally, if this rumour proves to be true then I feel his mother did him a great disservice to her own son and is being very unfair to him since he is the true Heir to the Throne and not his son. Prince William needs to learn some patience and let his father become King because he will eventualy succeed his father as King.
Prince Charles has been the Prince of Wales since 1969 far longer than else has ever been previously in history.

Beatles1964

It is not up to the Queen who succeeds her. The law is defined in the Act Of Settlement 1701 - which is very difficult to change. It would require England and Scotland to change (maybe this could be done at Westminster as a single bill - but I could see the Scottish Parliament arguing that they should decide for Scotland) as well as fourteen other Commonwealth countries.

All royals high up in the succession tend to get given state jobs to do. None of the UK papers got particularly excited about William being given stuff to do.

She may be grooming him, but succession is determined by law, common and statutory. The Queen has no authority to decide that William, rather than Charles, will be the next monarch. Her wishes are irrelevant; the crown passes by male-primogeniture.

Oops! Andyl beat me to it.

Considering how long-lived the ladies in her family line seem to be, it will be a long wait for either of them.

beatles1964, do you REALLY believe what tabloids publish?

I can't quote the source, but I'm pretty sure that it was made very clear when Charles and Camilla married that she would never be called Queen Camilla. She gets some other title instead, of which I can't remember either. Oh, my, not a very good memory today. Princess Consort, or something like that? Poor Chuck though, can you imagine being in your 60s and still not doing the job you're born to do? The rest of his age group is beginning to retire, and he hasn't started his job yet. If Mums lives as long as her mother, he will be almost 80 when he becomes king.

I think that when things are slow in Celebrity World, the tabloids pull out the file on the royals and make stuff up, or take some non-story and make something silly out of it. I remember once seeing a headline that said "Charles says of Diana: 'Off With Her Head!'"

> 7

Not so far off. Arguably, her adultery was high treason, and treason was a capital offense in England until 1998.

And this would have been before 1998, obviously. I just laughed. It was one of my favourite tabloid headlines ever (that and the photoshopped picture of Saddam Hussein wrapped in Osama bin Laden's loving embrace).

#6 Of course, it was also made clear at various other times that Charles would never be able to marry Camilla, not to mention the many times it's been made clear that he wasn't going to marry Diana, that Fergie wasn't pregnant, that William doesn't want the job anyway etc, etc. As others have pointed out, the British tabloids aren't the ideal source for accurate information on anything much. Stick with book reading, Beatles'64.

Just a question: I thought Britain just recently amended the law of succession to remove male primogeniture? I think now it doesn't matter which sex the child is the oldest is heir. For example if Prince William's first child is a daughter and second child is a son his daughter is heir. I think this happened within the last 10 years... or am I just remembering something that didn't happen?

Nah, we're not that advanced yet. There has been a lot of talk about it and MP Chris Bryant proposed it in parliament a couple of years ago along with a proposal to change the law of succession to allow heirs to the throne to marry Catholics, but I'm pretty sure nothing more came of it. I think we anti-monarchists may be partly to blame for this as we don't really fight for improvements regarding the royals but prefer to to picture a world (ok, country) where the whole system of inherited privilege is no more. There's probably no great urgency for the change right now as it wouldn't come into force until (and if) Prince William had a daughter. Princess Anne certainly wouldn't want the job if Charles kicked the bucket and slotting her and her heirs into the line of succession ahead of Andrew, Edward, William and Harry would cause such major upheavals that I suspect that may be another reason why successive governments prefer not to discuss the issue at least until Charlie is safely on the throne. That's just my ill-informed theory anyway. But in general, I'm afraid you'll probably have to wait a very long time indeed for our royalty to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century (a bit of an anomaly anyway, when you think about it).

Can Elizabeth II accede the throne to Charles or does she have to rule until death? I have read that even if Queen Elizabeth II was allowed to give Charles the throne that she wouldn't as she is very old fashioned and literal in her interpretation of duty and feels she is honor bound to rule until her death. But is she allowed to just quit by any means other than her death?

> 13

Sure, she can abdicate. There's precedent for that. Edward VIII did so as recently as 1936.

What you've heard is right. She always blamed Edward VIII for her father's early death (having the pressures of becoming king unexpectedly) and believes the instability caused did the monarchy immense harm which she has spent most of her life trying to repair. Of course, she dooesn't give interviews or chat in public about her feelings so it is only speculation but it is generally believed that she would never abdicate.

She could abdicate but Charles would succeed she can not designate Harry to succeed her as it is not for her to decide-there are laws which govern the royal succession! Even the queen has to follow the rules. 8^)

I suppose it is up to Queenie who she grooms, but not who succeeds. As far as I know, the deal with Camilla marrying Charles was about Charles NOT succeeding to the throne in the end. Due to his divorce with Diana, he probably *has to* pass on his status as heir to the throne to William.

In mind, I have the recollection about Edward VIII, and Wallis Simpson -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom#Abdication

Quote: 'Baldwin informed the King that his subjects would deem the marriage morally unacceptable, largely because remarriage after divorce was opposed by the Church of England, and the people would not tolerate Wallis as Queen. As King, Edward held the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the clergy expected him to support the Church's teachings'.

What stood then as a reason for abdication is probably valid today, and there must be statutes and bylaws to second such a situation, regardless of what the British population thinks on the matter, the legal matters will prevail.

#17 Absolutely not - Charles is heir to the throne, simple as that. His divorce from Diana made no difference to that although there was a lot of discussion as to whether his remarriage should make a difference. It doesn't. Unless the laws of succession are changed he becomes king when Liz dies. Right now, the official line is that Camilla will never be referred to as 'Queen Camilla' but that will almost certainly change after a few years of sulking from Charles. Fortunately the couple were never going to have children to complicate the matter further though if that had happened they would probably have been subject to the rules of a morganatic marriage (see below).

As with Edward VIII, it wasn't his own position that was a problem, it was the fact of him marrying a divorcee. There was one other possibility and that was a morganatic marriage where the heir to the throne's position is not affected but his/her spouse does not take on the title of Queen/King and their children are exempt from the line of inheritance.

As for that 'grooming', of course William is being 'groomed' - he is next in line to the throne after Charles. Likewise, Charles has been groomed for the job since the moment of his birth. Hence, a whole string of somewhat pointless lives of waiting for parents to die.

#17, #18

With Wallis Simpson it wasn't just that she was a divorcee, that could have been dealt with, especially if her ex-husband was dead, but that she was a twice-divorcee with living husbands and generally seen as no better than she ought to be. She took up with Edward before divorcing her previous husband for example.

#19 Yup.

ETA And yes, dead ex-spouses are certainly more easily dealt with than live ones. Which came in very handy for the conspiracy theorists when Diana died.

To be honest, though, times have changed. If the Charles/Camilla thing had happened in the 50s there would have been very little difference between the two cases as Camilla would also have been considered no better than she ought to be. Like Charles himself, she was fairly well known for 'putting it about a bit'. Thank god, Diana was probably the last of the royal fiancees to have to have her virginity checked out before the wedding could take place.

Just something I learned recently re: Morganatic marriage.

The children of a morganatic marriage are called 'Their Serene Highness'. The reason why I know this? In the movie The Young Victoria Prince Albert when he was introduced to Victoria was called his Serene Highness (along with his brother). How weird is that?

So, abdication is the only way to step-down from ruling? Wow, what if the monarch gets sick or senile?

As for the divorce thing, I find this ironic to say the least. The Church of England was founded so that a divorce could take place, namely that of Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. It seems odd to me that the Church of England having been founded upon a divorce is now recalcitrant about it. The only explanation that I can think of is that the divorce laws in England as a whole were very strict to the point of being draconian at the time Edward VIII was attempting to marry Wallis.

As for the virginity of possible royal brides, you may be right about it no longer being checked, but I would bet money that they are still vetted in terms of fertility. Kings dying without an heir has started more than one war.

And, as an ignorant American, just why would it be so terrible for Camilla to be referred to as Queen? Is it because everyone loved Diana so or are there legal reasons, such as mutual children and the succession?

Well there isn't much real "ruling" that is done. The country will tick over fine if the monarch is sick for a few months. About the only thing she does on a regular basis is meet the Prime Minister - except when one or both are out of the country. Apart from that she has a small role at elections - which was made clear at the last one. We've had mad kings before, but these days I rather think a senile monarch would be persuaded to abdicate.

The divorce thing. A divorced monarch isn't a problem - it is the spouse that is the problem. You are right though that the divorce laws were much stricter in those days - things just started to get a little more liberal (although not very) in 1937. For example there was no divorce through mutual consent. You had to prove violence, adultery or desertion. If there was collusion the divorce wasn't granted.

For some people it wouldn't be a problem for Camilla to be referred to as Queen. For others it would. It was generally seen as politically astute at the time to refer to as the Duchess of Cornwall rather than get embroiled in a big row - with the red-tops playing a prime part.

#22 If the ruling monarch becomes sick (long-term) or senile, which is exactly what happened with George III, a regent would be appointed. A regent being somebody who takes on all the public duties and responsibilities of the king or queen but doesn't yet have the title. When George III died after many years of illness, his son, who up until then had been regent, became George IV and king in his own right.

The same thing happens if the heir to the throne is too young to rule - eg Edward V - he became king at the age of 9 but a 'regency council', led by his uncle, was appointed to rule in his place until he became of age which, of course, never happened.

You're not the only one to have pointed out the irony of the C of E's position on divorce, btw. For many of us (well, me, at least) the stupidity of having a monarchy goes hand in hand with the stupidity of religion (the monarch is supposedly chosen by god). I fail to see how any atheist cannot also be a republican (as in anti-monarchy, not in the US political sense). The whole idea of being 'ruled' by some supreme being appointed by another imaginary supreme being is nothing short of ludicrous.

#23 You're absolutely right about differing opinions on whether or not Camilla should be called Queen but it's a problem for the future. The fact that she is currently referred to as Duchess of Cornwall has nothing to do with political astuteness, it's because that is her correct title. Charles is Duke of Cornwall (plus plenty of other places) and until he becomes King his wife is not Queen. The mini-controversy at the time was about whether Camilla should be referred to as Princess of Wales. That was decided against because of the affection people felt for her predecessor but it is still one of her many official titles. In Scotland she is called Duchess of Rothesay. It's my guess that when the current queen dies Camilla will take the title - with every year that passes since Diana's death it becomes less controversial and Charles does have a habit of getting his own way as long as he doesn't have to stand up to his parents to get it.

>22 Anastasia169:
Technically, I think the Regency Acts (1937 and 1953) would be invoked if the sovereign were incapacitated: if at least three of the Duke of Edinburgh, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls signed a paper to the effect that the Queen had been declared gaga by her doctors, then Prince Charles would be appointed Regent and perform the Queen's constitutional duties.

#24

I fail to see how any atheist cannot also be a republican (as in anti-monarchy, not in the US political sense). The whole idea of being 'ruled' by some supreme being appointed by another imaginary supreme being is nothing short of ludicrous.

One can logically be in favour of monarchy in principle but reject the reasoning that they are appointed by God. There are for example elective monarchies.

>22 Anastasia169:

Strictly speaking Henry VIII wasn't looking for a divorce, but an anullment. An anullment means that the marriage is regarded as never really having taken place. So "officially" Henry VIII was never married to Catherine of Aragon.

> 22

The Church of England was founded so that a divorce could take place, namely that of Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn.

Ah, but don't forget that the argument was that the marriage to Aragon was a nullity.

Oh, never mind. I should read entire threads before I respond.

~waves at Scorbet~

>26 andyl:
...like the Holy Roman Empire???

#30

Yes - but to quote Voltaire "the Holy Roman Empire is neither Holy, nor Roman or an Empire". In the early days of the Holy Roman Emperor any noble could vote for the King of the Romans. It was only later it was reduced to an electorate of seven (later eight) people.

26: One can logically be in favour of monarchy in principle but reject the reasoning that they are appointed by God. There are for example elective monarchies.

This would make sense (there are some positive aspects to monarchies as there are problems with republics (frequent elections are fun for no one), though, as an American, I'd prefer the latter to the former), but calling Great Britain a monarchy is being a bit too kind to the royal family, is it not? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the British monarchy has almost no power whatsoever, right? The Queen could veto whatever came through parliament, but that will never happen; does that not create an imbalance in the government? Is not the only real power under the monarch the ability to appoint a prime minister?

#32 Well, we get the elections too. No, you're not wrong at all - the Queen has very little constitutional power (and what she does have is more in theory than in practice) and, although she, technically, gets to appoint the PM, she can only appoint the one we plebs have voted for (or, as in the case of the recent election, come closest to voting for). That doesn't make it 'not a monarchy'; it just makes it a fairly pointless one - yet one that endows a family that has done nothing much to earn it with immense wealth and privilege.

27, 28> Yes, both of what we call Henry VIII's "divorces" actually were anullments. Initially, he tried to get the Pope to anull his marriage to Katherine on the basis that she was his brother's wife. (Biblical passages on this go both ways: that it is forbidden, or that a man SHOULD marry his brother's widow. Henry used them both as it was convenient.) The Pope had given him a dispenssation to marry Katherine, based on the claim that her first marriage was never consummated--something Henry later attempted to disprove. After so many stillbirths and misacrriages and no living son, with Katherine in her 40s and Anne Boleyn in the wings, Henry has a sudden qualm of conscience, stating that the lack of a male heir was God's punishment for the sin of marrying his brother's wife. Of course, for the Pope (a new one by then) to anull the marriage would mean that he was declaring the Pope fallible--not to mention that Katherine had pretty powerful relatives, including her nephew, the Holy Roman Emperor. With Anne of Cleves, the rationale was that she had a pre-contract with another man, hence making her already married, in the eyes of the church and the law.

As I understand it, when Charles and Camilla married, the big controversy was whether she should be given the title Princess of Wales, and it was decided that it was still too near Diana's death, which is why she goes by Duchess of Cornwall. Is she considered HRH? I think that was also being debated but don't recall how it was resolved.

The succession rumour has been around for many years. Personally I think Liz will outlive Charles.

I love it when very old threads suddenly reappear!

#34 Just a quite interesting point on Henry VIII's marriages. Henry's second wife, Anne Boleyn, was induced, before she was beheaded, to sign a statement invalidating her own marriage so that Henry could de-legitimise Anne's daughter (who later became Elizabeth I). Their marriage was actually annulled within days or even hours of her execution. Nobody seemed to notice (or be brave enough to point out) that if, as the annullment claimed, she had never really be married to Henry, then she could not have committed adultery, making her execution a case of simple, straightforward murder even if the accusations had had any basis in truth. Those Tudors, eh?