3

This source posits that the succession to the British throne is ultimately in the hands of the Parliament, not the queen or royal family.

The news source considers an important counter argument to bypass Prince Charles in the succession, that even though he (re-) married a divorced woman, Lady Camilla Parker Bowles, he has a lot more experience as a royal than his son and daughter in law, and would therefore make a better monarch.

The British government was an important factor in the abdication of King Edward VIII because of his marriage to Wallace Simpson. Could it, in theory, step in to prevent the ascension, or cause the early abdication of King Charles III, even though it is not likely to do so?

Tom Au
  • 418
  • 6
  • 13
  • Starting point for reading about this is [Succession to the British throne](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_British_throne) which points to the laws and history. – Jason Aller Jul 03 '14 at 02:12
  • 2
    Another starting point might be the linked article itself that explains why the rumour is without merit. – Oddthinking Jul 03 '14 at 03:53
  • 1
    First, Edward VIII was not *legally* forced to abdicate. He was essentially persuaded to abdicate to prevent a constitutional crisis. Similarly Charles could not be *forced* to abdicate. The issue with Edward VIII was two-fold - that divorce was not permitted at the time in the Church of England (of which Edward and Charles were/will be heads) and the general acceptability of divorce. Both those situations have changed enormously since 1936. – DJClayworth Jul 03 '14 at 15:55
  • 1
    @TomAu: Ah, if that is the substance of the question, it needs to be closed. There will be some pressure for him to resign for a multitude of reasons. (I will add my voice to the mix, for his unskeptical and unethical views of medicine.) However, we can't know if whether he would choose to do so - it would be pure speculation. – Oddthinking Jul 03 '14 at 16:49
  • 1
    @TomAu "Peer pressure" <-- I see what you did there. – Larry OBrien Jul 03 '14 at 19:38
  • 1
    Wow, you totally changed the question, which isn't good practice. The new question is also opinion-based. It is not one that can be determined by empirical evidence - it is a question of royal politics. – Oddthinking Oct 22 '15 at 23:28
  • @Oddthinking: OK, rolled it back to the original. Thought that the newer, related, version would be more acceptable, but that apparently isn't the case. – Tom Au Oct 22 '15 at 23:40
  • The question as expressed in the title seems to be acceptable, i.e. Is there a mechanism by which the Queen could cause Charles to be bypassed in favor of Prince William? This is certainly a different question than what is asked in the body of the question, which is just a matter of opinion. – Mark Oct 23 '15 at 01:26
  • @Oddthinking: Followed Mark's suggestion to ask about a "legal mechanism," in the last sentence which is more objective. Is the question ok now? – Tom Au Oct 23 '15 at 02:29
  • Related question on Politics.SE: [Why was Edward VIII's marriage a problem, but not Prince Charles's?](http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/why-was-edward-viiis-marriage-a-problem-but-not-prince-charless/) – Philipp Oct 23 '15 at 08:13
  • Please find a clear, precise and notable claim. This question seems to be about a personal curiosity rather than a notable claim. – Sklivvz Oct 23 '15 at 14:44
  • As Sklivvz notes, the question is still lacking a notable claim. Here's a source stating that Parliament could change the line of succession and skip over Prince Charles. Perhaps that will do. http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/insight/can-prince-charles-be-skipped-in-the-line-of-succession-22445 – Mark Oct 24 '15 at 13:15
  • @Mark: I used your link. Thanks for all your help. – Tom Au Oct 24 '15 at 23:08
  • @Sklivvz: I used Mark's more objective link. Is the question better now? – Tom Au Oct 24 '15 at 23:09
  • 5
    Okay, so the claim now is: "While Prince Charles is next in line for the throne, the Parliament could totally change the laws of the land, so he isn't." This seems a vacuous claim. They *could* also get rid of the monarchy. They *could* also declare the moderators of Skeptics.SE to be Heads of Government. How can this question be answered by evidence? – Oddthinking Oct 25 '15 at 02:50
  • 1
    The question in the title is "Is it true that Prince Charles can be bypassed in the line of succession?" The answer appears to be "The Queen cannot do this. The only way would be for Prince Charles to abdicate or for Parliament to change the succession laws." That answer needs a referenced source. – Mark Oct 25 '15 at 16:56

0 Answers0