Amazon.com Widgets
  • If alive upon the death of The Queen, The Prince of Wales will succeed his mother as Britain's next King by common law and statute.

    The common law and statutory rules of succession to the British Throne are long established and well understood by most educated people who comment on such matters. For many hundreds of years the common law doctrine of male cognatic primogeniture, giving male heirs precedence in the order of succession over their older sisters, governed the succession. Thus, the younger son of a monarch would inherit the throne over his older sister. Only when a monarch had no sons at all would a daughter succeed to the throne as in the case of the present Queen whose father, King George VI, died without any male children or, in the case of Queen Victoria, who inherited the throne at the age of 18, after her late father's three elder brothers had all also died, leaving no legitimate, surviving children. The Act of Union 1800, which restated earlier provisions of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the English Bill of Rights of 1689, further restricted the succession to legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover and barred Roman Catholics or those who marry Roman Catholics from the line of succession.

    Extraordinarily, under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 these laws governing the succession will be changed. First, males will no longer take precedence in the order of succession over their older sisters. This change will not, however, apply retroactively to people born before October 2011. Second, the ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic would be lifted, although the monarch would still need to be in communion with the Church of England. Individual realms (countries that acknowledge the British Monarch as their King or Queen) will need still to enact legislation before the succession changes take effect but this is a formality. In the UK, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 received royal assent on 25 April 2013, having been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

    In practice, the new succession law will very likely have no effect on at least three generations of future British monarchs. The new law is not retroactive to persons in the line of succession born prior to October 2011 (excluding the current Prince of Wales and his two sons). The heir to the throne, Charles, Prince of Wales, is an Anglican married to an Anglican with no daughters. His first-born male child, Prince William, is an Anglican married to an Anglican whose first-born male child, Prince George of Cambridge, is baptized into the Church of England. Thus, It is very likely indeed that succession to the British Throne will continue in the same tradition and manner as it has done for centuries . When The Queen dies, if he is alive at her death, her first-born son, Charles, Prince of Wales, will succeed his mother as Britain's next King. At the death of the King, if alive, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (as he is presently styled) will become King and, at his death, Prince George, if alive will become King.

  • Yes he should

    I would first like to say that I am not the most educated person when it comes to British royalty and all of that jazz. With that being said, I fail to see any reason why Prince Charles should not be the successor to Queen Elizabeth. If he is next in line, that is.

  • Adultery forfeits the succession

    Charles publicly humiliated his wife openly having an adulterous affair. He cannot, and should not, inherit the Throne as king and 'defender of the faith'. It makes the British monarchy an international laughing stock. William and Kate are decent caring people with a son and heir and more to come. It is utter arrogance for Charles to even consider inheriting the throne. His great uncle had the humility to abdicate when public opinion decreed that marriage to a divorcee was not appropriate behaviour for a monarch.

  • Adultery forfeits the succession

    Charles publicly humiliated his wife openly having an adulterous affair. He cannot, and should not, inherit the Throne as king and 'defender of the faith'. It makes the British monarchy an international laughing stock. William and Kate are decent caring people with a son and heir and more to come. It is utter arrogance for Charles to even consider inheriting the throne. His great uncle had the humility to abdicate when public opinion decreed that marriage to a divorcee was not appropriate behaviour for a monarch.

  • Charles has forfeited his right to the throne

    Charles publicly shamed his wife Diana by committing very public adultery with a still married woman. He cannot, and should not, succeed to the British throne. His great uncle wanted to marry a divorcee and this was not permitted and he chose to abdicate. Charles forfeited all rights when he chose to cause the mother of his two sons such public pain and the Queen surely cannot hand over the Throne that she has so carefully nurtured to a man who will be the laughing stock of the rest if the world as 'defender of the faith'. His son William has a stainless reputation, as has his wife, and a male heir. William will have the respect a British monarch deserves. Charles never will!

  • Should Charles succeed

    No, no, no! Charles is an adulterer who publicly shamed his wife, Diana and as such, cannot and should not, be appointed monarch and 'defender of the faith'. His great uncle wanted to marry a divorcee and establishment opinion and pressure caused him to abdicate. It is an indication of Charles' arrogance that he still feels entitlement to the British throne. We shall lose whatever respect remains for the Monarchy and be the laughing stock of the world. William is a good, decent man and husband. There is already a male heir in waiting and frankly, his appointment as King would, in a very small way, make up for the appalling treatment his mother suffered at the hands of the 'royal' family. How can the Queen even consider handing over the throne she had so long nurtured to two adulterers?

  • No, he shouldn't.

    No, I don't believe Prince Charles should succeed Queen Elizabeth. He is old, outdated and out of touch. His son William should succeed Queen Elizabeth. He will have a long reign, he's young and he's in touch with society and the world at large. Prince Charles' popularity just isn't there.

  • The whole system of monarchy in the United Kingdom should be done away with.

    No, I believe that Prince Charles should not succeed Queen Elizabeth. Instead, the whole system of monarchy in the United Kingdom should be done away with, as it is little more than showmanship, and the history of the Crown is not a history that the country should be proud of. The Royal Family holds absolutely no power in the system of government anymore, and to keep appointing more members would be to play to the hopes and wishes of the press, nothing more.

  • The Man Is A Blowhard

    It is Charles' right to succeed his mother, but he really shouldn't. He is a terrible man who thinks way too highly of himself. A lot of British people think that way, too. He should step aside and let his son William become king when the time for succession comes.

    Posted by: rpr

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.