Has Prince William indicated He may abdicate in favour of Prince George?
Lady Macbeth would never let him do any such thing. She wants so much to be Queen that Charles has bought a bomb proof Aston Martin with a personal diagnostic that he can plug in to check the brakes, steering etc in seconds, every time he goes out - and even then, his personal jester, formerly a Lib Dem MP, has to start the engine and sit in for a few seconds, just in case of IEDs. And, caring husband that he is, he has commissioned the Royal Erotic Corsetiere to design a Ballistic Basque with Macrolon supports for Camilla.
If Prince Charles abdicates to William, what title would Charles have if his son became king?
in straightforward terms a reigning monarch can abdicate not an inheritor obvious. besides the undeniable fact that, in case you're asking if he had to provide up his splendid to the throne, then then answer isn't any, offering he outlives his mom he will grow to be King upon her dying. If he ascends the throne then William will grow to be Duke of Cornwall and Harry will bypass from being "Prince Henry of Wales" to "The Prince Henry". Charles could additionally create William "Prince of Wales" right this moment (an investiture as Prince of Wales isn't certainly mandatory - Prince Charles became into created Prince of Wales at 9 yet became into not formally invested until he became into 21). Upon his ascension to the throne, frequently his spouse might grow to be Queen Consort yet upon their marriage it became into introduced that Camilla will use the identify "Princess Consort". If Charles predeceases the Queen then William may be the subsequent in line, it particularly is possibly that the Queen might create William "Prince of Wales" yet he ought to not inherit the Dukedom of Cornwall because it particularly is reserved for the eldest son of a Monarch. If Camilla became into nevertheless alive she might hold her identify as long because of the fact the Queen became into alive, besides the undeniable fact that, if William ascended the throne and already had a son then Camilla might grow to be "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cornwall". The Queen outliving Charles isn't outdoors the geographical regions of possibility, the two her mom and grandmother outlived a minimum of one among their infants (Queen Mary outlived 3 of her infants). on the different hand, Prince Philip is 89 and nevertheless going good. he's first in line and not 2d. the reason Edward VIII had to abdicate became into in 1936 Divorce became into extremrly uncommon and it became into unthinkable that the King might marry a woman with 2 residing ex-husbands. as properly any infants that they had may well be in direct line for the throne and this became into additionally unthinkable. for sure, Camilla and Charles does not have any infants and whether they did then William and Harry might hold their places (although Harry would be exceeded further down the line via William's chlldren).
Is Prince William next in line to the thrown?
Charles is next in line to the Throne. The fact that his present wife is divorced does not change that. William is next in line after Charles. Charles' children (William and Henry) were born during the time of his marriage to his first wife, who is deceased. His second marriage has no bearing on the children he had with his dead first wife. King Edward VIII (later Duke of Windsor) did not marry Wallis Simpson until several months after he abdicated the Throne. He abdicated in December 1936, and married Wallis Simpson in June 1937. When he chose to abdicate, he willingly gave up all rights of sucession for any children he might ever have in the future, along with all HIS rights to the Throne. No child of his could ever inherit the Throne, because the Duke of Windsor forfeited that right for them. At this moment, the most direct line of succession (after the Queen) is: Prince Charles; Prince William; William's children (Prince George; Princess Charlotte), and Prince Henry.
If Prince Charles had abdicated before, would Prince William still be the next in line, or Prince Andrew?
Judging by recent (ish) precedent, I would go with Prince Andrew.Why?Of course the Abdication Act in 1936 was written solely for Edward VIII and only applied to him (and his heirs, of which there were none anyway) but it seems to be the way abdication works in the UK, that you abdicate for yourself and your heirs.Still…there’s at least one more precedent, and it’s hard to untangle because, well, cousin marriage.James VII of Scotland/ II of England.He was held to have abdicated the throne, and his son and heir was also excluded. His eldest daughter was permitted to have the throne (indeed, she and her husband were asked to invade and take the throne) but as they ruled jointly…I’m unsure whether Parliament’s purpose was going “we’re kicking out King James, let’s go to the next line’s Protestant heir, that’d be William III” and bonus for him being married to James’ daughter to appease the Stuart supporters - or if they really were offering the throne to Mary, and she insisted that her husband be known as King. (I know the latter is the official story, but it feels kind of…off.)I feel like given the mores of the time, Parliament really were going through William, the heir of the next acceptable line, as the rightful ruler and only accepted James’ daughters because Mary was married to William (and it’d please the Stuart supporters) and Anne was the next logical heir.
Didn't Charles abdicate his right to the throne when he married Camilla?
You are mistaken. Charles is still next in line to the throne.The view on divorce has changed as times have changed;of the Queen's four children,only Edward has not gone through a divorce. Anne,the Princess Royal and Charles have remarried. And the Queen's sister, the late Princess Margaret,also divorced. The Queen and the late Queen Elizabeth,the Queen Mother, were not overly fond of Camilla,considering her "wicked" and "vile"(quotations from Elizabeth The Queen Mother by Hugo Vickers) because she would not give Charles up.William and Harry hold another view,however;they understand that Camilla makes their father happy and they hold her in esteem for that. I am a fan of the late Princess of Wales, Diana,but I also am able to accept Camilla,who is slowly working her way into the picture.Charles and Camilla both know how important it is to respect and honor Diana's memory;they waited till eight years after that tragic accident to marry.Camilla has chosen a different honorific to be known as, i.e. Duchess of Cornwall and not Princess of Wales.Charles asked for his sons' permission before marrying Camilla. And Camilla never insisted upon meeting the two boys and left it up to Charles and the boys to decide when the time was right. I wish things had turned out differently and that Charles and Diana had worked things out;but they didn't.That's life and life goes on;Charles and Camilla were not saintly,just as so many of the worlds' population are not saintly!The Church of England blessed this union,so nay-sayers,just move on with your own lives and let these people get on with theirs.
Did Prince Charles have to abdicate when he married Camilla?
Only a reigning monarch can abdicate not an heir apparent. However, if you are asking if he had to give up his right to the throne, then then answer is no, providing he outlives his mother he will become King upon her death. If he ascends the throne then William will become Duke of Cornwall and Harry will go from being "Prince Henry of Wales" to "The Prince Henry". Charles may also create William "Prince of Wales" immediately (an investiture as Prince of Wales is not actually needed - Prince Charles was created Prince of Wales at nine but was not formally invested until he was 21). Upon his ascension to the throne, normally his wife would become Queen Consort but upon their marriage it was announced that Camilla will use the title "Princess Consort". If Charles predeceases the Queen then William will be the next in line, it is likely that the Queen would create William "Prince of Wales" but he could not inherit the Dukedom of Cornwall as this is reserved for the eldest son of a Monarch. If Camilla was still alive she would retain her title as long as the Queen was alive, however, if William ascended the throne and already had a son then Camilla would become "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Cornwall". The Queen outliving Charles is not outside the realms of possibility, both her mother and grandmother outlived at least one of their children (Queen Mary outlived three of her children). On the other hand, Prince Philip is 89 and still going strong. He's first in line and not second. The reason Edward VIII had to abdicate was in 1936 Divorce was extremrly uncommon and it was unthinkable that the King would marry a woman with two living ex-husbands. In addition any children they had would be in direct line for the throne and this was also unthinkable. Obviously, Camilla and Charles would not have any children and even if they did then William and Harry would retain their places (although Harry will be passed further down the line by William's chlldren).
Is Prince Charles or Prince William going to get the throne?
Is Prince Charles or Prince William going to get the throne? (A2A)They will both eventually “get the throne” and the same can be said of Prince George. They are all future kings of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth as long as they do not die before their predecessors, either their mother or father.I cannot imagine they are in a great rush to become king although Charles, at age 70, has been Prince of Wales of longer than anyone. They are not like Simba in Lion King singing, “I just can’t wait to be king.” Think about what it means. It requires the death of their parent before they can succeed to the throne. This is a very sad occasion in their lives followed by huge responsibility.The list below gives the name of the Monarch or future Monarch*** and Heir per current Line of Succession and, as stated, barring any premature death:Queen Elizabeth II will be succeeded by her son, Prince Charles, when she dies.King Charles III will be succeeded by his son, Prince William, when he dies.King William V will be succeeded by his son, Prince George, when he dies.King George VII will be succeeded by his firstborn child whether male or female - yet to be born since George is currently only five or six years old.***Assumes each of these future kings choose their first given name as their regnal name.The Line of Succession is firmly established in law. It will be followed. You can easily find it online and I hear one list has as many as 5000 names. The current Monarch cannot change the Line of Succession on a whim or for any reason. It just does not work that way.From Wikipedia, more information on the line of succession:Line of succession to the British throne - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do some people think Prince Charles will abdicate the throne to his son when it is known that to abdicate is greatly looked down upon?
Well as the queens eldest son and Prince of Wales, Charles is first in line to the throne. He is currently 68 years old. As time goes on the real possibility exists that after Charles became king, he would be unable to perform the royal duties. If this were the case, he would be required to inform the Parliament of the same . If he doesn't wish to abdicate, he could then petition them to name William as Prince regent until his death, and vote on this amendment to the succession. I believe this was last proposed in 1788 for George iii during an episode of his mental illness. It became reality in 1810 when his son George prince of Wales was named regent.
What happens is Prince William dies?
Catherine Middleton will become Queen Consort ONLY if she is married to William when he becomes king. If he dies before he succeeds, she will be the Dowager Princess William of Wales or the Dowager Whatever-Her-Title-Is-At-The-Time (Duchess of Something, possibly Princess of Wales if Charles is on the throne.) She will never become Queen Consort if William dies before he becomes King. If they have a child before William's death and before he succeeds, that child will take William's place in the line of succession. If they have no children, then Prince Harry will take his place. Prince Harry precedes Prince Andrew in the line of succession, because he is the son of the Queen's oldest son. Prince Andrew would get "his turn" only if William and Harry both died without having any children of their own. And after Andrew's death, the throne would pass to Andrew's elder daughter, Princess Beatrice.
Will Prince Harry always lose his spot in line to the crown if Kate keeps popping babies?
A good example of how this works is Prince Michael of Kent whose daughter announced her engagement yesterday.When Prince Michael was born he was 6th in the line of succession behind his own older brother (the current Duke of Kent), his father (the then Duke of Kent), his uncle (the Duke of Gloucester - father of the present Duke of Gloucester), Princess Margaret and Princess Elizabeth.Due to the fact that Princess Elizabeth now has 19 living descendant, Princess Margaret has 6, The Duke of Gloucester has 9 living descendants plus himself and the Duke of Kent has 10 non-confirmed Roman Catholic descendants plus himself all coming before Prince Michael in the line of succession.From being born 6th he is now 47th in the line of succession (he will move up as each of his brother’s children from his younger son gets confirmed Roman Catholic as baptism isn’t enough to remove one from the line of succession and the eldest of those children is now 11, but he will continue to move further away as those ahead of him in the line of succession continue to have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.Princess Alexandra was born 6th and dropped to 7th when Michael was born and she is now into the 50s behind Michael’s children and grandchildren.In time Harry will drop out of the top 10 - as Anne has done and she was born as high as he was - 3rd.