#2: King Charlie ?

Question

I'll try again. On 10 December 1936 King Edward VIII had to abdicate the thrown because he married a divorcee, Wallis Simpson.

The question is, has the law changed ? If not, then Charles, maried to a divorcee cannot be king.

Answers about whether he would be a good king are irrelevant. Unless Carmilla's ex has an 'unfortunate car accident' Charles cannot be king. But most assume he can and will.

Answer 1

Edward VIII did not have to abdicate the throne, he choose to. His romance with Wallis Simpson was controversial (and it did not help that she was a foreigner) but there was (and is) no law against Edward's marrying her and remaining King. The main issue for Edward was that Parliament refused to grant Mrs. Simpson any title and there was no precedent for a wife of the king with no title or official capacity. As to an English King marrying a divorcee there was a very high-profile precedent:: Henry II married the divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152. Two of their sons, Richard and John, became King themselves.

Answer 2

The law has not changed. There was nothing in British law in 1936 to stop Edward VIII marrying Wallis Simpson, and remaining both King, and head of the Church of England. But the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury told him that, if he went ahead and did that, then the Dominions (Canada, South Africa, India, Australia, and New Zealand) would probably secede from the Commonwealth. So instead he chose to abdicate, and married Simpson later in 1937.

Answer 3

Actually, Edward could legally have been king, he abdicated because he was more interested in leading a satisfying private life than in going through the hullaballoo of social reprobation while being a figurehead ruler with no real power.

Precedent of the king divorcing and marrying whom he darn pleases was set by Henry VIII and Charles can be king. Odds are, given the onus of the function, and the fact he's already close to retirement age, he'll just skip the honour of succeeding his mother and pass the crown straight on to William, saving himself the gauntlet of having to assert his rights and depriving tabloids of months of empty debate and sensational nonsense.

Answer 4

Whatever you're stating here does not make sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, Charley will never become king.
If you're aware of the laws and history of England, than you must be aware , that the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church of England. As such, she is an authority figure. As such if Charley hadn't broken his marriage vowes to Princes Di, he would have the chance becoming King. But since he had to admit during the official wedding ceremony that was televised and Camilla as well, that both had committed adultery before the church and the eyes of the world, it's unlikely that he becomes King of Great Britain. As such it does not matter what an old law about divorcee's is saying. With marriying Camilla he has blocked the right to become king. Tht will go to PrinceWilliam.

Answer 5

I think you will find that the constitution says differently ,

as Edward was already a KING , who wanted to marry a divorcee at that time . This was a constitutional taboo .

Prince charles is not yet a King ,
however when Charles becomes King
his wife will be Queen ( as they are legaly married )

Does that make sense to you .
Bring back Henry the 8th LOL!

>^,,^<

Answer 6

he did not have to abdicate. he chose to do so. that is the difference. in todays day and age, people are not quite so scandalised over divorce as they were back then

Answer 7

I agree with angelikab.. but the problem is that at the end he will do whatever he wants. Who is going to stop him?

Answer 8

hi im bob