Succession to the Crown of England?

Question

I don't know the answer to this and want opinions or facts. Can Queen Elizabeth, II give the crown to Prince William, instead of Prince Charles? Some of us believe that she does not want Camilla Parker to be the next Queen, but if indeed Charles takes the throne, she will be the next Queen of England. Is it in the power of Queen Elizabeth to make that decision?

Jack, are you saying that Parliament can decide for Her Majesty? I thought it was a family decision.

Nuyyj,

I thought it was the right of the King or Queen to designate a successor.

Not to end the debate, but I also prefer William.

I must concede. The laws of the monarchy state: With the monarch being nowadays a figurehead and democratic ideas prevalent in European society, such considerations become largely irrelevant, and on the contrary choosing a commoner for a consort might help the monarcy's popularity. Thus, the present heirs to the throne in many European monarchies felt free to marry commoners, the choice being made mainly out of personal inclination rather than political calculation.

Answer 1

Here's what the Buckingham Palace website says about it:
"The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by Parliamentary statute.
The order of succession is the sequence of members of the Royal Family in the order in which they stand in line to the throne.

The basis for the succession was determined in the constitutional developments of the seventeenth century, which culminated in the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701).

When James II fled the country in 1688, Parliament held that he had 'abdicated the government' and that the throne was vacant. The throne was then offered, not to James's young son, but to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange, as joint rulers.

It therefore came to be established not only that the Sovereign rules through Parliament, but that the succession to the throne can be regulated by Parliament, and that a Sovereign can be deprived of his title through misgovernment.

The succession to the throne is regulated not only through descent, but also by statute; the Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.

The Act laid down that only Protestant descendants of Princess Sophia - the Electress of Hanover and granddaughter of James I - are eligible to succeed. Subsequent Acts have confirmed this.

Parliament, under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, also laid down various conditions which the Sovereign must meet. A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne; nor may the Sovereign marry a Roman Catholic.

The Sovereign must, in addition, be in communion with the Church of England and must swear to preserve the established Church of England and the established Church of Scotland. The Sovereign must also promise to uphold the Protestant succession."
see http://www.royal.gov.uk for more
It would take a very serious act for Parliament to step in and give the crown not to the next heir but to someone else.Something serious like treason.
Times have changed since Edward VIII refused to give up Mrs. Simpson,a divorcee. Divorce is much more common,much more prevalent,even in the Royal Family.Charles' being married to Camilla will not keep him from the throne.
And,if the monarchy is to survive,it has to be in-tune with the times;Charles has been hinting that he wants to be more inclusive of other Religions,so perhaps more changes to the Bill of Rights and Acts of Settlement will occur in the future.

Answer 2

EDIT: Per Additional Comments.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The right of succession is solely in the hands of Parliament, and NOT the monarch. Several times throughout history Parliament has designated successors.

Consider the deposition of James II and the Parliamentary settlement of the crown on William and Mary. And later, Parliament passing over those with closer blood ties to the crown and settling it on George I. If Parliament so chooses they could make you or me the successor. They are completely free in this, and do not have to consider the wishes of the monarch.

The Parliament alone can decide succession, not the queen.

====================================

No, it is not in her gift. The Crown is covered by the Parliamentary "Act of Succession," and can only be altered by Parliament. The Crown is not the queen's to give as she sees fit.

Unless Parliament says otherwise, the next monarch will be Charles (assuming he's still alive when the quees dies). Given that the queen's mother lived past 100, Elizabeth might have another 20 years to go. But she has no say in who succeeds her -- only Parliament can change the rules of succession.

Answer 3

Having read what everyone has said, I guess I'll weigh in, too.

Charles, himself, could decline the throne. As head of the church of England he had no right to marry Camilla, because both were divorced. I believe parliament and the church made the necessary concessions to allow that to go through; at least that is my memory of the news I heard at that time.

Having done that, they have cleared the way for Charles' succession.

What will happen is anybody's guess. Charles has been a king in training and waiting all his life. It would be a difficult thing to put down. I share the opinion of the person who felt that his relationship with Camilla would not end up disqualifying him.

It is very possible that weight of public opinion in England and the strength of that opinion might affect the succession, but personally, I doubt it. England is facing far more immediate and difficult problems than who will be next king.

Maggie

Answer 4

Is this not a descution? Why so many thumbs down for Nunny J? She has only voiced what a lot of people think!

As far as I know it would be down to Charles to relinquish his right to the throne when his mother dies, for William to become King. I would imagine it would be the same if our Queen abdicated.
It has been said in the press that the Queen does not think that Charles would be a good King so she has no intention of abdicating.

Personnally, I think it would be much better for the country to have William as King. He would breath new life into the monarchy and hopefully gain some of it's respect back!
Also, Edward had to abdicate for marrying Mrs Simpson, so how is that different to Charles and Camilla??

Answer 5

Nope. Unlike in some world monarchies, the British monarch does not choose her own successor. There are laws stating who is eligible for the throne and the Queen cannot change those by decree.

Answer 6

Only Parliament can change the law, and the law at present says that Charles is the successor.

The only thing that the Queen can do without the agreement of Parliament is to renounce the throne for herself and her descendants. That would be unbelievable, but it would immediately put Viscount Linley on the throne, and there would be nothing that Parliament or the Queen's own family could do about it.

Answer 7

The crown is Charles' birthright, Her Majesty cannot just pass it on willy nilly.

From the Act of Settlement 1701...
"Under the Act, the senior descendant of the Electress Sophia is automatically sovereign, whether they wish to be or not. Thus, during the abdication crisis in 1936 caused by King Edward VIII's desire to marry Wallis Simpson, a new Act of Parliament was required throughout the Commonwealth Realms. In the United Kingdom His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 was passed, allowing the King to abdicate, and ensured the line of succession would pass to the next senior descendant of Sophia, Prince Albert, Duke of York. Parallel to this, the Canadian Parliament passed the Succession to the Throne Act (1 Geo. VI, c.16), ensuring that the line of succession in Canada remained the same as that in the other Realms. Any future issue of King Edward VIII, who would be senior in descent under the Act of Settlement, were excluded from succession"

Answer 8

The monarch can make a suggestion on who will be the next king and in all reality William could be a king before his father if they decide. But Camilla can't be Queen. She was already married once the highest role she can take is Princess Consort or Duchess. That is why she is not Princess of Wales.

Answer 9

Do you all really think Charles will make a bad King? And William will do so much better because he's moderately attractive? Camilla will be Queen-Consort and still referred to and addressed as the Duchess of Cornwall, out of respect for those that can't let Diana's tragic death go.

Answer 10

on the 2d, Prince Charles is next in line to the throne. he will take the crown after the present Queen dies, that could desire to be next week or 10 years from now. She's previous, yet retaining up nicely.