Why are the British so selective in applying their succession rules?

Question

Why are the British so selective about applying their rules of succession?

The current Prince of Wales's great uncle, HM Edward VIII was made to abdicate the throne because he wanted to marry a divorcee with two living ex husbands. The Prince of Wales married Camilla who is a divorcee with a living ex husband. Why isn't he made to give up his succession position?

Also, Camilla's former marriage was in the Roman Catholic church and she was and probably still is Roman Catholic. Why isn't anyone talking about him giving up his succession position?

Also, Charles has said he doesn't want to be defender of the faith. Why isn't anyone saying anything about this?

Thanks for your answers.

Answer 1

Your analogies are wrong, and so is your logic.

Edward VIII wanted to marry a divorcee, and there was nothing to prevent him from doing it, and remaining King. But the Prime Minister advised him that if he did, the Dominions (Canada, South Africa, Australia etc.) would probably exercise their right to leave the British Commonwealth rather than accept his wife as Queen. And the Archbishop of Canterbury advised him that if he did, the Anglican churches of those countries would probably secede from Canterbury and become self-governing, rather than accept Edward as Head of the Church of England.

So Edward had three choices - and he chose to marry, but chose not to split the British Commonwealth and worldwide Anglican Church.

Charles also had a choice of whether to marry or not, but he seems to have been advised that the Commonwealth and the world-wide Anglican Church would be quite happy with his marriage.

So the rules have operated exactly the same in both cases, even though the outcome has been different.

It is obvious that Camilla is not a Roman Catholic in the opinion of Parliament, otherwise we know what they would have done the day after his marriage. Your opinion about it doesn't count.

Charles can decline to inherit the title "Defender of the Faith" if he thinks it's too sectarian. It's his choice. The title was awarded for defending the Roman Church against the criticisms of Martin Luther, not for defending Christianity, so it's not particularly relevant for a Protestant monarch anyway.

Answer 2

It's all to do with different times. When Edward VIII had to abdicate, divorce was incredibly uncommon and frowned upon.

Nowadays, Divorce is far more common and not so frowned upon, There is also the fact that Andrew Parker-Bowles remarried himself before Camilla and Prince Charles married. There is also the fact that Charles himself was divorced whereas Edward VIII had never been married.

As for Camilla marrying in the Roman Catholic Church, that is irrelevant. She married in a RC church but never converted to Catholicism. Is she was a Catholic, Charles would have had to give up his place in the line of succesion, that is the law.

Charles has not said he doesn't want to be Defender of the Faith, he has said he wants to be "Defender of all faiths", in these days of a multi-cultural Britain that's a far better position.

Answer 3

Couple corrections: The Commonwealth countries do NOT have the Queen as Head of State! Most are republics. Only the 16 "Commonwealth Realms" have Elizabeth as Queen. And, the rules are already different. In Canada, we pay allegiance to HM the Queen, and "all her heirs and successors according to law." But, the UK has primogeniture, meaning the eldest male is heir. In Canada, the eldest is heir - male of female. So, if William and Catherine have a girl first, then a boy, the British and Canadian Crowns would diverge, as the girl would be Queen of Canada, and the boy King of the UK. It is likely that the UK will change their system. This has been discussed there for some time now anyway, and my guess is that if William and Catherine have a girl first, that the laws will be changed. The role of the Monarch in each of her Realms is the same - but, it is not ceremonial! She is Head of State, and has real powers, albeit exercised lightly, and often behind the scenes.

Answer 4

I am afraid that some of your statement is a little wide of the mark.
Edward VIII was a victim of time and society. It was regarded as being utterly unacceptable for a foreign twice divorced person to be Queen (probably still is) : it was not the succession rules but the government of the day that brought about the abdication. Edward could have married Wallace Simpson if he wished,and remain King, however the government threatened to resign en mass and cause a constitutional crisis.
Camilla is certainly not a Roman Catholic - had she been, Charles would have immediately been excluded from the line of succession.
However, that detestable piece of State bigotry is very likely to be overthrown by the Human Rights Act.
Interestingly, next year, the 10th in line to the Throne and The Queen's eldest Grandchild marries a Roman Catholic. I will be interested to see what happens!
Charles has indicated that he wishes to be known as a "defender of faiths". The title "Fidei Defensor" which has appeared on our coins since the days of Henry VIII is in fact a Papal Honour awarded to Henry VIII for his support of the Roman Catholic Faith . Not sure why the Head of the Church of England continues to use the title, unless the Anglican Church is regarded as essentially Catholic.

Answer 5

Put the abdication into perspective. Edward VIII lived in a different time to us, with different values, but in truth there was something far worse, in the eyes of the establishment, than marrying a twice divorced woman. She was American. I can't imagine the thoughts of a having a queen from a republic would have been too impressive.

The truth is, people no longer care about marriage, divorce, catholicism v. church of England, or even about the monarchy itself like they used to.

But, one thing was clear, in our precedent-based unwritten constitution, from Edward's letter of abdication. He said he abdicated on behalf of himself and "all his descendents." This seems unimportant, since he was childless (in fact he was infertile) but what it means is that if Charles were ever to abdicate, then neither William nor Harry could be king. Logically you cannot bequeath something which you did not inherit. Therefore if Chas abdicated (which he won't) then Andrew should be king, following the precedent set by Edward VIII.

As for the role of "defender of the faith" it should not matter. There were lots of pre-Anglican monarchs. No one really cares about this role anymore. Lots of the public are not Anglicans.

Answer 6

The Royal Family has had a lot of scandal over the last few decades or so and now they are trying to clean up their image a bit. By forcing Charles to abdicate it would be another blow to a Royal Family who's popularity is already dwindeling slightly. Camilla has also declared that once Charles is crowned, she will not be Queen but will instead be Princess Consorteen (basically meaning she is the King's wife but not Queen), again something which was probably forced upon her by Royal officials, probably for several reasons. Firstly she cannot be seen to be taking the place of Princess Diana; the British public love her too much to see her replaced. Secondly, the British support for Camilla has been nowhere near what it is like for the rest of the Family, so for them to allow her to worm her way to the top and assume the title of "Her Majesty the Queen" would undoubtedly prove to be an unpopular decision.

Answer 7

It's called hypocrisy.
The system wouldn't survive another major upheaval like the one caused by Edward VIII.
Having an heir to the throne like Prince Charles who has been exposed as a liar and adulterer has brought the monarchy into disrepute and far fewer people support it now.

Answer 8

Times have changed for the better

Answer 9

i got succession of tenancy quite easily when my mother passed away in the uk,its the law