@NeonMadman (NeonMadman) posted a new topic, subject "Could Queen Elizabeth Decide to Bypass Prince Charles as her Successor?". It read:

   OK, so this comes from an internet rumor prompted by a fake news story.
    
    But reading it got me wondering: is there any provision for a British monarch to retire, or precedent therefor? I suppose she could abdicate, but would that really be the same thing, from a legal standpoint?
    
    And, if she did either “retire” or abdicate, would she possess the authority to declare that Charles should be passed over as her successor in favor of his son, William?
    
    It wouldn't surprise me if Charles has no desire to be king, but would that be his mother's decision or his? Obviously, if the Queen dies, she won't be around to make the decision, and Charles could always abdicate in favor of William. But would there be a mechanism by which the Queen, if she so chose, could unilaterally assure that Charles would not become king?

@md2000 (md2000) replied

    She could also request Charles be appointed Prince Regent, I imagine, since the last one did so well. That may be an issue when she gets into extended old age (100+). IIRC, the law of succession says the heir becomes regent, so she could not pick.
    
    Let the experts answer, but the rules of succession are a law of parliament. Not likely to change. Charles would have to be the one giving it a pass himself (abdicate) to let the next guy (William) have a go.

Then @John_Mace (John Mace) said

    Succession to the thrown is governed by parliament, not there reigning monarch.

Then @Mk_VII (Mk VII) said

    Any changes to the succession are void, under the Statute of Westminster of 1931, until all the Commonwealth Realms pass exactly similar legislation to implement it.

@Just_Asking_Questions (Just Asking Questions) replied

    Why does everyone pile on poor ol' Chuck? I feel sorry for him.
    
    Guy's been raised since birth for one and only one job, and he can't do it! You know how many people get to be King? Not too many. The job comes open even less often than the one for playing organ at the baseball stadium.
    
    They guy's been waiting decades for the job he was literally born for, and not even his MOM will let him have it. He is probably single-handedly responsible for extending her life well past its natural span.
    
    Come on, let's let Chuck be King.

So @Baron_Greenback (Baron Greenback) replied

    NeonMadman:
    
    > But reading it got me wondering: is there any provision for a British monarch to retire, or precedent therefor?
    
    Parliament wouldn't stand in her way if she wanted to abdicate, although I strongly suspect that she will never want to, what with the situation with her dad and all. A lot of routine stuff is already done by her eldest son and eldest grandson anyway eg Rod Stewart was knighted today by the Duke of Cambridge. So she is semi-retired already - she's in good nick for her age, but y'know.
    
    > And, if she did either “retire” or abdicate, would she possess the authority to declare that Charles should be passed over as her successor in favor of his son, William?
    
    No, that would need the agreement of all the Realms, which is unlikely.
    
    > But would there be a mechanism by which the Queen, if she so chose, could unilaterally assure that Charles would not become king?
    
    Nope.

After which, @Alley_Dweller (Alley Dweller) added

    NeonMadman:
    
    > But would there be a mechanism by which the Queen, if she so chose, could unilaterally assure that Charles would not become king?
    
    Could she order Charles to be beheaded? Or maybe something less severe like banished or locked up in the royal dungeon?

After which, @alphaboi867 (alphaboi867) added

    Alley_Dweller:
    
    > Could she order Charles to be beheaded? Or maybe something less severe like banished or locked up in the royal dungeon?
    
    Not by herself; that would also take an Act of Parliament, but unlike changing the line of succession the Commonwealth Realms wouldn't need to consent.

To which @Broomstick (Broomstick) replied

    Elizabeth II is a Windsor, not a Tudor - no, she can't order someone summarily executed and, let's face it, Charles just hasn't done anything *that *wrong in his life.

To which @Northern_Piper (Northern Piper) replied

    Of course not!
    
    The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, with a network of laws governing it. Her Majesty has some legal powers, but she exercises them on the advice of the PM and Cabinet. She does not have any authority to order summary execution or arbitrary detention.
    
    Those matters were decided in the 17th century, during the Civil War and the Bill of Rights.

To which @Baron_Greenback (Baron Greenback) replied

    Just_Asking_Questions:
    
    > Why does everyone pile on poor ol' Chuck? I feel sorry for him.
    
    He can be a bit of an idiot sometimes, spouting off on things he shouldn't/knows nothing about, but I think he's basically OK. At least his personal life is now like a normal persons, unlike his first marriage.
    
    I can see Charles abdicating if he becomes infirm, though. William and Kate (and Harry) seem to be doing the modern royal thing just right these days, and it's maybe best for the Firm if there's the continuity, but also a freshening up.

To which @Chronos (Chronos) replied

    On the other hand, if she expressed her preference that the succession be changed, that might help to encourage all of her various realms to pass appropriate legislation.

Then @bob_2 (bob++) said

    Baron_Greenback:
    
    > A lot of routine stuff is already done by her eldest son and eldest grandson anyway eg Rod Stewart was knighted today by the Duke of Cambridge. So she is semi-retired already.
    
    The Duchess was in the Netherlands on a solo official visit too. She seems to be able to raid MIL's jewelry rspencer@example.com. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/duchess-of-cambridge-meets-dutch-king-on-day-of-soft-diplomacy-o/
    
    And there is the answer. As she gets older, she will do less and less. Eventually she will retire altogether from public life, but it will still be her face on the stamps.
    
    Many people thing that, regardless of his ability, it would be good for the monarch, and by extension, Britain, if Charles did pass up the crown, but that's a decision for him.

@gnoitall (gnoitall) replied

    Alley_Dweller:
    
    > Could she order Charles to be beheaded? Or maybe something less severe like banished or locked up in the royal dungeon?
    
    You're kind of not getting the point.
    
    The ruler of the realms of The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Commonwealth has the authority to decide what she'll have for lunch. And not much more than that. She has no executive power in herself – the Prime Minister and his Government does all of that, and they're bound by law.

So @Baron_Greenback (Baron Greenback) replied

    gnoitall:
    
    > the Prime Minister and his Government does all of that, and they're bound by law.
    
    It's currently the Prime Minister and _her_ Government.

To which @watchwolf49 (watchwolf49) replied

    Excuse me for sounding like a snobbish American … but who's the head of the Church of England?

After which, @Baron_Greenback (Baron Greenback) added

    watchwolf49:
    
    > Excuse me for sounding like a snobbish American … but who's the head of the Church of England?
    
    Practically, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The monarch is Supreme Governor though, but that's just a relic. Bishops are appointed by the PM.

@Baron_Greenback (Baron Greenback) replied

    Baron_Greenback:
    
    > Bishops are appointed by the PM.
    
    In theory - the church basically just recommends for sign off. The archbishopships of Canterbury and York can be a bit more political I think

After which, @Dewey_Finn (Dewey Finn) added

    bob_2:
    
    > The Duchess was in the Netherlands on a solo official visit too. She seems to be able to raid MIL's jewelry rspencer@example.com. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/duchess-of-cambridge-meets-dutch-king-on-day-of-soft-diplomacy-o/
    
    Wouldn't that be her grandmother-in-law's jewelry box?

After which, @coremelt (coremelt) added

    She could certainly discuss it in private with Charles and push strongly for the idea that they both abdicate on the same day, so William becomes King. Let's face it a coronation for Charles at 67 is not going to excite anyone, and of course it raises the sticky question does Camilla get to have any involvement or not?
    
    While a coronation of William with his Kate at his side would be a massive media event and bring a huge tourist boom to the UK. With the UK in it's current self inflicted Brexit doldrums economically, it could be a very good good thing to give the UK a bit of an international PR boost and morale boost.

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

( there was a missing post )

So @Nawth_Chucka (Nawth Chucka) replied

    PatrickLondon:
    
    > And Parliament could indeed change the succession - there was apparently some talk in 1936 that there might be a skip in the succession, to the younger, but more glamorous and media-adapted, Duke of Kent. But there would be a presumption of consensus amongst the great and the good (Privy Council, Archbishop and party leaders) before anything got near formal legislation.
    
    Kent as King, that would have been interesting! Of course, tabloids worked very differently then, but still word got out. Makes Charles and Di's difficulties almost stodgy.

To which @Martini_Enfield (Martini Enfield) replied

    Northern_Piper:
    
    > Why would the PM do that? There's no way such a change could be made quietly. Charles will be King by law, and to change the law would require an Act of the British Parliament as well as corresponding steps in the Commonwealth realms.
    > 
    > Why would a Prime Minister trigger that sort of political debate?
    
    The point is that the Prime Minister - who is basically the person in charge of the UK, despite the reigning monarch being the one who has their likeness on all the money and postage stamps - could suggest informally, during a private meeting or something similar, that perhaps Charles might like to consider the many benefits and advantages that not being King for too long might offer.
    
    No-one would even know the conversation had happened. It's not like the PM would be going on the Beeb and saying “I had lunch with Charles the other day and told him it was in everyone's best interests to say “Yeah, Nah” to the whole King thing.”
    
    Charles could potentially, for the purposes of this hypothetical, be King for a while - a few years, perhaps - then decide to abdicate for whatever reasons he felt most appropriate (or at least most public to state publically).
    
    Or, he could equally tell the PM where to stick his quiet suggestion and be King for as long as he jolly well liked, which ideally would be the rest of his hopefully long and productive life, thankyouverymuch.

So @PatrickLondon (PatrickLondon) replied

    Nawth_Chucka:
    
    > Kent as King, that would have been interesting! Of course, tabloids worked very differently then, but still word got out.
    
    That was probably why the idea didn't go very far.

Then @bob_2 (bob++) said

    Nawth_Chucka:
    
    > Kent as King, that would have been interesting! Of course, tabloids worked very differently then, but still word got out. Makes Charles and Di's difficulties almost stodgy.
    
    In case any of you are wondering why Kent would not have been suitable. Here is a partial quote from Wikipedia:
    
    > Both before and after his marriage, Prince George had a string of affairs with both men and women, from socialites to Hollywood celebrities.~~
    > 
    > The Duke of Kent is rumoured to have been addicted to drugs, especially morphine and cocaine, a rumour which reputedly originated with his friendship with Kiki Preston, whom he first met in the mid-1920s. Reportedly, Prince George shared Kiki in a ménage à trois with Jorge Ferrara, the bisexual son of the Argentinian ambassador to Britain. Other alleged sexual liaisons were with the art historian and Soviet spy Anthony Blunt and maharani of Cooch Behar, Indira Raje

@PatrickLondon (PatrickLondon) replied

    > Other alleged sexual liaisons were with the art historian and Soviet spy Anthony Blunt
    
    I find it hard to believe, given their relative ages and circumstances, the story about Blunt (their paths would hardly have been likely to cross), but I seem to recall reports about Noel Coward's diaries that suggest they had a thing going in the late 20s.

To which @si_blakely (si_blakely) replied

    My opinion (such as it is) is that even if Charles was minded to step aside in favour of William, he would not do so until William's children were no longer teenagers.
    
    For all his flaws, I think Charles has been free enough to raise a family - I suspect he'd like his sons to do the same without the responsibility of the throne weighing on them.
    
    my 2d worth


{'source': 'discourse', 'url': 'https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-queen-elizabeth-decide-to-bypass-prince-charles-as-her-successor/768288', 'title': 'Could Queen Elizabeth Decide to Bypass Prince Charles as her Successor?', 'views': 9814, 'has_accepted_answer': False, 'word_count': 13889, 'like_count': 0, 'reply_count': 125, 'participant_count': 52, 'posts': 126, 'tags': '', 'author': '@NeonMadman (NeonMadman)', 'participants': '@NeonMadman (NeonMadman), @md2000 (md2000), @John_Mace (John Mace), @Mk_VII (Mk VII), @Just_Asking_Questions (Just Asking Questions), @Baron_Greenback (Baron Greenback), @Alley_Dweller (Alley Dweller), @alphaboi867 (alphaboi867), @Broomstick (Broomstick), @Northern_Piper (Northern Piper), @Chronos (Chronos), @bob_2 (bob++), @gnoitall (gnoitall), @watchwolf49 (watchwolf49), @Dewey_Finn (Dewey Finn), @coremelt (coremelt), @Nawth_Chucka (Nawth Chucka), @Martini_Enfield (Martini Enfield), @PatrickLondon (PatrickLondon), @si_blakely (si_blakely)', 'image_url': [None], 'created_at': '2016-10-11T21:49:11.000Z', 'last_posted_at': '2016-10-17T00:10:50.000Z'}