As the UK mourns the passing of a queen who ruled for 70 years, a new monarch who spent the same amount of time preparing to succeed her is also being welcomed.
From the outside, King Charles III’s reign seemed to have gotten off to an incredibly successful start. He made it quite apparent in his first address that he intended to carry on his mother’s legacy.
He stated, “I too now sincerely vow myself, during the remaining time God provides me, to maintain the constitutional ideals at the core of our country, as the Queen herself did with such steadfast dedication.”
Charles, who is now 73 years old, is the oldest monarch in British history. There was increasing talk of Queen Elizabeth II maybe considering abdicating and transferring the monarchy to Charles in the years before her death.
However, throughout his time as a prince, Charles’ reputation with the general people was all but wiped out, particularly after his divorce from Princess Diana in 1996. According to a study conducted by Newsweek as recently as 2021, it resulted in the British people wanting Prince William to inherit Queen Elizabeth II rather than his father.
Insider spoke to royal authorities about what would happen if Charles retired and what it would imply for the future of the monarchy.
Charles was unable to just abdicate the throne.
According to royal historian Marlene Koenig, there are two possibilities in which Charles continues to be alive but no longer reigns as king.
The first is covered by the Regency Act, which, according to Koenig, would take effect if Charles became physically incapable of speaking or moving.
A number of persons, including the monarch’s spouse, would also need to certify the monarch’s incapacity to perform their responsibilities, according to Dr. Bob Morris, an honorary senior research associate at UCL’s Constitution Unit.
In such a case, Prince William, the next in line, would take over as regent. Morris said, “He takes over and possesses all the powers of the king, with the exception of certain things, which are reserved.
Abdication is a different, more contentious possibility. Koenig said that given Charles’ determination to carry on his mother’s legacy, it is very improbable to ever happen.
Abdication is a difficult procedure, in any way. Charles was unable to unilaterally decide to abdicate. According to Koenig, in order to formally abdicate, the UK Parliament would need to adopt an Act of Abdication.
“He cannot just say, “Okay, here it is, William.” Nope. Parliament enacts laws governing the throne’s succession, ” added she.
Morris said that Charles could take a step back if he truly wanted to. Morris added, “The simple reality is that if he chose to leave, nobody could stop him. But at least William can succeed legally according to the law.
Abdication would advance the whole succession process.
Every other royal in the formal line of succession moves up one position as a result of a monarch’s abdication, with some receiving extra obligations, titles, and duties.
According to Koenig, if Charles abdicated, William would become king and his son, Prince George, would succeed to the Duchy of Cornwall. According to The Guardian, that bequest comprises of a sizable portfolio of privately held land and assets valued as high as $1 billion in March.
She said that if the monarch abdicates, the minor Duke of Cornwall would act like Prince Charles did during the early years of his mother’s rule.
Koenig said that the abrupt change would put pressure on William and his son since they wouldn’t have had nearly as much time as Charles to prepare for the top position in the monarchy.
“Why would you burden William with such a task when you do not yet have complete knowledge? He has just recently started attending meetings of the Duchy of Cornwall to understand how to manage it “She said.
According to Koenig, the last time a monarch abdicated, it was seen as a “dereliction of duty.”
Even though it seems to be a common choice for other European royal families, such as in Spain and the Netherlands, abdication is still frowned upon in the UK.
Morris cites the religious commitment of kings in nations where abdication is somewhat frowned upon as the reason. “Our own kings must practise a certain religion, and they believe they have a religious obligation to uphold,” he remarked.
Koenig said that British principles are inherently at odds with abdication. It just isn’t in the makeup of the British, she remarked.
No British king or queen had ever willingly abdicated until King Edward VIII, Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle, Morris continued.
Koenig said that there was a stir when Edward did. What Edward did to the royal family is still seen as a breach of duty, she said. Certainly a constitutional crisis existed.
However, Koenig said that it’s crucial to keep in mind that the political and social climate in the UK in the 1930s was quite different from what it is now. “Hitler was already putting pressure on you. In addition to the Soviet Union and Oswald Mosley’s British fascists, “She spoke. “The monarch wasn’t simply giving up,”
She said that in 1936, parliament used abdication as a means of preserving the monarchy and guaranteeing Queen Elizabeth II’s reign.
Koenig said that abdication would most likely only ever be a possibility in a situation comparable to the one that existed during Charles’ time as king. She said, “Something would have to occur, and it would have to be a massive, enormous scandal.”