Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: scrabblehack

I would think there is always the caveat that a deal is voided if the person assigned with the duty is seen to be severely and chronically incapacitated from this point forward. Failing that, Charles could be ‘convinced’ to abdicate if under duress, real or presumed. There may be a variety of ‘undisclosed scandals’ that can be used to make the water of public life a very hot and uncomfortable place, even for a Prince.


32 posted on 06/28/2014 1:47:56 PM PDT by lee martell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: lee martell; scrabblehack
I would think there is always the caveat that a deal is voided if the person assigned with the duty is seen to be severely and chronically incapacitated from this point forward.

I'll give you a serious answer on the Constitutional point.

First of all, the Prince of Wales cannot avoid becoming King - he can't "waive his right" of his own accord. The instant the Queen dies, he becomes King. He does have the right to abdicate - and he could immediately announce his intention to do so. Theoretically he could even announce that was his intention before becoming King - but he would still be King from the instant of the Queen's death, until the Instrument of Abdication took effect.

Parliament has the power to alter the succession - and if, for example, the Queen reaches the age of over 100, and the Prince was nearly 80, and he came out and said in that situation, that he did not want to be King, Parliament might then be willing to pass an act removing him from the succession. But both he and the Queen would have to agree for that to happen, and it would have to be a compelling reason - such as his health not being up to it.

The Prince wouldn't do it lightly, because he wants his son, William, to have as long as possible, a chance of something approaching a normal life. He won't put this burden on William before he has to. He also sees this as his duty, as he's been raised to do it.

Now, having said all that, what if a King was 'severly and chronically incapacitated'. How would that be dealt with? Is there a mechanism for it?

Not formally, but there are ways it can be handled.

First of all, there is a precedent for Parliament taking action - when George III was judged in 1811 by his doctors to be permanently insane without realistic hope of recovery, his son, George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) was made Regent by an Act of Parliament. The King stayed on the throne, but all his powers were exercised by his son.

Secondly, there's a body in Britain referred to as the 'Council of State'. This body was created by King George V in 1911, and consists of five members of the Royal Family - the consort of the Monarch (if there is one) and the first four adults (over 21, unless they are the Prince of Wales, who only has to be over 18) in the line of succession - so the current Counsellors of State are Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge; Prince Harry of Wales; and Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Any two of these five, can exercise the powers of the Monarch in the Monarch's absence or incapacity (and do so if, for example, she's out of the country when state documents need to be signed).

Though they have no formal power to intervene, it's understood that if something happened (like the Queen went into a long term coma), if all five Counsellors of State agreed and advised, Parliament would act to appoint a Regent, and could go even further theoretically. Even a simple majority might be enough - Parliament would decide.

60 posted on 06/30/2014 5:13:11 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson