Another Note

So, is there any chance that Ponce Charles will turn down the crown and let it go straight to William? I'd say there is very little chance. Charles has been desperate to become king all his life. He'd love his mother to move over and give him a chance to play, but that simply won't happen. He's going to have to wait until the old lady keels over. I think the only thing that could possibly persuade him to stand aside would be pressure from parliament. But yes, there have been stories rumbling on for years about what will happen when the time comes.

Edward VIII abdicated after he was pressured by parliament to do so. They went to him and asked him to stand down because they felt that his relationship with a divorced American woman was a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. He agreed to abdicate, though one has to ask what would have happened if he had refused. I don't think he had been crowned or anointed when he abdicated.

Things have changed now. Charles is not only married to a divorced, untitled woman, he's a divorcee himself. That wouldn't be enough for parliament to pressure him today. He is however rather unpopular and he has an additional obstacle; will the public accept his wife as queen? Legally speaking she will become queen automatically when Charles takes the throne. Legally speaking she is in fact the Princess of Wales now, but she never uses the title, and she would likely be publicly hung out to dry if she tried. I think it will be many years before the public replace the memory of Diana of Wales, with Camilla of Wales.

There are other issues. One of the most interesting I think is down to religion. The queen quite literally justifies her place as head of state by claiming that she has been chosen by God. This is why she can't abdicate. She is reportedly a very committed Christian. Charles appears to be less committed. He is on record as saying that when he becomes king he will not take the traditional title of "Defender of the Faith", but will instead take on a new title of "Defender of Faiths". This is not as subtle as it would at first seem. Charles is suggesting that he will defend all faiths, whilst also taking on the role of head of the Anglican Church. It would appear to me to be very difficult to defend the faith of the Wiccans, the scientologists, the Hindus, and the Muslims, whilst remaining the Anglican Big Cheese. This coupled with the fact that Britain is about as atheist as any country in the world now, some people put the figure at 40%, and the fact that we are indeed a truly multi-faith community, would suggest to me that people would start to question his right to be there.

One other thing that could throw a spanner in the works is all down to DNA. Sooner or later it will emerge that someone in line to the throne is not who they claim to be. There have already been calls for Prince Harry to submit to a DNA test because he looks strikingly like a certain James Hewitt. Hewitt had an affair with Harry's mother Diana, though it was always denied that Diana knew Hewitt at the time of Harry's conception. Interestingly however, since Diana's death at least one photo of Hewitt and Diana together before Harry's birth has emerged. Hewitt, who is clearly not very bright and a bit of a cad, has also said things which appear to be at odds with the official line. Going back further, it's been suggested that the queen herself has had two affairs and that her husband may not be the father of all her children. The Duke of Edinburgh (Queen's husband) has been linked with quite a number of young ladies, including his wife's own cousin Alexandra. Going back even further, A.N. Wilson's book "The Victorians" suggests that Queen Victoria almost certainly wasn't her father's daughter.

Of course, the royal family have never and will never agree to paternity tests, but how long can they avoid leaving a trace of DNA somewhere to be tested? A used glass, a discarded cigarette end, a drop of blood, sooner or later some tabloid will obtain something, test it, and there will be a scandal. What bothers me is how we stand legally if say the queen turns out to be an impostor. All those things she's signed as head of state, all those bills she passed, all those times she has opened parliament, were they legal?