zstairlessone
iPF Novice
Isn't Charles next in line anyway??
I'm assuming that's why she will live to be over 100 and not step down
I'm assuming that's why she will live to be over 100 and not step down
zstairlessone said:Isn't Charles next in line anyway??
I'm assuming that's why she will live to be over 100 and not step down
KevinJS said:Yes, he is, and as far as I know the British Constitution doesn't allow her to either abdicate, or name her successor. I was reading about it earlier when I heard this rumor. The succession is set in stone, but the British Parliament can remove a monarch who is deemed unfit to govern. That info is on the Royal Family website.
zstairlessone said:That is what I understood also, did not know about Parliaments power of removal though. Has it ever been exercised?
KevinJS said:No. It was introduced as part of the conditions for the Restoration of the Monarchy, following the Interregnum. James II was invited to re-establish the Monarchy under conditions laid down by Parliament.
One of the other constitutional niceties I'm aware of is that the monarch may not set foot inside the House of Commons, which is why the Members have to enter the House of Lords for the State opening of Parliament.
Roy Rob said:It has always been my understanding that Elizabeth ll, during her Coronation, swore to carry out the duties of the Queen for as long as she lives. Except for that vow, she could step down in favour of any legal heir to the throne of England she designated.
KevinJS said:I don't think she could be forced to carry on, but I'm pretty sure the Succession would favor Charles were she to abdicate.
One in four Americans has appeared on TV.
scifan57 said:The United States has never lost a war in which mules were used.
J. A. said:Then I assume that in WW II also mules were in use?
scifan57 said: