Charles III was crowned at Westminster Abbey two years ago today. Much tradition is bound up with the coronation, but how much of it is binding on the monarch, and what elements of it can his successor do away with, should he wish? In this post, Carolyn Harris and Philippe Lagassé outline the difference between a constitutional convention, which is considered to be constitutionally binding, and custom and practice, which are not. They discuss how Charles III’s coronation differed from those of his predecessors, before looking forward to the coronation of the next monarch and how the current heir to the throne might also do things differently, should he become king.
Continue readingTag Archives: Act of Settlement
Ten things to know about the next Accession and Coronation
Last month Robert Hazell and Bob Morris published two reports about the next Accession and Coronation, which were discussed in a previous blog. Along the way they gathered a lot of extra information, which has now been published on the Monarchy pages of the Constitution Unit website. The following represents a selection of the most frequently asked questions.
1. Will Prince Charles become King Charles III?
Not necessarily. He is free to choose his own regnal title. King Edward VII chose Edward as his regnal title, although hitherto he had been known by his first name of Albert. King Edward VIII also chose Edward as his regnal title, although he was known to his family and friends as David. Prince Charles’s Christian names are Charles Philip Arthur George. Instead of becoming King Charles he might choose to become King George VII, or King Philip, or King Arthur, although Clarence House has denied this in the past.
2. Will the Duchess of Cornwall become Queen Camilla?
Under common law the spouse of a King automatically becomes Queen. But there are two possible reasons why Camilla, who is currently the Duchess of Cornwall, might not assume the title. The first is the argument voiced by the Daily Mirror and Mail Online, that Camilla cannot become Queen because her 2005 civil marriage to Prince Charles was not valid. The argument runs as follows: because the Marriage Acts from 1753 have explicitly excepted royal marriages from their provisions, the only valid marriage which a member of the royal family could contract in England was a religious marriage in the Church of England. The Lord Chancellor in 2005 defended the validity of the Prince’s civil marriage, as did the Registrar General. But if Camilla became Queen, it might provoke further legal challenges. Continue reading