A Royal Expert Revealed Why Prince Charles May Not Become King

Charles not being king would have been a massive shock. Royals take the line of succession very seriously, after all! Charles of course was first in line to the throne, followed by his son Prince William. After that, we’re onto the generation who are still just children. Prince George – who was born in 2013 – is in line after William. But there’s a twist.

In recent years, there’s actually been a change to the rules around succession – and it’s a pretty major one, too! In 2013 the law was amended to ensure the oldest child, not just the oldest male, could inherit the throne. So, when Princess Charlotte was born in 2015, she would keep her place in line to the throne – even if another boy was born after her. Interesting, although that doesn’t explain why it was thought that Charles would not become king.

As it happened, Charlotte did get another brother: Prince Louis, born in 2018. Anyway, next in line after Louis is Prince Harry. William’s younger brother is sixth in line to the throne, and his baby son, Archie, is seventh. Yes, even though they’re now in California!

Being in the States doesn’t remove Harry from the line of succession. It takes the British Parliament to do that. Harry’s position remains whether he likes it or not. But the chances of him being king one day are practically zero. It won’t be him that takes over after Charles.

But could Charles have given up being king if he'd wanted to? Well, it’s happened before. And if you’ve ever watched The Crown, you’ll know all about it. King Edward VIII – Queen Elizabeth's uncle – was told he couldn’t marry a twice-divorced American and remain ruler. So, he had to go with either his heart or the crown, and ultimately he chose his heart.

Edward VIII’s exit meant King George VI was next in line to the throne. Then, when George took the role, his daughter Elizabeth – still just a child at the time – became next in line. That’s why she became queen – and why Charles is the one to have succeeded her.

This all happened way back in the 1930s. And Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson were apparently not popular with the other royals. The couple were reportedly pro-German and may have even entered negotiations while the United Kingdom was at war. But there are some other elements of the story that may remind you of the recent debate around Harry and Meghan.

Meghan and Harry’s marriage provoked some major discussions, as Meghan was a divorcée. Before meeting Harry, you see, she had been married to producer Trevor Engelson. Why was this an issue? Well, the royal family tends to be, shall we say, a bit funny about divorce…

The British monarch by default is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which traditionally has been strongly anti-divorce. Only in 2002 did it finally relax its rules and allow divorced people with living ex-spouses to remarry. And even then, this was only under “exceptional circumstances.” 

Much was made in the media about Meghan’s status as a divorcée. And in May 2018 – just a few days before Harry and Meghan’s wedding – royal historian Hugo Vickers spoke to the Associated Press about it. He said, “It would have been probably terribly difficult for [Meghan] to have married into the royal family in the 1950s.” No kidding. But just how does Charles factor into all of this?

Well, divorce and remarriage loom large in Charles’ life, too. As we all know, his first wife was Diana Spencer, the mother of William and Harry. And the couple were so unhappy that their marriage eventually ended in divorce in 1996. The woman Charles had really wanted to marry – Camilla – had been forbidden to him.

Camilla wasn’t considered a suitable wife for Charles because of her “past.” Basically, she wasn’t the virginal bride the royals wanted to marry the heir to the throne. But Diana – who was young and beautiful – very much was. And there was yet another issue. Camilla was already married to Andrew Parker Bowles when Charles and Di tied the knot.

What happened next is well documented. Despite Diana and having appearances to maintain, Charles couldn’t stay away from Camilla. So, as his marriage to the mother of his children broke down, the Prince of Wales allegedly went back to his former girlfriend and began having an affair. And, yes, Diana knew all about it. It wasn’t a good look, and it could have impacted Charles’ chance at the throne.

Then came Charles and Diana’s separation and divorce, which was incredibly messy and difficult for all involved. It didn’t help Charles that the newspapers got hold of an extremely explicit phone conversation between him and Camilla. 

A year after the divorce was finalized, though, a horrible tragedy struck. Everyone who was around in that era remembers where they were when the news broke. On August 31, 1997, Diana was killed in a car crash while in Paris with her boyfriend.

Diana, her lover Dodi Fayed and their driver Henri Paul all died. And when news of this reached the British public, the mourning began right away. Diana was beloved by many, and people were keen to express their grief publicly. Many Brits were also angry with the royals – including Charles.

People were furious that the Union flag flying outside Buckingham Palace wasn’t lowered to half-mast straight away. Blame was hurled at Charles, too. If he hadn’t cheated on Diana – so some folks thought – perhaps she would never have been in Paris in the first place.

After that, Charles struggled to be loved by Brits. Some would say he’s never really managed it since. First of all, there was the Camilla problem. Charles still wanted to marry her, but a section of the British public hated the idea. Rumor has it that Camilla was once pelted with bread rolls by irate Diana supporters!

But Charles was determined to make Camilla his second wife and improve her standing in the public eye. So, the prince made sure he wasn’t seen in public with her until 1999 – two years after Diana’s death. And slowly, people’s perception of Camilla changed. This was helped by the fact that she was low-key, clearly in love with Charles, and didn’t cause any more scandal.

Charles and Camilla finally wed in 2005 – but the Queen wasn’t there to see it happen. The Daily Telegraph reported at the time that because of her religious beliefs and position as head of the Church of England, she thought it best not to go. Did the Queen disapprove? Well, she did hold a reception for the couple – indicating she had no issue with the relationship itself.

Interestingly, Camilla didn’t get the same royal titles Diana received upon her marriage – even though she was technically entitled to them. Camilla could have been the Princess of Wales, but she turned it down because it was still so associated with Diana. All things considered, that was a pretty shrewd move. It also made Charles’ path to the throne a little bit smoother.

Camilla has come a long way from allegedly having bread rolls thrown at her. By all accounts, the royal family like her very much. Now that Charles is King of England, Camilla is known as “queen consort,” which is the traditional title for the wife of the reigning monarch.

Though that all begs the question: if popularity factors into what titles you can have, would Charles have become king at all? Apparently, he isn't super popular with the British public. In 2021 the results of a YouGov poll declared him the least favorite royal family member. Only 36 percent of people surveyed thought he was “a positive impact on the monarchy.” Yikes.

And one expert even thought that Charles may never make it to the throne. Royal biographer Anna Pasternak spoke to Vanity Fair about this possibility in May 2021. The reason she gave? Interestingly, it’s all to do with Harry and Meghan.

Pasternak said, “I’m not 100 percent sure that we will see Charles ascend to the throne. The Sussexes have sparked something so fundamentally incendiary in this country that it is changing the face of Britain, and I think the monarchy as an archaic institution may well topple.” Wow.

In the eyes of the experts who spoke to Vanity Fair, William would have been the more obvious choice to take Queen Elizabeth’s place. Pasternak said, “It may be that there is such a groundswell of public opinion against [Charles] that it’s deemed by the firm preferable for William to ascend... because he’s younger [and] more relatable.”

According to Martin Wiener – a professor at Rice University and researcher of British history – the states in the Commonwealth could have decided to drop out after the Queen died. Or as he put it, “It’d be like, ‘Who wants Charles to be our head? We’re stuck with Charles.’”

The idea of skipping over a whole generation of the royal family is something that’s quite captured the imagination of British writers. The 2014 play King Charles III – adapted as a TV film in 2017 – has the royal’s reign go so disastrously that he’s forced to abdicate in favor of William.

The production naturally sparked a lot of controversy. One politician, British MP Andrew Bridgen, told the Mail on Sunday that it was a “distasteful” “flight of fantasy” that “denigrates and undermines our royal family.” But it also got people questioning if such a thing could have happened in real life.

Tim Pigott-Smith – the actor who played Charles – was asked about the possibility of the crown skipping to William. And he replied, “I think, ten years ago, people sort of went, ‘Oh, well, maybe William and Kate would be a great young king and queen.’ I think now, actually, people respect Charles and would be quite happy for him to be king.” Not everyone, though!

Pigott-Smith went on, “I think [the royals] will have to move towards a more Scandinavian or Spanish model of monarchy. I think when the Queen dies, it’ll be okay for Charles for a bit, but then I think in order to survive really healthily, they’re going to have to move forward. But I think, funnily enough, that’s what they’re getting William ready for already. I think they’re preparing them for this different role of monarchy.”

Plenty has changed, of course, since the actor spoke up. For a start, Harry got married and left the royal family. That sent massive shockwaves through the whole institution, as did the explosive interviews he and Meghan gave to the media afterward.

During that Oprah interview, Harry claimed that Charles and the royals had cut him off financially. Well, so he said, anyway. Newspaper sources claiming to be friends of Charles alleged that this had never actually happened.

In addition to that bombshell, Harry told Oprah that he believed his family was “trapped” in the royal system. He said, “I am part of the system with them, I always have been, but I guess – and I’m very aware of this – my brother can’t leave that system, but I have. My father and my brother are trapped. They don’t get to leave, and I have huge compassion for that.”

Some folks were livid with what Harry had said. One biographer, Duncan Larcombe, angrily declared to the Daily Express, “Prince Charles has been waiting to become king since the age of four… And he’s got his very popular, very high-profile son trying to sweep the mat from under his feet from saying his father and Prince William are trapped.”

Even if Charles does feel stuck in his role, that certainly hasn't stopped him from becoming king. On the throne, he can make real change. Yet that has also given rise to certain questions. According to The Guardian, Charles has lobbied the government on political issues – things a monarch is supposed to stay quiet about. What does this all mean for Charles’ chances, then?

A poll taken in October 2020 discovered that about half of Brits wanted William to inherit Elizabeth’s throne, while the rest were fine with Charles. And some people even believe that Charles and William should enter into a "joint reign" and that this would be the best thing for the country. Only time will tell how things play out.