Search results

to prevent future complications. you remember the circumstances of the abdication right? wars have been fought over more tenuous claims than his children would have. Liz or Charlie abdicating in the foreseeable wouldnt be remotly controversial.

right, and that was down to an act of parliament to that event, as it was out of the ordinary. any new abdication would be treated the same, with parliament deciding who would be next and its pretty obvious it would follow Charles, William, George etc.

its Canada and Australia mostly. UK ironically is owned by those people who hold title (or their banks, before he says it :glare:), crown only owns the seabed, foreshore and various estates that dont even add upto 1m acres. maybe the mineral rights underground too.

funny how you speak of cognative dissonance, yet cant even interpret the information you present or search a little further. the *crown* has legal title to vast parts of the old colonial territories. they are in the most part held in this state of ownership though local constitution, to bond...

oh, interesting... but then it seems this isnt the case. various european monarchs have abdicated in recent years, with the throne passed to their natural heirs. in the UK the monarch sits by virtue of an act of parliament, so it seems that in the event of an abdication parliament would...