So...I have a question for our resident Brits.
A bit of background. My wife's father was an Episcopal priest and, according to my wife, quite the anglophile. My wife has a bachelor's degree in medieval and classical studies and a master of arts in teaching with an emphasis on history. She is also somewhat of an anglophile.
Ever since Chuck and Diane got divorced (or maybe it wasn't until he remarried), my wife insisted that he could not become king. When I asked why, she said something about canon law. Of course, as a good lawyer, I probed further, asking for code sections and what not (it's one of those things that has come up a few times, and I find it amusing to poke the bear). Not surprisingly, she has never been able to provide any reference to actual authority and, instead, would inevitably get pissed at me for not accepting what she says as gospel. Yesterday, I heard her talking with my daughter about this, and I vaguely heard a reference to Edward VIII. My understanding is that Big Ed abdicated as king because he wanted to marry a divorced American woman (and he himself was not divorced). My understanding was that Eddie was not legally obligated to abdicate but, rather, that he did so because the marriage of the king to a divorced American (in 1936) would have been scandalous (given that the monarch is the titular head of the church of England).
With all that said, obviously, there's no legal impediment to Chuck becoming king, so.... Has my wife just always been wrong? Or has something changed (be it law or public tolerance for divorce)?
Topic: RIP Queen Elizabeth II (Read 2152 times)
