Why did Edward VIII abdicate?
461248
Edward V11 he fell in love with Wallace Simpson who was a divorcee.so he abdicated,the rules arent a lot diffrent now maybe us British are more tolerant
309226
He could keep on tearing through countries, gaining land, power, and popularity and Britain would just sit there. France wouldn't act without the British, even though they wanted to.
1008506
The English Monarchy had her killed because she was going to marry an Arab Muslim and have his children. The crown could not have the future king of England have a half brother or sister that was half Arab and Muslim
509222
The Watrergate affair forced him to abdicate.
443903
When the King dies, the eldest child becomes sovereign. If the king has a son, then they become King, if he has only daughters then the eldest daughter becomes Queen.\n\nThere is no King at the moment because the Queen inherited the throne in 1952. When her father became King in 1936 he had two daughters, the present Queen and Princess Margaret. As he had no sons, his eldest child inherited. \n\nThis will be the case when the Queen dies, Prince Charles, as her eldest child, will become King. However, should Charles predecease the Queen then Prince William will suceed. Should Prince William have no children, after his death, Prince Harry becomes King. \n\nAt present, male primogeniture exists, therefore should Prince William have a daughter and later a son, the son will take precedence to inherit the throne. \n\nPrince Charles' sister Princess Anne (the Princess Royal) was second in line to the throne until the birth of Prince Andrew (the Duke of York) and Prince Edward (the Earl of Wessex). Despite Princess Anne being older than Andrew and Edward, because they are male, they take precedence in the line of succession.
220336
Historically speaking that would be the Anglican church. When Henry viii wanted to divorce Catherine to marry Anne, he left the church. Their daughter Elizabeth was forced to fully convene the Anglican church so that she could continue having the  backing of religon so as to appease her people and prevent civil war. \n\nMartin Luther did not want to break away from the Catholic church. He only wanted the people who were the leaders to reform from practices such as papal indulgences etc.
929704
He was born Prince of Greece and Denmark in Corfu in 1921, but renounced his Royal title when he became a naturalised British subject in 1947. Just prior to his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth, King George VI created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich,\n\nSome time after H.M. ascended the throne, she created him a Prince of the Realm.\n\nIMO, he never was given the title "Prince Consort", which had been the title of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort.\n\nIn British Royalty, a "King" has precedence. Also, a King would designate that he was the Sovereign, the Monarch; that he had became such by inheritance.  Since such is NOT the case, therefore he is NOT King (or king consort).  Her Majesty inherited the Throne; since she is the Sovereign, the Monarch, she is designated as Queen Regnant -- Reigning Queen. \n\nNormally the wife of a King is a Queen Consort. Still questionable whether Camilla will get that title or not.\n\nYou asked "He is married to Queen Elizabeth so why is he just a Prince instead of King Consort?"  \n\nIt is because he is married to a Queen Regnant.
539200
George III (George William Frederick) (4 June 1738 – 29 January 1820) was King of Great Britain and King of Ireland from 25 October 1760 until 1 January 1801, and thereafter King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until his death. He was concurrently Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and thus Elector (and later King) of Hanover
221569
Well, it comes from his signing of the Declaration of Independance.  He signed it first, and did so in a large, bold script as a gesture of defiance to the British.  Signing the declaration was tantamount to treason to the crown, and could be met with death.  I don't think you can divorce the phrase from the history with any degree of success.
958597
Kings and Queens of which country??\n\nIn the olden days in some countries even brothers or cousins would seek to wrest the throne from each other.\n\nMany years ago the passage of the Monarchy became more civilised, following normal Line of Succession. Since 1700/1701 the Line of Succession follows that set down in the Act of Settlement as recently revised.\n\n>Can Royalty be evicted into the streets and some one else rule?\n\nWell, not necessarily into the streets. Just check what actually happened in Russia about 1918.\n\nAnd it might be said that "William the Conqueror" (also known by less flattering names) did take the Throne of England by conquest and crowned himself as King.\n\nUsually, though, there is an orderly succession. This is good. It provides stability for the country. Unlike countries who have a new head of state every four or eight years.\n\nThe UK's Royal Family has been in the "business" for over 1,000 years.
782514
The Catholic Church would not allow him to divroce and he needed a divorce because his wife was not giving him a male heir. So he created a "splinter group" from the Roman Catholic Church and called it the Church of England with himself as the head of the church.  To this day, the monarch is head of the Church of England.\n\nAnd yes, it was Henry VIII (8th) no VII (7th)\n\nHere's a link that will explain it all:\nhttp://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM
951157
Henry the VIII sought a divorce; that much other respondents have told you.\n\nThe importance of a divorce was that of securing a male heir to the throne, because there wasn't a precedent for the accession of a female heir, who would have been considered inferior rulers. (Like Elizabeth 1.....yeah....right!)\n\nThe other important factor was the obscene wealth of the catholic church, controlled from Rome, which acted as internatonal banker and demanded huge amounts of money from other states (The Vatican being a principality and a separate state within a state, as it still is today).\n\nHenry VIII therefore dissolved the catholic church, sacked the monastaries, refused to pay money to Rome, grabbed all the loot, took back all the land owned by the church and set himself up as "Defender of the faith" ie; the most supreme bishop in the church.\n\nConsequently, the newly formed "Church of England" (part of the Protestant revolution which swept through Northern Europe) was established as the official church, with the bishops and clergy swearing allegiance not only to God, but also to the monarch as the supreme bishop and first statesman.\n\nThat remains to this day, and the "morality" question is actually quite important  regarding the succession of Charles as monarch.\n\nYou may recall that one heir to the throne abdicated, because he was in love with a divorced woman, and was therefore guilty of making her an adulterer.\n\nCharles himself is a self-confessed adulterer, and is now married to a previously divorced woman, Camilla.\n\nOn that basis, there could be objections to him becoming King, and there probably will be.\n\nIt is for this reason that Charles has sought to change the laws of the monarchical constitution, and be declared "Defender of Faiths" rather than simply the head of the Church of England, as monarch and supreme bishop.\n\nAs things stand, it is quite likely that Charles could be denied the throne, which would then pass to Prince William, as the eldest of the current monarch's grandchildren.\n\nClear as mud, eh?
1016041
i think so, well its abit complicated to know the truth but may be she was emberassing the royals so they decide to get rid of her, though no one knows.
1072106
I think that the Royal Family has a lot to ask for. Instead of letting Charles just be happy with the person he wanted to they prolonged it for years and it turned out worse.\n\nI think Diana was the sacrifical virgin. I mean it's sad she got sucked into it.  I'm not to sure what she saw in him at all but maybe it is the fairytale thing.\n\nI think that it has bought more dissent and unpopularity to the Royal Family in the way they handle things. Instead of being a little disgraced and letting him marry the divorcee he wanted they totally and utterly disgraced themselves in the way that the Diana facade was handled and all the adultery etc and then lets him do it anyway.\n\nI think if they'd succumbed and let him marry her first there would not be such a downcast on the Royals.
667314
Below is a link to the official website of the British Monarchy, specifically a page that gives you the whole history of all it's monarchs. Have fun.\n\nMore importantly, Prince Harry is not the next in line. First is Prince Charles, the current Queen's eldest child. \nNext is his eldest child, Prince William. \n\nLike the person above said, seeing as how the members of the house of Windsor are quite long-lived, it's quite possible that Charles may never be king, even if he wanted to. It could very well pass directly to William if the Queen lives long enough and Charles doesn't.
1110850
Are you trying to say king henry the VIII..because he was the king that seperated from the catholic church of England because the pope would not let him get a divorce...then he created his own church..."Church of England"...he's the king that killed his wives when they would not reproduce for him....he had like 6 or 7 wives
957266
Like all English schoolchildren of the 1950's I was brought up to have an immoveable respect for the Royal Family, 'King and Country' and so on. When the old king died I remember us kids being taken to watch the funeral cortege go by. The coffin was carried on a gun carriage and it rained. A few months later we were taken to the same spot to watch Princess Elizabeth go by in the Royal coach to be crowned queen. We were all given Union Flags to wave and received a Coronation Mug. I lost mine. Later we had street parties with sandwiches and jelly and, guess what? it rained again.\n\nIn those days the institution of the Royal Family was sacrosanct with not a hint or whsiper of scandal or wrongdoing until the late 1950's when it started with Princess Margaret having an affair with a married man, Group Captain Peter Townsend. That was soon hushed up and she ended up marrying Anthony Armstrong Jones, an arranged marriage if ever there was one.\n\nAs time went by and old traditions and protocols started to vanish it became apparent that the Royal family were not the 'whiter than white' exemplary characters we had been led to believe and since those days there have been many sordid revelations and scandals that have tarnished the Royals forever.\n\nPrince Philip (Phil the Greek) comes across as an arrogant despot who loves to throw his weight about and cares about no-one except himself manging to have insuleted most of the world's leaders at one time or another. He, singlehandedly, managed to ostracise Canada, Australia, India and Hong Kong so that all of them and much of Africa broke away from British rule.\n\nPrincess Margaret came across as a gin-swilling, chain smoking good time girl who would party until the small hours, often drunk, and escorted by a variety of 'gentlemen'.\n\nPrince Charles came across as a bit of a wimp whose main hobby seemed to be talking to plants and bedding as many women as he could.\n\nPrincess Anne came across with an arrogance that can only be described as unique and loved nothing but horses. To her credit she was the hardest working Royal, if you can call it work, attending more functions that any other.\n\nRrince Andrew was the original good time charlie who spent much of his time in nightclubs, drinking and womanising and running up more expenses than any of the others. How can you justify having the Royal jet fly him from London to Scotland for a night out at a cost of £20000 to the taxpayer?\n\nPrince Edward came across as a bit of a nancy boy preferring to spend his time with actors and producers and it was widely assumed that he was homosexual until his marriage to Sophie. Some of us still wonder.\n\nThen there's the spouses. Sarah Ferguson married Andrew having been  living with a rally driver for a number of years and proved to be the good time that had been had by all, spending like there was no tomorrow and generally being an embarrassment.\n\nCharles married Diana, the girl who didn't seem to have a single brain cell until Charlie dumped her and her publicity machine created the 'Saint Diana' image. I'm sorry she died but I, personally, had no time for her.\n\nAnne had a variety of husbands starting with Captain Mark Phillips who famously hid behind her when someone attacked her car as it drove down the Mall. He was dumped for the present incumbant who probably likes horses better than he did.\n\nFinally the queen. She comes across as very aloof and money grasping. She is well known for being a skinflint paying her staff the smallest wages in London yet being the wealthiest woman in the world. She shows no emotion at all except to smile when she is cheered.\n\nthere are many other peripheral members of the family all of whom live in wealth and privelege just for being born into the family of Germans who usurped the British throne 200 years ago.\nPersonally I now think we'd be better off without the whole rotten mess of them but th