Why can Charles be king of England when his great uncle couldn't?

First of all, the contemporary Anglican Church is considerably more forgiving than was the Anglican Church of the 1930s when Edward VIII sought to marry the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson, who was also still married to her third husband while she was having an affair with Edward VIII. As of 2003, it's up to the individual minister to decide whether or not to solemnize a marriage after a divorce (Marriage in Church after divorce, 2003, February). Then again, since only 10 percent of the population attends church on a regular basis, organized religion is less important to the public. A fact not lost on the Royal Family since the Crown's influence since the reign of George VI has depended in part on its popularity.

Social mores during the 1930s as perceived by the British middle classes were also much more conservative than they are today. Indeed, social mores during the 1950s would not have permitted Princess Margaret to marry Peter Townsend. Of course, British kings and princes have always preferred keeping married mistresses to unmarried ones. That way if the woman conceived a child, it would legally be presumed to be her husbands' child.

Finally, Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathizer, so his marriage to a twice-divorced American was an easy out for a cabinet that wanted him out of the way.

Now for a pesky, technical detail: BTW, although the Prince of Wales wanted his marriage bless by the Church of England, if he succeeds his mother, he won't be the King of England but the King of the United Kingdom, a confederation or federation that encompasses England, Wales, and Scotland.

Charles will probably not be King of England he will be King of the United Kingdom. I think that in the last 70 odd years the view of the Church of England has changed its views on many things including divorce. Also the second marriage was a Civil Ceremony. Another reason was that the with his great uncle he was marrying a three time divorcee who had married copiously rich husband and got a large sum with each divorce. Slight different time, slightly different women and he is only heir and not the actual monarch.

Several reasons:

First, social views have radically changed in the intervening 70 years. There was no law that said Edward's circumstances barred him from the throne. Parliament simply stated they would not accept it.

Second, Charles is a widower, not a divorcee. The fact that he was at one time divorced means NOTHING. His first wife is dead, meaning he was free to marry Camilla. The objections with divorced people is that objectors don't agree with divorce being a viable option...they consider divorced people to still be married. Charles was not, as Diana was dead.

Third, Camilla was divorced once. Wallis was divorced multiple times and was an American to boot. She was considered WAY more inappropriate than Camilla will ever be to be wife of the king.

There is no such title or person as "King of England" and hasn't been for over 300 years.

King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne in 1603, creating a single kingdom covering the entire island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales). A century later Scotland and England united politically, creating a single new country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

Since then there have only been kings and queens of the UK, not of England or Scotland.

And remember that the Church of England was created specifically to allow Henry VIII to divorce and remarry.

Prince Charles. It's the role he was born for, it's something he's prepared for his entire life and it's tradition. I also think he would make a very good king. Prince William will have his turn, but he isn't ready for the job. What 20-something to do you know that can be trusted with something as huge as being monarch, even a figurehead monarch as the case may be? People should give him time to find his footing before slapping a crown around his neck and casting him into a role he isn't ready for just because they're still pouty that things went badly with Diana.

Back in the 1930's, divorce was a very serious thing. Nowadays, it is still serious, but nothing like it was back then. The social stigma is nothing like it was. And, yes, the rules have changed regarding the Church.

Elizabeth's uncle was not actually required to give up the throne. He could have stuck it out, but things would have been very, very difficult for him. He thought it was best to step aside for the good of the country. At the time, he was quite right, and he earned the admiration of many by doing so, where he would have earned their enmity by staying.

For Charles, times have definitely changed. He is quite well like by those who know him at all, although he does suffer much in the press, not the least of which is his choice in wives. Still, he enjoys pretty widespread support, and there is no real call for him to step aside - or at least, no serious one.

Looking at Charles's situation, we can say that Edward was not given much chance. And please Ms. Minerva, Charles might have been 'widowed' with his ex-wife dead, but Andrew Parker Powles is very much alive till today, Camilla was no 'widow.' As to whether Edward wanted to be king, could be a good king, his rule, thanks to the establishment, was too short to be able to judge him fairly! He will be given the benefit of doubt by posterity. What he did later as an ex-king is understandable, because he was bitter, and who won't be in that situation? To have everything, and then all of a sudden be left with NOTHING! Even HRH was denied his wife how MEAN!

Edward was single and Wallis was married and the affair lasted a short while before she started divorce proceedings! Both Charles and Camilla were married, and carried on for years still married to their spouses, and would have continued if Diana had decided to keep quite or turn a blind eye to it. The queen-mum is even quoted as telling Andy Parker Bowles never to consider divorce so Camilla would never be free to marry Charles!

Edward fell in love with a married woman, a bad move I agree, but they immediately set into motion to do the right thing! he was a real man! A real man owes up to infedelity, and tries to do the best out of the situation, but does not pretend nothing is wrong stay in the marriage and go about sleeping with a married woman as if there was no tomorrow, not feeling even sorry!

Edward should have been left alone, if he was truely nazi or something they should have used the real reasons to get him out, because those were legitimate reasons which could be treasonous infact! Charles I lost his head for less!

Edward didn't really want to be king. He talked about abdicating his entire life.

I agree whoheartedly with the earlier comment.

The marriage was used as a convenient excuse for the "establishment" to rid themselves of a selfish, self-centered person who did not have the sense of duty to be a good King, and was a known Nazi sympathizer

Even his father, the former king, didn't think that Edward would make a good king.

Times change. Divorce is no longer considered as shocking as it was in the 1930s. three of the Queen's four children have divorced, and two have remarried. I think everyone is resigned to the fact that divorce is no longer a reason to exclude someone from the succession.

Cause Charles WANTS to be king of BRITAIN, and Edward didn't.

Edward marrying the thrice divorced guttersnipe (well, she was viewed as such, by the British upper class, anyway) was the culmination of many missteps, a boredom with his destiny, and a complete disregard for how he was supposed to have behaved.

Charles wants to be king, and generally comports himself properly.

Also, there's this...60 year difference in culture.