Can Tom Parker Bowles be King?

Obviously it's not likely that Tom Parker Bowles will be placed onto
the throne. But it is within the realm of possibilities.

If he can get Prince Charles to announce on public television that he
had a marriage with Camilla that was maintained until December 18,
1974 (the day of Tom's birth), that it was conducted in a church (with
forgery), that it had received the support of the privacy council (more

frederick...

People faking marriages usually do so on the basis of a forged marriage
certificate. The circumstances that you describe would require someone
forging the actual registers, which would be phenomenally difficult to
achieve.

Details of marriage registrations appear on sequentially numbered pages

Aggie...

Perhaps just forging one copy and destroying the other copies, if there
are other copies, would suffice. And yes, it wouldn't be perfect, but I
imagine that the forgery would not be caught for the first few days,
which should give the public enough time to absorb the information of a
previous royal marriage. Then the forged registrar can be placed, for
"safe-keeping", in the royal vaults.

"Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973"

Yes, I had forgotten that for a moment. But, perhaps that marriage
would then be considered void, and ergo, the marriage between Charles
and Diana considered void. Or they can say that Charles and Camilla had
a divorce in 1973, and that only the Andrew Parker Bowles/Camilla
marriage is invalid.

in bound volumes, and are viewable by the public. Copies are also
maintained by both the relevant register office and the GRO; the latter
also produces indexes which are publicly accessible (indeed, facsimiles
are viewable via the 'net). All of these would need to be convincingly
altered, at a minimum.

Anyway, you have made two errors here. Firstly, it would be necessary
to prove that the marriage had taken place before her marriage to
Andrew Parker Bowles, which apparently took place on July 4, 1973.
Secondly, there is no legal requirement that the heir to the throne
should marry in church; marriages of the Royal Family within England
are technically governed by English common law.

forgery), how would England react?

frederick...

Presumably you mean the Privy Council. However, any purported consent
by it is entirely meaningless, since the Royal Marriages Act requires
that consent be obtained from the Queen (and be formally recorded), or
perhaps from Parliament (whose proceedings are of course also
recorded).

Aggie...

The constitution also requires that the marriage be registered in the
church's books, as well as receiving support from the privy council, in
order for him to the heir.

frederick...

Your source for this statement is...?

Again, Queen Elizabeth II supporting Tom Parker Bowles for the
second-in-line isn't impossible; remember her animosity towards Diana.
And, if she died, King Charles will have an easier time appointing his
preferred successor.

the_verminator...

Aggie, vous =EAtes une puanteur sentante f=E9tide dans les narines de la
redevance d'entretien d'alt et de la redevance de bavardage d'alt.

Candide...

Neither "King" Charles nor any other monarch on the throne of GB has any
such right to "appoint" a successor. Parliament holds all the reins in
any matter relating to the succession and has done so since naming heirs
of the Electress Sophia as heirs to the throne, and also other various
acts in relation to the same matter.

Prince Charles may have some funny ideas about what sort of monarch he
would like to be, but am almost certain planning to install Tom Parker
Bowles as an heir is not one of them. If PC did entertain any sort of
dangerous ideas, Parliament could simply remove 'king" Charles and call
the next in line (PW), and that would be the least of their options.
What else could happen? The mind reels at the possibilities, ranging
from removing the Windsors, to abolishing the monarchy all together.

Tom would have then met all of the requirements constitutionally to be
second-in-line. And most importantly, he'd have the support of a major

frederick...

Assuming that he's not a Catholic. Incidentally, he's apparently
married, which would presumably be in contravention of the Royal
Marriages Act and hence he would be unable to transmit the throne to
any children. I think that would then put Prince Andrew next in line?

member of the Royal family and the heir to the throne.

frederick...

Hardly relevant. The succession is determined by law, not preference.

the_verminator...

Maybe Tom could claim to be a descendant of this union and lay claim to
the throne!

Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell...

PLEASE DO NOT START THIS AGAIN - IGNORE AGGIE'S RAVINGS!!!!

Tom is older than Prince William; his so-called parents (Charles and
Camilla) were known to be courting at the time of his birth; he is
known to do irrational things.

His mother has the ear of her supposedly obedient husband; her husband
is a respectable public figure; her royal family has untold connections
to MI5. She was once a strumpet, but now a Duchess, and future Queen
Consort; who knows where her ambition will go next?

I say to you that England would acquiesce, just as it has with Camilla,
the Princess of Wales.