What may be the purpose of Prince Williams and Kate's visit to India?

It’s merely a case of “showing the flag” in corners of the former empire. The Indians, bless their hearts, still have the same adoration for royals that is usually bestowed on soap opera celebrities.

The news said that Kate wanted to visit India but had young children to look after and, had to wait for the children to be old enough to be looked after left with servants.

They want authentic curry.

It is probably just for the fun of the visit.

Britain may want to be in India’s good books now that India is becoming a force to be reckoned with!

Well, if you could go to India just because you wanted to, wouldn’t you go?

The visit is taking place at the request of the British Government and is the first time either William or Kate have been to the country.

Neither India nor Bhutan is a Commonwealth Realm where the Queen is Head of State.

The royals like to visit the 15 realms regularly and usually visit other countries less frequently. So far the Duke and Duchess have visited five realms so far: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

A spokesman said: “This tour, coming shortly before The Queen’s 90th birthday, will also allow The Duke and Duchess to pay tribute to Her Majesty’s huge contribution to diplomacy in Britain and the Commonwealth.” Source

I believe the Royal Family is preparing to crown the Prince over and above his Dad.

Or, just good relations between the 2 countries since a huge number of Indians live in Britain!

I don’t think they can do that until the king dies, @YARNLADY. I think. IDK.

@Dutchess_III At present, there is no King of England.

Why not?

@Dutchess_III Are you speaking to me about why no King of England? Because Queen Elizabeth II is the Monarch, she succeeded her father, King George VI. He had no male heirs. Next in line is Prince Charles.

@YARNLADY is speculating on Coronation of Prince William rather than Charles, as Charles is getting a little long in the tooth to be crowned King. I don;t know enough about the Laws of Succession to speak to that.

Oh.

@Dutchess_III It’s even more complicated than @zenvelo‘s explanation. There is a sexually discriminating slant to the title-issuing.

Queen Elizabeth’s husband, Philip, became Prince Philip upon Elizabeth’s ascent to the thrown, not King, because he is male. On the other hand, if/when their son Charles becomes king, his wife, Camilla, should, in right, receive the title of Queen.

OIC. thanks.

My comment is based on the assumption that both Queen Elizabeth II and Charles would abdicate in favor of Prince William.

@YARNLADY Here are my thoughts on the speculation. Queen Elizabeth turns 90 this month. Since she is still in relatively sound mind, it’s more likely that she will maintain the title until her death. Should she be unable to carry out the few responsibilities held, there are trained advisors, including her son Charles, that can carry them out on her behalf.

Being king or queen is vastly different than holding a job. It’s a birthright. Thus, the role is different than retiring at a certain age. The the royal families are groomed from birth regarding expectations of their titles. To abdicate is different than retiring. Abdicating holds a negative connotation; it’s rarely done only out of personal choice but from negative social pressure.

So will Charles abdicate when the time comes? The scandal of his continued affair with Camilla during his marriage has lessened over time for a variety of reasons. If forced to guess, it would be that he does’t.