> Because Prince Charles is heir to the throne (and has been portrayed more negatively in the news media than any other living person)

The UK should quickly tweak their royal succession laws, and give the crown to Edward, or Anne, while the queen is still alive.

If Charles abdicates, the line of succession dispute would be rather funny under the current succession laws.

I have never heard about this, do you have a link that elaborates? I love weird succession lines.

If Charles abdicates, his children receive the baton. But Harry's, and William's succession is under question with both being known not to have that much enthusiasm with the royal business.

If they too decline, line goes to their children below the age of majority, and the icky question of regency appears.

The regency in question notionally gives quite a lot of power, as the crown itself. If regency goes to the executive branch, it will throw out the last check on the Downing st. for may many thing, including the use of UK's nuclear weapons.

Can the UK just get rid of the monarchy if it turns into a mess? It doesn't make much sense to me to continue to have a "royal family" if the whole family refuses to be the monarch.

Is there any law that speaks to regency? Does Parliament pick the regent? Or Kate? Or somebody else?

Yes, the parliament will appoint one as per historical precedent.

Were he to abdicate, wouldn't the crown pass to his eldest son?

Yes, but William's own unwillingness to sit on the throne is well known.

> EDIT: Why is my comment collapsed? Genuine question, don't know how this works.

The monarchists were out in force, and downvoted your comment. I've upvoted it, but otherwise there's not much to do -- I think a lot of people who don't care for the monarchy probably avoiding the discussion.