Unfortunately, you are unaware of Canadian constitutional issues. To begin tinkering with constitutional matters such as this would not be easy in many Commonwealth nations; it would likely raise the matter of replacing the constitutional monarchy with some undefined system. Our friends in Australia have already gone through that.
While I do believe that any decision to or not to abdicate should be taken with all care and due consideration, including considering the impact on the various Commonwealth nations, I also believe that if it is a decision that would be best made for the benefit of the monarchy and Commonwealth, then so be it, regardless of the logistical speed-bumps.
In the case of Edward VIII, the political will was there to remove him from his position. I'm sure you are aware of the persistent rumours of his dallying with the Nazis.
The political will was focused solely on his persistent womanizing (of which George V was ashamed, and had wished that Edward would have no legitimate issue of his own so Albert and/or Elizabeth II could have no impediments to ruling) and desire to marry a twice-divorced woman. The rumors of his "dallying" with the Nazis came after his abdication, largely because he actually went to Germany, met with Hitler, and offered Nazi salutes throughout his trip.
His wish to be married to a twice-divorced American made the abdication socially desirable as well.
I would submit that this was the major reason, based on my (admittedly limited) reading on the subject.
To express your dislike of Charles, you mentioned only his morality. What is it that makes William seem to you a better man?
received wherever he goes. The reports about his visit to Canada last year were very favourable. It seems to me that your assessments are based on the glitz and glamour of celebrity status rather than by the actual hard work that is done by the Royal Family.
I won't argue that Charles hasn't done admirable work in the service of the Crown and the Commonwealth; his charitable work is well-known, as is his continued service in his mother's name. To keep the thread open about Edward - he, too, served the crown, and was known for his concern for the poor and downtrodden within the Isles (his racist opinions of the various other races in the Empire notwithstanding); however, the consensus was that the Sovereign must be both proficient in duty and honorable in character, and Edward failed on the latter count to the Establishment and subjects. I'm not arguing that he was more or less moral from an Orthodox POV than other rulers or potential rulers (i.e. Charles and William) - most Kings of England seem to have sired illegitimate children at one point, which is why folks like Lady Di had royal blood but no succession rights. But at least to the English standard of conduct for their rulers, Edward failed to live up to the standards of the Crown, and Charles himself seems to toe that line.
And yes, Diana did perform many of her royal duties admirably. It was an ill-advised marriage to be sure. No one suffered more than Charles and Diana themselves, especially as they have had to endure the rarely charitable "750 million" judges on their case.
Ill-advised, yet accepted by the Crown, entered into by two consenting and intelligent adults, who fully comprehended that their decision would be (rightfully, unfortunately) judged by many because of his status as the heir apparent.
Opening up a constitutional can of worms would not be a "smart" thing to do.
It depends; his accession may lead to the same debates about abandoning the monarchy as you've argued his abdication would. In that case, which is "smarter?"
Of course, if Her Majesty lives another ten years or more, Charles will be a senior citizen himself (he's already 62), and undoubtedly William and Kate will likely fill many of the public duties. That scenario would seem to satisfy most: Charles to do the actual work of kingship with a younger face to present to the media.
We'll see. Trivia: If Her Majesty is still on the throne in 2015, she'll become the longest-reigning monarch in English/British history, and the longest-reigning female monarch in recorded world history.