The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Betsypaige]

Sounds like ageism to me.

It does. I read one of the articles and I actually do agree with the thrust of it (I may have read both, actually), because I do believe that Charles being as heavily involved as he is does complicate things. However, HM is hale and hearty, loves her job and is wonderful at it - there’s no reason at all for her to give up any of her powers.

Osipi:

Actually, the final decision in the Sussex matter would be made by the Queen. Its not because she's the head of the family but rather because she is "The Boss", "The CEO" "The Top Banana" of the family "Firm". Nothing happens in the "Firm" without the Queen's knowledge or the Queen's permission.

As the Veep and Harry's father and also the future "Boss", the Queen asked Charles to handle the situation. As it wasn't being handled (I presume) in a timely manner, Harry then decided to go to the top to sort things out.

I think Harry ran to his grandmother because he was frustrated by his father not not giving him everything he wanted, or thinking he didn’t understand him, or what have you. It appears that the two have had serious disagreements, and probably he thought he could get farther with his grandmother. Of course ultimately the final decision would be hers, but it would be after serious discussions with Charles and William, who will be the ones primarily living with this arrangement. The end result was not made unilaterally, that was the point of the summit.

 

[Eskimo]

It does. I read one of the articles and I actually do agree with the thrust of it (I may have read both, actually), because I do believe that Charles being as heavily involved as he is does complicate things. However, HM is hale and hearty, loves her job and is wonderful at it - there’s no reason at all for her to give up any of her powers.

Osipi:



I think Harry ran to his grandmother because he was frustrated by his father not not giving him everything he wanted, or thinking he didn’t understand him, or what have you. It appears that the two have had serious disagreements, and probably he thought he could get farther with his grandmother. Of course ultimately the final decision would be hers, but it would be after serious discussions with Charles and William, who will be the ones primarily living with this arrangement. The end result was not made unilaterally, that was the point of the summit.

If stories are true and Charles was an extremely indulgent father, I can see how Harry would be frustrated at all of a sudden being denied. I hope he approached his grandmother because he believes her to be his "boss" and not because of any untoward reasons.

 

[Betsypaige]

If stories are true and Charles was an extremely indulgent father, I can see how Harry would be frustrated at all of a sudden being denied. I hope he approached his grandmother because he believes her to be his "boss" and not because of any untoward reasons.

Charles was in such a terrible position. I think most parents who've lost their spouse are hesitant to be too harsh towards their children based on how they've lost one of the two most important people in their lives - and of course, as much as he loves his own father, he probably tried hard not to be as harsh as he saw Philip. Even if he was indulgent, though, it doesn't mean that he spoiled his kids rotten and certainly these recent instances can't be the only times Charles has said "no" to Harry.

It was probably for both reasons - almost like a kid running to his other parent because the one already said no, lol. For someone raised in the BRF, Harry doesn't seem to "get" how this works. Charles (and William for that matter) aren't saying "no" to punish Harry, they're not trying to make him unhappy - this is all about how Monarchy, how it runs, what's best for it, etc.

 

[Jacknch]

We really must move on and back to the actual topic of the thread. Posts were moved over to this thread specifically because the main issue in the originating post No. 1228 related to whether the Queen should or would abdicate in light of recent events. Let's not start dragging other issues into the discussion, which we can talk about in the other thread.

 

[Eskimo]

If you look for it on twitter and social media, it is mainly Harry and Meghan's fans that are calling for this. I believe this to be the case with the authors of the two articles as well. It seems like they are hurt that their "heroes" did not get everything they want and are lashing out at the Queen.

 

[Tsarinya]

I would say we are in a somewhat regency already. The Queen hardly does any events and seems to rely on Charles and William more and more to take over. I think this works out well for everyone: William starts learning how to cope on his own when he is King, Charles gets more responsibility and the Queen can oversee it whilst also enjoy her time with a more reduced role.
I don’t think she’ll ever abdicate, from everything I’ve read she still views that as a dirty word and the toll it took on her father. Even with the recent events.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen did around 300 engagements last year - the only ones who did more were her children.

 

[Tsarinya]

The Queen did around 300 engagements last year - the only ones who did more were her children.

Gosh, really? I honestly feel like she’s becoming a bit less visible, but it could be that other members have gotten more press coverage for various reasons.
Thanks for the heads up!

 

[Jacknch]

Indeed the Queen is still very active and capable in her advancing years. What we have seen though are very gradual and subtle changes where Charles and William have stepped in to do more official events, such as investitures at the Palace or the Remembrance Wreath being laid on the Queen's behalf. I can see this carrying on for a good few years yet, so a regency situation is currently just as unlikely as an abdication!

 

[Betsypaige]

Indeed the Queen is still very active and capable in her advancing years. What we have seen though are very gradual and subtle changes where Charles and William have stepped in to do more official events, such as investitures at the Palace or the Remembrance Wreath being laid on the Queen's behalf. I can see this carrying on for a good few years yet, so a regency situation is currently just as unlikely as an abdication!

Agreed. I think on Remembrance Day, it's physically too difficult for the Queen - I'm sure some other events it's the same thing. I think it's a good arrangement - it gives HM a bit of a break and it allows Charles and William to do the kinds of things they'll be expected to do.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Gosh, really? I honestly feel like she’s becoming a bit less visible, but it could be that other members have gotten more press coverage for various reasons.
Thanks for the heads up!

This is a copy of my summary of The Queen in 2019 (the rest of the royals are posted, along with this one, in the British Royal Engagements 2019 thread)

HM The Queen

Total Engagements with Individual Percentage of Total

HM The Queen – 293 (7.9%)

Number of Days on which a royal undertook Official Engagements for 2019

HM The Queen – 120

Types of Engagements for 2019

Addressed – 2
Afternoon Party – 3
Arrived at Balmoral Castle – 1
Audience – 110
Carriage Procession – 1
Chelsea Flower Show – 1
Church Service – 4
Council – 12
Decorated Individual – 2
Dinner – 1
Diplomatic Reception – 1
Drove – 2
Farewelled – 1
Festival of Remembrance – 1
Flypast – 1
Funeral – 1
Gathering – 1
Invested Individual/s – 23
Investiture – 6
Listened – 1
Lunch – 8
Met People – 24
Named – 1
National Commemorative Event (D-Day) – 1
Opened – 7
Order of the Garter Chapter Meeting – 1
Order of the Garter Installation Service – 1
Order of the Garter Lunch – 1
Performance – 1
Placed Time Capsule – 1
Presented Bible – 1
Presented Medal/s – 2
Presented Prize/s – 4
Presented Queen’s Medal for Academic Excellence – 1
Races – 6
Received – 83
Received Address – 2
Received by – 8
Received Keys – 2
Reception/s – 9
Remembrance Day Ceremony – 1
Replied to Address – 2
Returned/Surrendered Keys – 2
Sent Instagram Post – 1
Service of Celebration – 1
Service of Thanksgiving – 1
State Banquet – 1
State Opening of Parliament – 2
Toured – 11
Trooping the Colour – 1
Viewed – 18
Visit – 13
Visited by – 4
Welcomed – 1

Categories of Types of Engagements 2019

Artistic Performance – 3
Church Service – 6
Did Something (Visit, Opened etc) – 70
Interacted with Individuals or Groups – 298
Meals – 12
Service for the Dead (Funeral, Memorial Service etc) – 3
Sporting Event – 6

Patronages that were Supported via an Official Engagement for 2019

Cruse Bereavement Care – 1
Honorary Military – 8
National Council for Voluntary Organisations – 1
National Institute of Agricultural Botany – 1
Order of Merit – 1
Queen’s College, Cambridge – 1
Royal Automobile Club – 1
Royal British Legion – 1
Royal Horticultural Society – 1
Royal Institute of International Affairs – 1
Royal Philatelic Society – 1
Royal Victorian Order – 1
The Queen Elizabeth Prize for Academic Excellence – 1
The Queen’s Gold Medal for Academic Excellence – 1

Honorary Military Organisations Supported in 2019

Air Commodore in Chief Royal Air Force – 1
Le Regiment de la Chaudiere – 1
Le Royal 22e Regiment (of Canada) – 1
Royal Tank Regiment – 1
The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment – 1
The Honorable Artillery Company – 1
The Royal Lancers – 1
The Royal Welsh – 1

Organisations that were Supported via an Official Engagement in 2019

British Airways Headquarters – 1
Bush House, Kings College, London – 1
Gorgie City Farm – 1
Greenfaulds High School – 1
Haig Housing Trust – 1
Hauser and Wirth Gallery, Durslade Farm, Dropping Lane, Bruton – 1
King’s Bruton School, the Plox, Bruton – 1
Manor Farm Stables, Ditcheat – 1
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) – 1
Replica of Original Sainsbury – 1
Royal Bath and West of England Society – 1
Royal British Legion Industries Centenary Village – 2
Royal British Legion Industries Extra Care Facility – 1
Royal Papworth Hospital – 1
Smith Centre at the Science Museum – 1
The Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust – 1
Watergate House, London – 1
West Norfolk Befriending – 1

Royals who have Official Meetings with UK Politicians in 2019

HM The Queen – 55

Royals who have Official Meetings with an Ambassador in 2019

HM The Queen – 53

Royals who have Official Meetings with a High Commissioner in 2019

HM The Queen – 23

Royals who have Official Meetings with a Visiting Head of State in 2019

HM The Queen – 13

Royals who have Official Meetings with an Overseas Politician in the UK in 2019

HM The Queen – 1

Royals who have Official Meetings with a Head of Government in 2019

HM The Queen – 2

Royals who have Official Meetings with a GG, Lt Gov, State Gov etc in 2019

HM The Queen – 11

Countries of the UK where Engagements Occurred in 2019

England – 274
Scotland – 19

Royals who have Official Engagements involving Orders in 2019

HM The Queen – 35

Royals who were Represented by Someone at an Event in 2019

HM The Queen – 27

Royals who Undertook an Engagement with their Spouse in 2019

HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh – 2

Royals who Accompanied Another British Royal on an Engagement, other than a Spouse, in 2019

HM The Queen – 37

Royals who Accompanied a Foreign Royal on an Engagement, other than a Head of State, in 2019

HM The Queen – 2

It is true we don't 'see' as much of her as in the past but she is still active doing things 'behind closed doors' such as meeting with incoming and outgoing High Commissioners and Ambassadors.

 

[Osipi]

I do believe we're in a period of soft transition between monarchs as the Queen delegates more and more to Charles and Charles more and more to William but, with the Queen being very pragmatic, I think she's not only looking to assure that Charles (and William) are well prepared, I think she's also going to step back and out for a while sooner rather than later. Why? A period of mourning for Philip. Hopefully I'm very, very wrong on this but both the Queen and Philip are in their 90s.

 

[_Heather_]

I do believe we're in a period of soft transition between monarchs as the Queen delegates more and more to Charles and Charles more and more to William but, with the Queen being very pragmatic, I think she's not only looking to assure that Charles (and William) are well prepared, I think she's also going to step back and out for a while sooner rather than later. Why? A period of mourning for Philip. Hopefully I'm very, very wrong on this but both the Queen and Philip are in their 90s.

Sadly, I think this is all very true. Both the Queen and Prince Philip have always appeared to be quite pragmatic and realistic and both would tell us that no one lives forever and inevitably, at the age of 98, Prince Philip is in his last years even if he does make it to 100 or a bit longer. However, I think the Queen herself still has a few years left, though I'm no doctor and at the age of almost 94 I suppose nothing is a given.

 

[Leopoldine]

I do believe we're in a period of soft transition between monarchs as the Queen delegates more and more to Charles and Charles more and more to William but, with the Queen being very pragmatic, I think she's not only looking to assure that Charles (and William) are well prepared, I think she's also going to step back and out for a while sooner rather than later. Why? A period of mourning for Philip. Hopefully I'm very, very wrong on this but both the Queen and Philip are in their 90s.

"A period of soft transition" is an opinion.

Osipi, you know more than anyone about these happenings, but I think HM is going to go out with her boots on.

 

[Osipi]

"A period of soft transition" is an opinion.

Osipi, you know more than anyone about these happenings, but I think HM is going to go out with her boots on.
.

No, I don't know half the stuff other people here do. I've learned a lot in my years here though. ?

If there's one thing that the BRF does, its being prepared for whatever may come. Nothing is ever left to chance. After reigning for 68 years almost, tending and caring for her monarchy like it was her precious horse or corgi or garden, The Queen wants to be assured that everything is in place for it to continue into the future as a solid institution. Transition between monarchs that comes progressively and steadily rather than suddenly assures her that all her ducks are in a row. Charles is more than ready and William is also preparing to step into his role as the future Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge (and possibly Prince of Wales) and from there, king.

 

[Marengo]

A post and responses to an unfounded report from the notoriously inaccurate Daily Express have been deleted.

 

[JessRulz]

Posts about the Queen and the COVID-19 requirements by the UK Government have been moved to the https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...current-events-part-27-june-2018-a-44921.html thread where an existing discussion is taking place.

 

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...p-reaches-age-95-royal-biographer-claims.html

I believe this to be true. I have always found Robert Jobson's contacts at the Palace to be reliably informed.

 

[Osipi]

It is realistic to me that a woman of 95 years young, even if she's capable of a full life and can still ride her Fell pony when she chooses, finds the needs to really hang things up and pass the "to do" lists on to her son. In fact, I think the Queen has been doing that for a while now.

With the changes that have come about with the pandemic, the Queen's busy "away" days schedule has shrunken and both she and Philip have been able to isolate themselves well enough to remain healthy and virus free. It gives a good taste of what "retirement" is like.

However, as the article stated (I just glanced at it), the Queen is to "step back" and hand reins over to Charles. This does not an abdication make. Nor will Charles be named "regent" at all. The Queen is of sound mind and body and healthy (unless there's something we don't know) and really can do the required work that only the monarch can do from Windsor Castle in blue fuzzy slippers should she choose.

Although, I imagine that after all this time, being able to sit down in a very large room and be a mother with her husband besides her, to be able to see her oldest son being crowned as King would make her heart burst with pride as he's more than ready for the 'full monty" of being the monarch but after years of watching and admiring and taking in the character of the woman that is Queen Elizabeth II, I believe it would totally go against the grain for her to totally and completely abdicate her duty and responsibility she swore an oath to unless there is some concrete reason she feels she needs to.

 

[Betsypaige]

I like Jobson, and he’s been saying this for awhile, but I just don’t believe the Queen will ever abdicate. She made a vow that was deeply important to her, so as much as she loves Charles, I don’t think the “how can she look her son in the eye and tell him he’s not going to be King” is reason enough for her to abdicate. It’s not like she’d be saying that to Charles, anyway....

 

[Osipi]

To be honest, I don't believe Charles is brimming over with anticipation and rubbing his hands together just itching to be King either. The man is almost 72 years old and is still blessed enough to still have his mother and father alive.

Charles being the 'action man" workaholic like he's reputed to be is the kind of man that can take on whatever his mother would like him to take over for her and *not* have it affect the Prince of Wales role Charles has defined for himself.

Meanwhile, right now both Charles and William have a huge advantage over the Queen. They're witnessing a soft transition between monarchs and the gradual take overs and changes are addressed as to how Charles will want things in his reign and be able to weigh pros and cons and handle the major bumps in the road we've seen lately with Andrew and Harry. The Queen didn't have that. She was catapulted almost onto the throne due to the early death of her father.

Another reason comes to mind just why the Queen would *not* abdicate for all the corgis in the world. She's recently seen two of her prominent, working family members leave the "Firm" and she's definitely not the kind of woman that would want to add the "grand finale" of adding to that with an abdication. I think she would choose to be tar and feathered, drawn and quartered before even contemplating another walk away from the monarchy she loves and serves with all her being.

 

[MARG]

I remember some witless Royal reporter asking how he felt "having to wait all this time to be King", his answer was a pithy statement that since that meant his mother has to die, he was in no great hurry. And that was a couple of decades ago.

Anyone who thinks Charles hasn't been picking up the slack for years is dreaming. He toils in the background and she delights people in the foreground. Ignorant people tend to forget that regardless of all the gossip and malicious rags, they are first and foremost, a family.

 

[Betsypaige]

To be honest, I don't believe Charles is brimming over with anticipation and rubbing his hands together just itching to be King either. The man is almost 72 years old and is still blessed enough to still have his mother and father alive.

Charles being the 'action man" workaholic like he's reputed to be is the kind of man that can take on whatever his mother would like him to take over for her and *not* have it affect the Prince of Wales role Charles has defined for himself.

Meanwhile, right now both Charles and William have a huge advantage over the Queen. They're witnessing a soft transition between monarchs and the gradual take overs and changes are addressed as to how Charles will want things in his reign and be able to weigh pros and cons and handle the major bumps in the road we've seen lately with Andrew and Harry. The Queen didn't have that. She was catapulted almost onto the throne due to the early death of her father.

Another reason comes to mind just why the Queen would *not* abdicate for all the corgis in the world. She's recently seen two of her prominent, working family members leave the "Firm" and she's definitely not the kind of woman that would want to add the "grand finale" of adding to that with an abdication. I think she would choose to be tar and feathered, drawn and quartered before even contemplating another walk away from the monarchy she loves and serves with all her being.

I agree completely. William has said the same thing - being King means his father has died, so of course it’s not something he’s anticipating. Charles has also spoken about this. Ascending to the throne is not something to be celebrated because it’s tied up with a mother or father’s death. To this day, the Queen spends time alone at Sandringham about and on February 6. While everyone else is celebrating her ascension, she’s mourning the loss of her beloved papa.

Charles has said that he knows that, as King, there are many things he can’t say or do. So, right now, he has to make hay while he can...he has the best of both worlds: his mother is healthy and vibrant, and he’s taken on more responsibilities (that she can’t handle)...

The part I’ve bolded is a great point !

 

[Claire]

Personally I think that it might not be a bad idea to abdicate. As the Queen will still be alive and taking it slow she will still gardener the support that she holds and it might rub off on Charles in a way that it might not when she is no longer there. Essentially it might be a far smoother transition if the King Mother was still somewhere when Charles succeeds.
I really don't think we can hold a 95 year old to a vow she made when she was 18 - she will continue to serve the monarchy just not in a full capacity. I am not suggesting putting her out to pasture just let her enjoy her final days with her feet up.
Which is why maybe a regency might not be a better idea for her.
I also think it might not be a bad idea for the United Kingdom to get used to honorable abdication and passing on the crown at predicable intervals like European monarchs.

 

[Osipi]

Parliament just can't up and declare Charles Regent. There is such a beast called The Regency Act. The Regency Acts are Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed at various times, to provide a regent in the event of the reigning monarch being incapacitated or a minor (under the age of 18).

If the Queen were to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's tomorrow and the symptoms were actually affecting her abilities to do the job of the monarch, that would be cause for Charles to be declared a regent to act in stead of his mother. For the Queen to put her feet up and watch Netflix in a zebra onesie pajamas, not going to happen.

It actually would be quite easy for the Queen to relegate 95% of her duties and engagements and roles to Charles while still maintaining the hand of the Crown on those things only a monarch can do. The red boxes, the meetings with her Prime Minister and the State Opening of Parliament are examples.

 

[Betsypaige]

Personally I think that it might not be a bad idea to abdicate. As the Queen will still be alive and taking it slow she will still gardener the support that she holds and it might rub off on Charles in a way that it might not when she is no longer there. Essentially it might be a far smoother transition if the King Mother was still somewhere when Charles succeeds.
I really don't think we can hold a 95 year old to a vow she made when she was 18 - she will continue to serve the monarchy just not in a full capacity. I am not suggesting putting her out to pasture just let her enjoy her final days with her feet up.
Which is why maybe a regency might not be a better idea for her.
I also think it might not be a bad idea for the United Kingdom to get used to honorable abdication and passing on the crown at predicable intervals like European monarchs.

It’s not I or anyone else holding HM to the vow, it’s HM herself. I think it probably goes beyond that to the very word itself. Abdicating must be anathema to the Queen given the crisis that brought her father to the throne.

I think HM thrives on having something meaningful to do, and so while many might think “why not let her relax, she deserves it”, I doubt it’s something that’s for her...That said, I’m sure she’s happy to give Charles more responsibility ...

 

[Somebody]

It’s not I or anyone else holding HM to the vow, it’s HM herself. I think it probably goes beyond that to the very word itself. Abdicating must be anathema to the Queen given the crisis that brought her father to the throne.

I think HM thrives on having something meaningful to do, and so while many might think “why not let her relax, she deserves it”, I doubt it’s something that’s for her...That said, I’m sure she’s happy to give Charles more responsibility ...

That's it in a nutshell. The queen herself would consider it to be going against her vow to abdicate. So, I don't think she should be pressured to do so.

A different question is whether Charles, William and George should be expected to make that same vow or that a (slightly) different ceremony could be envisioned that would leave the option of an honorable abdication open for future generations of monarchs. Personally, my guess would be that Charles might hold on to the idea of a king for life but that William as a member of a rather different generation would be open to the idea of abdication, so George might start his reign a little earlier - although it might depend a bit on what age he is called to the throne because I don't think anyone likes to think of him/herself as an 'in-between' monarch.

 

[Prinsara]

Neither Charles nor William ever has made a similar vow, though. Elizabeth only did because she was turning 21 and there was no new position for her or title to mark the occasion.

Charles became Prince of Wales instead. William is still down the line. So apart from being a different person, different time, and different mindset, it was literally a unique occasion for the Queen. There's no need, let alone reason, for any of her current descendants to do anything similar.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In my opinion the most intimidating obstacle to a hypothetical abdication by a British monarch is the fact that as demonstrated by the two-year process to ratify the Succession to the Crown Act in the Commonwealth Realms after it was passed by the British Parliament, a number of foreign countries would need to pass legislation to give their consent.

 

[padams2359]

That is not a precedence that she will have attached to her name in the history books.