The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Lady Gudgeon]

I have a sort of second question to the main one of this thread. Do you think she would abdicate in order to "save" the monarchy?

What I mean by this is...(sort of a lot of what ifs and kind of convoluted but follow my thinking...I'm just curious on what people think of this speculation...)

Say that she does live another 15-20 years, but knows that someone in their late 90s-100s will (obviously and understandably) not be able to carry out many duties so say she turns into more of a recluse and just comes out to do a few events per year. However, she also knows that the general public may look less favorably on supporting a monarch who (for lack of a better word) doesn't do much - even after a lifetime of service. So she may think that it would be better for Charles to become king to keep people feeling more positive about an "active" monarchy (i.e. a monarch who spends all day every day serving the people). Would she abdicate then?

How active was the QEQM in her final 10 years? I think it's reasonable to assume that even if she feels it's her duty, a 100 year old just can't be very active in a day-to-day sense. Do you get what I mean?

I suppose she will just continue to do fewer engagements and Charles and W/C and Harry (and his future wife?) will do more? Not that I wish ANY of them to die but this whole thing is kind of fascinating from a historical or bigger picture point of view.

I'm not advocating for one way or the other (abdicate or not) - and personally think she would not abdicate under any circumstance (although I do think it's funny that she says she was appointed by god when it was really just the circumstance of her uncle abdicating...if he had married and had children she never would have become queen! But I'm not religious so I guess that reasoning just doesn't speak to me...). It's weird to think of her not being queen!

 

[PrincessKaimi]

i laughed so hard after reading your comment!
its a bit sad and harsh to say what you said, because firstly the Queen is a mother and women and see her eldest child die before her, might kill her as well with so much pain for seeing her own son being buried.
althought you said that, its possible it could happen, since women tend to live longer than man, and i see the Queen living until 100 years old, but its the worst case scenario! i hope i dont see a tragedy like that, i hope for the normal circle of life, first the The Queen then Charles!

I wish I could see some/any humor in Renata's remark, but I cannot.

No, the Queen will not resign, that's not how it's done. It's played out to the end, and they all know it.

I wish them the normal course of events. I hate to think that either Elizabeth or Phillip will be without the other for awhile, as they clearly shoulder the burden of what they do together. He is looking quite frail. They are courageous to keep at it, most of us will be leading far less energetic lives at their ages.

Then, Charles will have his chance at being King. It must be very hard to be in his position, he gets the job only after a parent dies. This is one of the downsides of monarchy, it structures a family in a particular way and there's no getting around it. Still, it is their family and they are doing what all families do - doing things the family way.

If the Queen were to suffer a debilitating illness (God forbid), then provisions could be made for her retirement, but that's the only circumstance (I believe) that Charles would rule in her stead without her burial first.

Charles knows he may well be in his 70's when he ascends the throne, and I doubt he'll change his life much when he does, he already has his causes and he will continue to do what he does. Since he was rather older when he fathered William than Elizabeth was when she had him, William will likely be younger when he comes to the throne - but many of us here will not live to see that day.

I can't imagine why anyone would wish anyone dead, except in the cases of extreme criminal behavior.

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Let us look ahead to the Diamond Jubilee Ceremonies. That is a positive event(s) that should keep us all going - The Queen & Prince Philip included.......

I believe that The Queen and Prince now spend more days of the week at Windsor than they once did. Thursday afternoon to Monday noon.... So they can relax more now than before.

I also do not think that there will be an abdication, but perhaps a more & more retiring from public view after the Jubilee.
Charles and Camilla should then, and actually now, be out & about more & more doing public duties. It would add to their approval rating for those who dislike them.
Also, in a year or two, William and Catherine and even Harry could pitch in!!

There is always a Regency, should The Queen become incapacitated (please, NO) - - it has precedence with George III and his PoW....

As for a 100 year old monarch, the Queen Mother (while not the Sovereign) was revered to her dying day. And the massive crowds for her funeral and those paying their respects just proves that!!

Larry

 

[Catherine J]

This is Diana's legacy. No amount of sugar coating it can - for me - change the hate she set in motion. The tragedy of her death - tragic in itself, always will be- was compounded in that she could not lead her 'fans' to a healthier place regarding the RF and Charles. She could not recant - undo the damage done. So there it sits - as a fly in amber.

There is another thread about Diana's legacy and you see this exact answer, less succinctly stated, all through it.

Yes. Whatever good she did, and I will give that she did some good, maybe even a lot of good, it can never weigh more, in my mind, than this.

It seems clear that the British RF does not abdicate. The film 'The King's Speech' - was the first I knew that the old king was doddering. Is this historically accurate? I had always thought - well, I don't know what I thought - died in his sleep after a long illness, I guess what was what I always heard, or thought. But that he was mentally incapacitated - they hid that, not so? Hiding it, who then 'reigned'?

Which old king? George V? I don't remember him being doddering. I think the bare facts are accurate - but, of course, no one knows what was said and done in the moment to moment situations. There are some glaring inaccuracies in the time line - such as the timing (length and commencement) of "Bertie's" speech therapy - but all in all I think it got the facts of the abdication accurate.

George V was the father of both Edward VIII and George VI - and he died of sound mind and frail body (he was ill for much of his later reign), as far as I know, although I am no scholar on the matter.

I believe Elizabeth will die while in office and Charles will do the same. And so it should be. I dislike the notion that the matter of the succession (or any of the basic traditions that make it what it is) of the monarchy is subject in any way, direct or indirect, to the popular opinion of the day.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Yes, "regency" is the word I thought I wanted, wasn't sure. Thank you, VecchioLarry.

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

This is Diana's legacy. No amount of sugar coating it can - for me - change the hate she set in motion. The tragedy of her death - tragic in itself, always will be- was compounded in that she could not lead her 'fans' to a healthier place regarding the RF and Charles. She could not recant - undo the damage done. So there it sits - as a fly in amber.

Perfectly said Tyger. This is exactly why I am not a Diana fan.

On the issue of the actual thread (which I realise I haven't really said anything about) I could see a Regency being put in place, should The Queen become greatly incapacitated (let's hope not) but I can't see her actually abdicating. She made a promise to be The Sovereign for the rest of her life.

 

[Zonk]

This thread isn't about Diana, if you wish to focus on her legacy please do so here
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...at-is-left-or-what-will-be-left-17784-41.html .

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[westieluv]

I agree with those who say the Queen won't abdicate. As for Charles stepping aside, I think that is an idea planted by Diana's camp, not something that someone raised with a sense of duty would do. And I adored Diana & have never cared that much for Charles!

 

[Tyger]

Which old king? George V? I don't remember him being doddering. I think the bare facts are accurate - but, of course, no one knows what was said and done in the moment to moment situations. There are some glaring inaccuracies in the time line - such as the timing (length and commencement) of "Bertie's" speech therapy - but all in all I think it got the facts of the abdication accurate.

George V was the father of both Edward VIII and George VI - and he died of sound mind and frail body (he was ill for much of his later reign), as far as I know, although I am no scholar on the matter.

Oh, dear, Catherine, you got me! I was being oblique because I wasn't sure of the name. Yes, George V. In 'The King's Speech' there is a scene with his family and other officials present. They want him to sign a document - he is clearly suffering from some sort of dementia. So this doesn't tally with 'sound mind, frail body'. Why would the film have concocted this if its not true?

 

[lady of hay]

I hope that the Queen will outlive Charles.

my husbands cousin had to bury both his younger brother and his son aged 6. This was a very distressing time for all the family, not just immediate but the extended family as well. I can only assume that this comment has been made by someone who has not experanced the trauma of a life cut short.

 

[grevinnan]

I hope the Queen will reign until her last breath. She now has two heirs in line, one that is already groomed for the role of King and one that is splendidly beginning his training.

 

[lady of hay]

Interesting. Charles seems as duty bound as anyone if one looks at his life, Queen included. Your scenarios for him seem implausible - but maybe wishful thinking?

Regarding Diana 'knew him better' - I think all the evidence is that she didn't really know him, didn't really 'get' him - if she did, she would have stayed married to him, I would guess. Will Diana's petulant attempt at public 'payback' to Charles for whatever she felt he had or had not done to-or-for her continue to be the gauze through which Charles is to be judged/seen? I wonder what it is about Diana's string of slurs that continues to be so alluring and compelling that they are routinely restated as 'facts'.

What would be so terrible about having Charles become King? In the event the Queen decides that it is wiser to have the transition in her lifetime - to avoid any unpleasantness for him? I could see a mother - as mother but also as Queen - being concerned in that way for her son - and her heir - having to deal with the fall-out (still) from someone who smeared the RF.

My scenario is not "wishfull thinking " Charles is heir to the throne and should succed his mother, simple as.


I don't think it would be terrible for Charles to become King, he may not be King for a long time , Edward VII wasn't, but I am quite sure that when the time comes he will give it his all .
Sorry it has taken so long to get back on this , but i don't log on every day, so appologies if it disrupts the thread.

 

[IloveCP]

As for the Queen outliving Charles,I doubt that will happen.I think he got good health from his parents so I think he will live a long life.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

As someone earlier posted, this is not a job for the Queen, this is who she is. Call it God, fate or happenstance, she was brought to the throne, not through merit, but due to the circumstances of her birth and the action of her uncle. I have no doubt Her Majesty will do what is best (in her mind) for her people. If she believes abdication would be best for her country, I have no doubt the Queen will act accordingly.

But I do not believe she will abdicate in order to spare herself her duty to her subjects or to bring Charles to the throne earlier. If she is unable to perform her duty, then I believe a Regency will be set in place. But to abdicate voluntarily-NEVER.

 

[Zonk]

That's what I am thinking.

This is Queen Elizabeth II who has been taught since 1936 that duty comes first. To be quite honest, if things hadn't changed during that year I am sure she still would have done her duty in regards to any royal engagements as a junior member of the BRF but with her parents King George VI and Queen Elizabeth as well as her grandmother, Queen Mary...this Queen knows that her position is a lifetime position.

To paraphrase her father, the late King George VI (when speaking of the Windsors) "to do so now (change) would make a mockery of the past."

 

[vkrish]

Hey all, did anyone read Jeffrey Archer's "First Among Equals"?
He actually wrote a scenario in which The Queen abdicates. Though she really doesnt announce Abdication, it is written that she makes a 'decision', consults her Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition about that.
And by the end of the novel, the new Prime Minister is invited to Buckinham palace by King Charles III..
Cool na.. Was there any such even elsewhere in fiction?
How come Archer judged Queen will even consider andicating..

 

[Artemisia]

No, the scenario couldn't take place in real life.

The Queen can announce something like a retirement (stepping away from public duties), in which case Prince Charles will become the Regent. However, the Monarch would still be Elizabeth II and Charles wouldn't be Charles III until after she passes away. George IV effectively reigned over the Kingdom from 1811 as The Prince Regent but he didn't become King until after his father died in 1820.

Alternatively, the Queen can abdicate - and abdicate officially, in which case Charles will become Charles III as soon as the abdication is ratified.

 

[cepe]

She will never abdicate but will continue living her life as she has always chosen to do.

However, I think it is incumbent upon her to increase her support of both Charles and Camilla - publically. She needs to be actively seen to do that. I think that she will find actively and positively taking action difficult because she hasn't done that in 60 years. I sometimes think she lives in a cocoon, established in about 1956 (or maybe 1856 or 1756!).

But I really believe that she needs to established Charles and Camilla as the rightful successors in the minds of the general public who dont give 2 figs for hereditary monarchy and have only known QEII.

Start handing over some of her patronages to them; giving them the lead role in public engagements which are normally hers - ease out of the high profile.

The worst possible outcome is that she takes on less low profile work and hands nothing of significance to Charles.

Stream of consciousness stuff here so sorry if it rambles on - but I seriously believe the monarchy needs her to ACT, and she doesnt like doing this.

 

[Mariel]

The changes which enveloped her antecedents over centuries must show the Queen that unexpected things can happen. No one ever thought there would be a Victoria as Queen.
No one thought there would be a Hanover monarch when Queen Anne was so fertile in having children, but they all died before their majority. Charles should be made ready, as Cepe said, by giving him more high profile duties. A Regency could do this. A very fine concept, Charles as Prince Regent.

 

[muriel]

The changes which enveloped her antecedents over centuries must show the Queen that unexpected things can happen. No one ever thought there would be a Victoria as Queen.
No one thought there would be a Hanover monarch when Queen Anne was so fertile in having children, but they all died before their majority. Charles should be made ready, as Cepe said, by giving him more high profile duties. A Regency could do this. A very fine concept, Charles as Prince Regent.

A regency when the existing monarch is fit and able is very unlikely.

What "more high profile" duties would you like C&C to undertake? I thought the message was very very clearly set out at the jubilee celebrations.

 

[Sister Morphine]

In short, no. After what she witnessed with her uncle, especially the turmoil it caused for her parents, I can't see her doing that, even at her age. She'll reign until death, which is the tradition.

 

[Ish]

I always find both the idea of abdication and the idea of a regency rather unnerving (not that I'm in any way opposed to the idea of Charles as King).

Abdication would mean that HM is going back on the vows that she has mad to this country. In the course of her life she has made 3 vows that her "whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong." The first was in her 21st birthday speech, the second at her coronation, and the third more recently at the jubilee last year, where she said "I dedicate myself anew to your service." An abdication for her would be to renege on those vows - made to her realms, her people, and her God. I don't think anyone should take that lightly and ask it of her. It is also said that she vowed to her mother, father, and grandmother - all who had very strong opinions on abdication - that she would never abdicate.

A regency is also unnerving as it implies that HM is no longer mentally capable of fulfilling her duties. That's not something I would wish on anyone, regardless of their role in life.

HM is likely to remain in her position for some time. She shows some signs of slowing - as is her prerogative at her age - but slowing is not the same as abdicating. Give more duties to Charles, Camilla, Anne, Andrew, Edward, and Sophie. Give more duties to William, Catherine, and Harry (although, granted, yes, William and Catherine do have the more lightened load due to the pregnancy). Even give more duties to Beatrice and Eugenie, who are both HRHs as well. But neither abdication nor regency is necessary.

 

[Spheno]

A regency is also unnerving as it implies that HM is no longer mentally capable of fulfilling her duties. That's not something I would wish on anyone, regardless of their role in life.

'in the case of infirmity of mind or body or of unavaliability for a definite cause'
Regency Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ish]

'in the case of infirmity of mind or body or of unavaliability for a definite cause'
Regency Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, except an infirmity of body that prevents her from being able to rule also implies an infirmity of mind. As for the unavailability that has largely been countered by modern transportation. Once going to the colonies or even Europe could be considered unavailability. Now it's just a phone call away.

 

[Roslyn]

She will never abdicate but will continue living her life as she has always chosen to do.

However, I think it is incumbent upon her to increase her support of both Charles and Camilla - publically. She needs to be actively seen to do that. I think that she will find actively and positively taking action difficult because she hasn't done that in 60 years. I sometimes think she lives in a cocoon, established in about 1956 (or maybe 1856 or 1756!).

But I really believe that she needs to established Charles and Camilla as the rightful successors in the minds of the general public who dont give 2 figs for hereditary monarchy and have only known QEII.

Start handing over some of her patronages to them; giving them the lead role in public engagements which are normally hers - ease out of the high profile.

The worst possible outcome is that she takes on less low profile work and hands nothing of significance to Charles.

Stream of consciousness stuff here so sorry if it rambles on - but I seriously believe the monarchy needs her to ACT, and she doesnt like doing this.

I totally agree. HM is very set in her ways and she will find it difficult, but I believe it is necessary.

 

[Grandma828]

At the jubilee celebrations, I thought she made it very plain that Charles was next. If you check the court circular, you will find that he does more and more of the ceremonial duties. The only thing he doesn't do are the daily boxes.

 

[Ish]

At the jubilee celebrations, I thought she made it very plain that Charles was next. If you check the court circular, you will find that he does more and more of the ceremonial duties. The only thing he doesn't do are the daily boxes.

I wouldn't be surprised if he read the red boxes though. He obviously doesn't sign off on anything, but it seems like she's been open to training him for everything that comes with the role (unlike Victoria with Edward VII), which would include the boxes.

 

[Grandma828]

You are correct. I think that was reported a number of years ago. Also, I believe that William is being educated in the running of the Duchy. There is so much that goes on behind the scenes that we are not privy to.

 

[Ish]

I had that thought as I was writing my response - "am I making this up?" I always thought it was a shame how many heirs to the throne don't seem to have actually been trained for their future role, and I think an important part of modernizing the monarchy is in acknowledging that the heirs need to be trained properly. They need to be taught their job before being thrust into it. While the BRF has gotten lucky in the past, they haven't always been so.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When I was at the Royal Mews in either 2002 or 2005 there was a small carriage that came in and we asked what it was - one horse - and we were told that it was the carriage that took the official papers from The Queen to Charles every day that they were both in London. According to this person, who was simply the guide at the Mews, the Queen sends all documents across to Charles so that he can read them and make comments - that they also have private discussions about them - just her and him.

Also that all Counsellors of State are given a briefing on what is happening regularly - that would be Charles, William, Harry and Andrew - so that if called upon they have the background info.