The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charles was pragmatic, he and Camilla knew the situation in 2005 and his press released a statement to calm things down. Nothing was ever made official, no laws were passed. She's the wife of The King, she will be The Queen. I see no backlash except from the Diana-fans that appear every now and again.

Yep. I reckon it was done with a "suck it and see" attitude and to placate the haters at the time. Surely the idea was to get them married and give the public a chance to get to know Camilla and to get used to her by Charles' side, and to allow the lady to work her quiet charm and prove how good she is for Charles and in her own right, and to gain popularity as an individual. If there was continuing flack from the public generally rather than just the Diana fanatics/Camilla haters they could pursue the Princess Consort idea, but if the opposition died down they could downplay that statement of "intention".
 
Charles was pragmatic, he and Camilla knew the situation in 2005 and his press released a statement to calm things down. Nothing was ever made official, no laws were passed. She's the wife of The King, she will be The Queen. I see no backlash except from the Diana-fans that appear every now and again.

I dearly hope you are right, I just have a feeling that statement will come back to bite him on the bottom :)
 
The press release stated that that it was intended Camilla be Princess Consort. I've read so many posts on here that state, very clearly, she cannot be Princess Consort without parliamentary intrervention.

The moment Charles is King, she is Queen and IMO parliament will not bring in legislation to change her title because it will change titles for all time. They cannot introduce legislation aimed at one specific individual. And also IMO, William will have a say as he will not want Catherine to be a Princess Consort - he will want her to be Queen.

It will cause a bit of a moan from a minority but CH can say that they made an error etc etc. There isnt going to be a revolution or the end of the Monarchy - the vocal minority can live with it.
 
The press release stated that that it was intended Camilla be Princess Consort. I've read so many posts on here that state, very clearly, she cannot be Princess Consort without parliamentary intrervention.

The moment Charles is King, she is Queen and IMO parliament will not bring in legislation to change her title because it will change titles for all time. They cannot introduce legislation aimed at one specific individual. And also IMO, William will have a say as he will not want Catherine to be a Princess Consort - he will want her to be Queen.

It will cause a bit of a moan from a minority but CH can say that they made an error etc etc. There isnt going to be a revolution or the end of the Monarchy - the vocal minority can live with it.


I agree it would surely break discrimination laws to do that against one individual for no good reason other than a minority of public opinion.
 
Why does a discussion about the possible abdication/retirement of HM have to devolve into a discussion of Camilla's future titles? Hasn't that subject been done to death on other threads including the styles and titles thread?
 
sorry - you're right - mea culpa was following discussion

:sad:
 
Why does a discussion about the possible abdication/retirement of HM have to devolve into a discussion of Camilla's future titles? Hasn't that subject been done to death on other threads including the styles and titles thread?

Because any discussion regarding Charles becoming King must devolve into the Camilla as Queen vs Princess Consort issue.

Back on topic: HM already has Charles do a lot, and involves him in the managing of the red boxes. She is, at this point, largely of sound mind and health and thus has no apparent need for a regency or co-monarch. There is no real precedent for establishing a regency simply because the monarch is old (George III was not of sound mind), while there is precedent of not doing so (Victoria was 81 when she died and never had a regent). There is no real precedent for abdication - only 4 monarchs in nearly 1,000 years have done so, and only 1 did so willingly - and any precedent associated with abdication in the UK is a negative one. There is also no precedent for a co-monarchy, at least not of the nature that would happen here. William and Mary did have one, but it was under very different circumstances. You would have to go back, I believe, to Henry the Young King and his father Henry II for an example of a parent/child co-monarchy, although that wasn't a particularly effective example and Henry the Young King doesn't often make it into the list of Monarchs of England (as it was at the time).

Where HM infirm or in some way unable to do her job I would see the point in s regency. Had she made some indication that she wished to abdicate, I would see a point there. But she isn't, and she hasn't. Furthermore, she has given a lot over to Charles and shown confidence in his ability to take on her position. The whole debate of she can't fill the role anymore/it's not fair to Charles/she needs to show confidence in the future of the monarchy seems, to me, to more be the product of media attempts to stir up rumours and general trouble.

HM is doing a fine job, and has been for the past 61 years. There is no sign that she is incapable of continuing to do it or does not wish to continue to do so. She has also shown great confidence in her son's ability to fill her shoes, and he has shown that he is capable of filling in for her and taking on responsibilities when she is unable to do them. There is no indication that there is any need for an abdication, regency, or co-monarchy at this point. There is also no indication that there is any reason to believe that a regency wouldn't be established were HM to be unable to perform her duties, not that Charles will be unfit as a King (regardless of the titling and styling of his wife) when his mother passes. Simply "because she's old" is not a good reason for, really, abdication or regency.

Also, worries about a 100 year old Queen who can't do her job are a bit unfounded too. Yes, HM may live to 100, but if the precedent set by her mother is any indication she'll still be able to perform engagements. The Queen Mother's last public engagement was November 22, 2001. She suffered from poor health for the remainder of 2001 and the start of 2002, preventing her from further engagements, although she did attend the funeral of Princess Margaret in February, and died at the end of March 2002. There is no reason to believe that HM, if she lives to be 100, will be unable to continue doing her duties.
 
Yes technically that is true! I for one want Camilla to be Queen and fully agree that by law the wife of a King is Queen, however upon the announcement of their marriage it was made very clear that Camilla would be styled Princess Consort when Charles accedes. Much in the same way Camilla is legally Princess Of Wales but styled Duchess Of Cambridge. I feel this was said at the time to make the public more accepting of the marriage. But to go against it now Charles would lose face. That is the tricky issue he has placed himself in.

I don't think so. If its what she wants and what he announced at the time of engagement, I don't see what the problem is.
 
I've been reading some of the earlier posts in this thread, and some members said that when she was 21, HM said in a speech: ''I declare before you all that my 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.'' (It also happens to be the quote in my signature ;)). And by this, I think she means that she will carry on reigning until she dies. Also, am I right in thinking that Edward VIII is the only one of our monarchs who has abdicated? Most of our Kings and Queens have reigned until their death, and I think HM will be just the same. Another reason as to why she won't abdicate is that at the moment, she is perfectly healthy (IMO) and she is able to go on tours, the State Opening of Parliament, etc. You never know, HM could live up to 101 like her mother did! If that does happen, Charles would become King aged 79, but even then, I still don't really see her abdicating in favor of him. So to conclude, 98% of me thinks that HM won't abdicate, whilst the other 2% of me thinks that she will only abdicate if she really has too. I just wanted to have my say in this thread. :)
 
Also, am I right in thinking that Edward VIII is the only one of our monarchs who has abdicated? Most of our Kings and Queens have reigned until their death...

Not to go too off-topic but while Edward VIII was the first Monarch to voluntarily abdicate (and certainly the only British one), there have been a number of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish Monarchs who didn't reign until their deaths (most often, because they were deposed). Also, Edward II of England abdicated in favour of of his son, Edward III, although it was anything but voluntary act. The following English, Scottish, Irish and British Monarchs were forced to abdicate or were deposed. The list includes Kings who reigns in separate Kingdoms that would later form England (Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria...). Those who abdicated, whether voluntarily or not, are in bold.

England and Scotland (during Union of Crowns), Great Britain and United Kingdom:
- James II and VII of England and Scotland (deposed during the Glorious Revolution: his fleeing the country was regarded as an abdication by the Parliament)
- Charles I of England and Scotland (deposed during the Civil War, executed in 1649)
- James II, King of England (deposed in 1689 in the Glorious Revolution)
- Edward VIII (abdicated in 1936 as King of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth Realms)

England (and its predecessor Kingdoms):
- Ceawlin, King of Wessex (deposed in 592)
- Cenwalh, King of Wessex (deposed)
- Hlothhere, King of Kent (exiled in 685)
- Centwine, King of Wessex (abdicated in 686)
- Caedwalla, King of Wessex (abdicated in 688)
- Saebbi, King of Essex (abdicated in 694)
- Aethelred, King of Mercia (abdicated in 704)
- Eadwulf I, King of Northumbria (deposed in 705)
- Coenred, King of Mercia (abdicated in 709)
- Offa, King of Essex (abdicated in 709)
- Ceolwulf, King of Northumbria (first deposed, then abdicated in 739)
- Ine, King of Wessex (abdicated in 726)
- Beornred, King of Mercia (deposed and flead in 757)
- Sigeberht of Wessex (deposed in 757)
- Wiglaf, King of Mercia (deposed)
- Aethelwaldm King of Northumbria (deposed in 765)
- Eadberht, King of Northumbria (abdicated in died 768)
- Sigeric, King of Essex (abdicated in 798)
- Sigered, King of Essex (abdicated by ceding his Kingdom to Wessex)
- Alhred, King of Northumbria (deposed and went into exile)
- Aethelred I, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Osred II, King of Northumbria (deposed and went into exile)
- Osbald, King of Northumbria (went into exile)
- Eardwulf, King of Northumbria (deposed in 806)
- Eadberht III, King of Kent (deposed Coenwulf of Mercia)
- Ceolwulf I of Mercia, King of Kent and Mercia (deposed in 823)
- Baldred, King of Kent (expelled in 825 by Aethelwulf of Wessex)
- Burgred, King of Mercia (deposed in 874)
- Aelfwynn, Lady (Queen) of the Mercians (deposed in 918)
- Aethelred II, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Amlaib Cuaran, King of Northumbria (deposed, later regained his Throne)
- Eric Bloodaxe, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Aethelwulf, King of Wessex (gave up his power in favour of his son, Aethelbald)
- Edward II, King of England (forced to abdicate in 1327)
- Richard II, King of England (deposed 1399)
- Henry VI, King of England (deposed in 1461, reinstated in 1470, deposed again in 1471)
- Edward IV, King of England (deposed in 1470, reinstated in 1471)
- Edward V, King of England (deposed in 1483 by being proclaimed illegitimate)

Scotland:
- Duncan II, King of Scots (deposed in 1094)
- Donald III, King of Scots (deposed in 1097)
- John, King of Scots (deposed in 1296)
- Mary, Queen of Scots (deposed in 1567)

Ireland:
- Blacaire mac Gofrith, King of Dublin (deposed)
- Amlaib Cuaran, King of Dublin (deposed at least twice)
- Godred Crovan King of Dublin (driven out of Dublin)
- Domnall mac Muirchertaig, King of Dublin (deposed at least twice)
- Hasculf Thorgillsson, King of Dublin (deposed)
- Mael Seachlainn II, High King of Ireland (deposed in 1002, restored in 1014)
 
Last edited:
Not to go too off-topic but while Edward VIII was the first Monarch to voluntarily abdicate (and certainly the only British one), there have been a number of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish Monarchs who didn't reign until their deaths (most often, because they were deposed). Also, Edward II of England abdicated in favour of of his son, Edward III, although it was anything but voluntary act. The following English, Scottish, Irish and British Monarchs were forced to abdicate or were deposed. The list includes Kings who reigns in separate Kingdoms that would later form England (Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria...). Those who abdicated, whether voluntarily or not, are in bold.

England and Scotland (during Union of Crowns), Great Britain and United Kingdom:
- Charles I of England and Scotland (deposed during the Civil War, executed in 1649)
- James II, King of England (deposed in 1689 in the Glorious Revolution)
- Edward VIII (abdicated in 1936 as King of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth Realms)

England (and its predecessor Kingdoms):
- Ceawlin, King of Wessex (deposed in 592)
- Cenwalh, King of Wessex (deposed)
- Hlothhere, King of Kent (exiled in 685)
- Centwine, King of Wessex (abdicated in 686)
- Caedwalla, King of Wessex (abdicated in 688)
- Saebbi, King of Essex (abdicated in 694)
- Aethelred, King of Mercia (abdicated in 704)
- Eadwulf I, King of Northumbria (deposed in 705)
- Coenred, King of Mercia (abdicated in 709)
- Offa, King of Essex (abdicated in 709)
- Ceolwulf, King of Northumbria (first deposed, then abdicated in 739)
- Ine, King of Wessex (abdicated in 726)
- Beornred, King of Mercia (deposed and flead in 757)
- Sigeberht of Wessex (deposed in 757)
- Wiglaf, King of Mercia (deposed)
- Aethelwaldm King of Northumbria (deposed in 765)
- Eadberht, King of Northumbria (abdicated in died 768)
- Sigeric, King of Essex (abdicated in 798)
- Sigered, King of Essex (abdicated by ceding his Kingdom to Wessex)
- Alhred, King of Northumbria (deposed and went into exile)
- Aethelred I, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Osred II, King of Northumbria (deposed and went into exile)
- Osbald, King of Northumbria (went into exile)
- Eardwulf, King of Northumbria (deposed in 806)
- Eadberht III, King of Kent (deposed Coenwulf of Mercia)
- Ceolwulf I of Mercia, King of Kent and Mercia (deposed in 823)
- Baldred, King of Kent (expelled in 825 by Aethelwulf of Wessex)
- Burgred, King of Mercia (deposed in 874)
- Aelfwynn, Lady (Queen) of the Mercians (deposed in 918)
- Aethelred II, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Amlaib Cuaran, King of Northumbria (deposed, later regained his Throne)
- Eric Bloodaxe, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Aethelwulf, King of Wessex (gave up his power in favour of his son, Aethelbald)
- Edward II, King of England (forced to abdicate in 1327)
- Richard II, King of England (deposed 1399)
- Henry VI, King of England (deposed in 1461, reinstated in 1470, deposed again in 1471)
- Edward IV, King of England (deposed in 1470, reinstated in 1471)
- Edward V, King of England (deposed in 1483 by being proclaimed illegitimate)

Scotland:
- Duncan II, King of Scots (deposed in 1094)
- Donald III, King of Scots (deposed in 1097)
- John, King of Scots (deposed in 1296)
- Mary, Queen of Scots (deposed in 1567)

Ireland:
- Blacaire mac Gofrith, King of Dublin (deposed)
- Amlaib Cuaran, King of Dublin (deposed at least twice)
- Godred Crovan King of Dublin (driven out of Dublin)
- Domnall mac Muirchertaig, King of Dublin (deposed at least twice)
- Hasculf Thorgillsson, King of Dublin (deposed)
- Mael Seachlainn II, High King of Ireland (deposed in 1002, restored in 1014)

In David Starkey's Crown and Country he refers to Richard II as having been forced to abdicate and said that at the time of the ascension of William and Mary, the fleeing of James II was taken as an abdication.

With them included, there are 4 monarchs of England/Great Britain who have "abdicated" (I exclude Scotland, Wales, and Ireland simply out of ignorance regarding their monarchs, not an attempt to downplay their importance): Edward II, Richard II, James II, and Edward VIII. It makes me think that it's unlucky to be either a II or am Edward.
 
Not to go too off-topic but while Edward VIII was the first Monarch to voluntarily abdicate (and certainly the only British one), there have been a number of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish Monarchs who didn't reign until their deaths (most often, because they were deposed). Also, Edward II of England abdicated in favour of of his son, Edward III, although it was anything but voluntary act. The following English, Scottish, Irish and British Monarchs were forced to abdicate or were deposed. The list includes Kings who reigns in separate Kingdoms that would later form England (Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria...). Those who abdicated, whether voluntarily or not, are in bold.

England and Scotland (during Union of Crowns), Great Britain and United Kingdom:
- James II and VII of England and Scotland (deposed during the Glorious Revolution: his fleeing the country was regarded as an abdication by the Parliament)
- Charles I of England and Scotland (deposed during the Civil War, executed in 1649)
- James II, King of England (deposed in 1689 in the Glorious Revolution)
- Edward VIII (abdicated in 1936 as King of the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth Realms)

England (and its predecessor Kingdoms):
- Ceawlin, King of Wessex (deposed in 592)
- Cenwalh, King of Wessex (deposed)
- Hlothhere, King of Kent (exiled in 685)
- Centwine, King of Wessex (abdicated in 686)
- Caedwalla, King of Wessex (abdicated in 688)
- Saebbi, King of Essex (abdicated in 694)
- Aethelred, King of Mercia (abdicated in 704)
- Eadwulf I, King of Northumbria (deposed in 705)
- Coenred, King of Mercia (abdicated in 709)
- Offa, King of Essex (abdicated in 709)
- Ceolwulf, King of Northumbria (first deposed, then abdicated in 739)
- Ine, King of Wessex (abdicated in 726)
- Beornred, King of Mercia (deposed and flead in 757)
- Sigeberht of Wessex (deposed in 757)
- Wiglaf, King of Mercia (deposed)
- Aethelwaldm King of Northumbria (deposed in 765)
- Eadberht, King of Northumbria (abdicated in died 768)
- Sigeric, King of Essex (abdicated in 798)
- Sigered, King of Essex (abdicated by ceding his Kingdom to Wessex)
- Alhred, King of Northumbria (deposed and went into exile)
- Aethelred I, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Osred II, King of Northumbria (deposed and went into exile)
- Osbald, King of Northumbria (went into exile)
- Eardwulf, King of Northumbria (deposed in 806)
- Eadberht III, King of Kent (deposed Coenwulf of Mercia)
- Ceolwulf I of Mercia, King of Kent and Mercia (deposed in 823)
- Baldred, King of Kent (expelled in 825 by Aethelwulf of Wessex)
- Burgred, King of Mercia (deposed in 874)
- Aelfwynn, Lady (Queen) of the Mercians (deposed in 918)
- Aethelred II, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Amlaib Cuaran, King of Northumbria (deposed, later regained his Throne)
- Eric Bloodaxe, King of Northumbria (deposed)
- Aethelwulf, King of Wessex (gave up his power in favour of his son, Aethelbald)
- Edward II, King of England (forced to abdicate in 1327)
- Richard II, King of England (deposed 1399)
- Henry VI, King of England (deposed in 1461, reinstated in 1470, deposed again in 1471)
- Edward IV, King of England (deposed in 1470, reinstated in 1471)
- Edward V, King of England (deposed in 1483 by being proclaimed illegitimate)

Scotland:
- Duncan II, King of Scots (deposed in 1094)
- Donald III, King of Scots (deposed in 1097)
- John, King of Scots (deposed in 1296)
- Mary, Queen of Scots (deposed in 1567)

Ireland:
- Blacaire mac Gofrith, King of Dublin (deposed)
- Amlaib Cuaran, King of Dublin (deposed at least twice)
- Godred Crovan King of Dublin (driven out of Dublin)
- Domnall mac Muirchertaig, King of Dublin (deposed at least twice)
- Hasculf Thorgillsson, King of Dublin (deposed)
- Mael Seachlainn II, High King of Ireland (deposed in 1002, restored in 1014)

Thanks for taking the time to post all that information, Artemisia. :flowers:

When I come to think of it (after reading your post), quite a lot of our English monarchs have abdicated. I also never knew that Edward II abdicated in favor of Edward III. This is all very interesting!

P.S Sorry moderators for going off-topic, maybe this post could be moved into the 'abdications' thread instead.
 
Thanks for taking the time to post all that information, Artemisia. :flowers:

When I come to think of it (after reading your post), quite a lot of our English monarchs have abdicated. I also never knew that Edward II abdicated in favor of Edward III. This is all very interesting!

P.S Sorry moderators for going off-topic, maybe this post could be moved into the 'abdications' thread instead.

Edward II was 'deposed' by his wife who invaded the country with her lover to take the throne from him. He was imprisoned but was still The King. The Church argued that to execute him for treason, after a due trial wasn't possible as he was an anointed king. That is when Parliament made the decision to depose him and asked him to accept that deposition. He had no choice - he was deposed, imprisoned and the only chance to live was to accept life imprisonment. He was probably murdered at Berkeley Castle on the orders of his wife and Mortimer - her lover.

I really don't think 'abdication' is the right word for a King who had no choice but was already a prisoner of his enemies when forced to agree to 'abdicate' in favour of his 14 year old son who was tightly controlled by his own mother.
 
Edward II was 'deposed' by his wife who invaded the country with her lover to take the throne from him. He was imprisoned but was still The King. The Church argued that to execute him for treason, after a due trial wasn't possible as he was an anointed king. That is when Parliament made the decision to depose him and asked him to accept that deposition. He had no choice - he was deposed, imprisoned and the only chance to live was to accept life imprisonment. He was probably murdered at Berkeley Castle on the orders of his wife and Mortimer - her lover. I really don't think 'abdication' is the right word for a King who had no choice but was already a prisoner of his enemies when forced to agree to 'abdicate' in favour of his 14 year old son who was tightly controlled by his own mother.
Whether or not it's the best word, it is the one that's used here. There are 2 monarchs (Richard II and Edward II) who were forced to abdicate when they were being deposed. They were both later murdered. A third monarch (James II) was deposed but his fleeing was called to be an abdication. A fourth monarch (Edward VII) was forced to abdicate in order to marry the woman he loved. There are, as Artemisia pointed out, many other monarchs who were deposed, and instances where Scottish, Irish, and Anglo-Saxon monarchs also abdicated (or were forced to abdicate when they were being deposed). Abdication doesn't necessarily mean willingly.

With that in mind, we've discussed the idea of whether or not HM will abdicate of her own volition. We haven't really discussed the idea of whether or not HM will be forced into abdicating. Thoughts? Will her age be used against her here?
 
I don't think her age will be used against her, as long he's able to perform her primary duties.

Of course the numbers of duties performed by the Prince of Wales will increase more and more.

By the time the Queen has pass the 100 years, she'll certainly not be a full time royal. Maybe monthly audiences with the Prime Minister (a weekly phone or video conference will be the better for a women with a very advanced age). And a feel public appearences, like in the Trooping the Color.

But she'll never abdicate. This is for sure.
 
^^^^^
Ish, it was Edward VIII who abdicated to marry not E7.
No, I cannot see age being used as a reason to force HM to abdicate. If her health failed to the extent she was unable to carry out her role a Regency would come in to play if necessary.
 
^^^^^
Ish, it was Edward VIII who abdicated to marry not E7.
No, I cannot see age being used as a reason to force HM to abdicate. If her health failed to the extent she was unable to carry out her role a Regency would come in to play if necessary.

Did I say 7? Typo, I meant 8.
 
I don't see Queen Elizabeth stepping down or retiring any time soon. As she gets older I see Prince Charles taking on more and more responsibilities perhaps. Unless that is something she wants to do, I don't think anyone should pressure her into doing this (I doubt anyone would). She is of the old school that you are a monarch for life.
 
I just hope that if The Queen ever decided to let Charles take over of role due to an illness or something, people wouldn't give her flack for doing so. I think people have to be realistic and realize that it may come a time (I hope and pray not soon) that Her majesty won't be able to carry on her role as Monarch. It's not about turning her back on her duty as Queen or anything like that. She's getting older and if she feels like it's time to take it easy, then I think she should be allowed to do it.

I do admire her strength, spirit, courage and determination to carry on serving her people. although I'm an American, I think it's important to sit back appreciate her service while we still can.
 
The Queen won't give up her constitutional duties to anyone.

Charles will only take over in the following circumstances:

1. His mother passes away
2. His mother is incapacitated mentally and unable to continue, in which case a Regency will be declared with Charles as Regent.

Should she be physically unable to perform those ceremonial duties he will take on those duties but she would still be The Queen e.g. he already does a number of investitures for her along with overseas tours and is usually heavily involved in State Visits etc.
 
The Queen won't give up her constitutional duties to anyone.

Charles will only take over in the following circumstances:

1. His mother passes away
2. His mother is incapacitated mentally and unable to continue, in which case a Regency will be declared with Charles as Regent.

Should she be physically unable to perform those ceremonial duties he will take on those duties but she would still be The Queen e.g. he already does a number of investitures for her along with overseas tours and is usually heavily involved in State Visits etc.

That's what I meant. If The Queen is unable to continue on, Charles will take over as Regent. I'm just pointing out that she's getting older and there may be a time where she can't continue on, due to illness or something.
 
Edward II was 'deposed' by his wife who invaded the country with her lover to take the throne from him. He was imprisoned but was still The King. The Church argued that to execute him for treason, after a due trial wasn't possible as he was an anointed king. That is when Parliament made the decision to depose him and asked him to accept that deposition. He had no choice - he was deposed, imprisoned and the only chance to live was to accept life imprisonment. He was probably murdered at Berkeley Castle on the orders of his wife and Mortimer - her lover.

I really don't think 'abdication' is the right word for a King who had no choice but was already a prisoner of his enemies when forced to agree to 'abdicate' in favour of his 14 year old son who was tightly controlled by his own mother.


After I read your post, I agree with you. :flowers:
 
The Queen won't give up her constitutional duties to anyone.

Charles will only take over in the following circumstances:

1. His mother passes away
2. His mother is incapacitated mentally and unable to continue, in which case a Regency will be declared with Charles as Regent.

Should she be physically unable to perform those ceremonial duties he will take on those duties but she would still be The Queen e.g. he already does a number of investitures for her along with overseas tours and is usually heavily involved in State Visits etc.

^^ITA Bertie, I could not have said it better. And long may it continue to be so. England will not see her like again. Nor for that matter, any other monarchy.
 
Will abdication be rule rather than exception after Prince Charles has become King?
 
I admit I knew diddly about declaring a Regency.
According to Wikipedia (Regency Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the Regency Act of 1937 dacares the following will happen if the monarch is incapacitated or under the age of 21:

  • A regent is declared chosen as the next over 21 year old in line of succession, living in the UK and eligible under the Act of Settlement of 1701 (non RC, etc.)
  • The Regent gets the help of the Counselors of State. Current counselors are the adult spouse of the monarch and the next four adults in line of succession: The Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales and The Duke of York. See - The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Government > Counsellors of State
This was interesting. Does anyone know what happens in a regency if the spouse of the monarch is under 21? I know it won't happen, but I did wonder about this?
 
No. The British people tend to see abdication as "giving up", IMO. This view has been reinforced by HMQ and has become deeply embedded.

It has been many years since we had a sick and declining monarch so it is new territory to even think about a Regency.
 
I admit I knew diddly about declaring a Regency.
According to Wikipedia (Regency Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the Regency Act of 1937 dacares the following will happen if the monarch is incapacitated or under the age of 21:

  • A regent is declared chosen as the next over 21 year old in line of succession, living in the UK and eligible under the Act of Settlement of 1701 (non RC, etc.)
  • The Regent gets the help of the Counselors of State. Current counselors are the adult spouse of the monarch and the next four adults in line of succession: The Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales and The Duke of York. See - The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Government > Counsellors of State
This was interesting. Does anyone know what happens in a regency if the spouse of the monarch is under 21? I know it won't happen, but I did wonder about this?

I expect that the Regent would be the most senior royal available (that is position, experience and age). Existing examples would be Andrew or Anne.
 
I admit I knew diddly about declaring a Regency.
According to Wikipedia (Regency Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the Regency Act of 1937 dacares the following will happen if the monarch is incapacitated or under the age of 21:

  • A regent is declared chosen as the next over 21 year old in line of succession, living in the UK and eligible under the Act of Settlement of 1701 (non RC, etc.)
  • The Regent gets the help of the Counselors of State. Current counselors are the adult spouse of the monarch and the next four adults in line of succession: The Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales and The Duke of York. See - The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Government > Counsellors of State
This was interesting. Does anyone know what happens in a regency if the spouse of the monarch is under 21? I know it won't happen, but I did wonder about this?

It's possible, although highly unlikely. On the one hand it means that the underage monarch is already married, and on the other hand it means that the of age but not of sound mind and/or body monarch is married to someone under the age of 21. I would assume, in either case, that the spouse would not be made a Counselor of State, presumably being replaced by the fifth adult in line of succession over the age of 21 until they come of age.
 
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands will have the pleasure of seeing (and participating in) her son's coronation. Instead of plainly giving up she is the living link of continuation. I cannot imagine that no other Monarch would want to have the same pleasure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom