The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:16 PM
BritishRoyalist's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 777
That what I said in a earlier post or something similar. She will never abdicate but I could see some sort of Regency happening with Charles taking taking on more and Elizabeth in the back ground after she turns 90 . I have to say we been blessed with a pretty special queen for so long (61 Years and pushing 90) It is going to feel a little off after she dies. Kind of like when Victoria died, most people's had never knew another Queen/King when she died .
__________________

__________________
Long Live the Queen!! The Real Queen of Hearts!
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:18 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,664
The important thing at that time will be not to confuse longevity with greatness.
and not to pay attention to social media.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:24 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,922
I too think Charles will be an excellent King, but I am torn. I admire QEII so much and I am not of an age to remember any other monarch for Britain. In my mind, I equate Elizabeth II with England itself. And as another poster stated it's going to be a jolt when she is gone...and not only for Britain and the Commonwealth.

It's the way I felt when John Paul II's long pontificate was winding down...I dread it.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:27 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Shewill be saying "I want Charles to be King"
She will not want,cepe. According to her principles, if she wants to remain Queen for life, why she will want, or say she wants Charles to be the King..
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Monarchy is not a popularity contest - you take what comes next.
Exactly, and a little more extension to that..
The next comes only after the present monarch passes away, or more correctly, when the present reign ends..
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Duty is not supposed to be a millstone round anyone's neck - either the giver or receiver.
Did the Queen or Prince Philip ever say or do anything to indicate that they feel this as a "millstone" around their necks?
If you are talking health/physical stamina, that is totally subjective. One person may not be as active in 70s, as another is in 90s..
Right now they are doing things only what they are very comfortable with.
They are taking breaks from Jubilees/Commonwealth Services/Foreign Tours/Investitures, whenever health is not permitting them, right..
Its not like they are puffing and panting at engagements with an intensivist and a CPR machine right by the side..
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
If she has any care at all about the monarchy, then she will really step back (probably not abdicate) and give Charles the main stage.
Do you think there is even a need advise the Queen about that. Long back she crossed the stage where she has to worry about her personal popularity or her appearance on front pages. Her every action, thought and strategy will be for the betterment of her successors..So she will definitely do whatever is best..
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:39 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
She will not want,cepe. According to her principles, if she wants to remain Queen for life, why she will want, or say she wants Charles to be the King..

Vrish - read my post - I said IF she abdicated then she would be saying she wanted Charles to be King

Exactly, and a little more extension to that..
The next comes only after the present monarch passes away, or more correctly, when the present reign ends..

This is your view - you have said its the only word in the royal dictionary you don't like - you are entitled to your opinion, and so am I



Did the Queen or Prince Philip ever say or do anything to indicate that they feel this as a "millstone" around their necks?

It may be a millstone for everyone else - she and Philip are not the only ones to consider. It can limit progress.

Putting forward an alternative view is healthy

Frankly she has painted herself into a corner. If she wanted out, she cant do it. Just another perspective.


If you are talking health/physical stamina, that is totally subjective. One person may not be as active in 70s, as another is in 90s..
Right now they are doing things only what they are very comfortable with.
They are taking breaks from Jubilees/Commonwealth Services/Foreign Tours/Investitures, whenever health is not permitting them, right..
Its not like they are puffing and panting at engagements with an intensivist and a CPR machine right by the side..

No comment

Do you think there is even a need advise the Queen about that. Long back she crossed the stage where she has to worry about her personal popularity or her appearance on front pages. Her every action, thought and strategy will be for the betterment of her successors..So she will definitely do whatever is best..
There is always a need to advise - whether the advice is taken is a personal choice

I believe she needs to be seen to actively hand the stage over - not just allow it to drift by necessity. In other words - positive action.

Thanks for your comments, Vkrish - interesting stuff.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:51 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,718

I assumed that you would have a poll more up to date than one from 6 months ago.

Polls change and the questions are important as well as the source.

After the Jubilee last year Charles was preferred as King to William and six months later that changed and will change again.

In 30 years the people will want the baby to be king ahead of William if he is still waiting or want William to abdicate - as they did 30 years ago - wanted The Queen to abdicate for Charles and Diana.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 05-05-2013, 06:55 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkrish View Post
I dont want to deviate away from the topic.. But I would just make a small point..
You simply cant blame Diana for that. She was nothing, really nothing.
..

I can and do.

Please do not tell someone what they can and can't do - it is bad manners.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and views and mine is simple:

The royal family were not a soap opera before Diana and they have been ever since she appeared on the scene.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 05-05-2013, 07:00 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Ok cepe, as you said, your opinions are yours, and my opinions are mine..
Lemme reply you..


It may be a millstone for everyone else - she and Philip are not the only ones to consider. It can limit progress.

Ok so you mean you are talking for other monarchs also..Then Queen Margrethe cancelled her State Visit to Chile, and it was downgraded to Official Visit by CP couple for health reasons..Was there any complaint? No.
King JC did not take many official engagements due to multiple surgeries sin recent months. Was there any complaint?(Not about scandals..solely about King's functioning). NO..Because in both cases the heirs fully stood for them and things went on as normally as they should have been. Do note that both are age-related problems, which may attract similar calls for "rest" and "time with grandchildren"..
But that didnt make QM2and KJC feel the "millstone" right. They still stay,Things just go on..


I believe she needs to be seen to actively hand the stage over - not just allow it to drift by necessity. In other words - positive action.

There is nothing like "actively handing over the stage"..in fact there is no stage as such, to hand over.The only thing that can be handed over is the "reins of a nation" and only and only the Dutch do that (and GD of Lux, if you count).
And if you want the Queen to announce the nation, "from now all important things will be taken care of PoW", it will look so unnecessary and irrelevant.
It just happens automatically, and people will know it, understand it and accept it.
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:27 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,537
Past the point when they were absolute monarchs, they are a soap opera. They add what they add and if they are not there the nation would go on, merrily. Diana is long gone, but she is remembered for good or bad, probably for a very long time. The queen will not "retire" because she has some idea that this ordained by "God". Her sister, Princess Margaret, actually, believed that. So, when they all get past this nonsense, decisions can be made.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
^^^
Again Diana has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 05-05-2013, 08:56 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,664
If you don't want this thread shut down - please get back to the subject of QEII and possible abdication.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 05-06-2013, 06:39 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I am able to identify when - a time - when the nature of the royal family changed from a serious institution to a soap opera and that change took place when Diana entered.
What has hit me is the fact that it was the time and not so much Diana as the catalyst of the perception of the BRF. With the 90s came the birth of personal computers and cell phones readily available to the masses and this is the main cause of the change in how we look at the Royal Family. They didn't change. The world did. When Queen Juliana of the Netherlands abdicated in favor of Beatrix in 1980, there wasn't a TRF to have a world wide forum to discuss whether or not Elizabeth II would think of abdicating as she grew older. With Beatrix's, every little detail was instantaneous with social media and internet live coverage and extensive discussions in various threads here even on every aspect imaginable from finery to facial expressions and historical meanings to hairdos. With the information readily available to us at a touch of a keystroke, we have more information (for better or worse) than ever at our fingertips.

One thing remains a constant in the UK and that is its monarchy. It is rich in its heritage and its traditions and it is the glue that gives a sense of pride and continuity. Small changes have been made such as buses instead of carriages at royal weddings and we don't see so many tiaras and white tie events as we used to but the main core of pomp, circumstance and tradition remain down to some of even the ages old traditions of the Opening of Parliament.

I don't think that Elizabeth II will ever even think of the possibility of an abdication. Its just not a feasible option in any form for her. She's Queen until she draws her last breath. She's also very much aware (perhaps even more so than any one of us) of how the world is changing and that in itself would inspire her to try and hold onto and maintain the heritage she has given her entire life to serve.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 05-06-2013, 03:16 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Okay, so back to the topic of the Queen and abdication.

I think the issue of why the Queen won't abdicate comes down to a few things:

1. There is no British tradition of abdication. This is not like in the Netherlands where the majority of monarchs have abdicated. Only 4 English/British monarchs have abdicated - 2 were forced to do so, 1 was pronounced as having done so by fleeing the country, and 1 did so willingly but was then essentially exiled by his family. Mary, Queen of Scots was also forced to abdicate. We would have to go back to the pre-Alfred the Great kings in order to see one who abdicate willingly without negative repercussions.

2. HM was 10 when her uncle abdicated. This is a really influential age, and that crisis had a profound impact on the rest of her life. The Queen was raised by three people who had very strong opinions on the issue of abdication: her grandmother, Queen Mary, who refused to so much as meet the woman that her son had abdicated for, her father, George VI, who was forced to bear this great burden of being a monarch because of his brother, and her mother, HMQM, who would go on to blame the abdication for her husband's death (however wrong she may have been to do so).

3. When HM was 21 she declared "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." Essentially, at the age of 21 she dedicated her life to the service of her realms and her subjects. More than 60 years later she has shown that she does not regret this dedication, and just last year she renewed it, saying "I dedicate myself anew to your service...." While she may not have entirely known what she was doing at the age of 21, she certainly did at the age of 86.

4. HM has shown that despite her age she is still very capable of continuing on in her role. She may have had to reduce the number of her engagements, and may not be able to travel as much, but she is still capable of performing the role of monarch. She is still able to do the red boxes, the meetings with the Prime Minister, the state engagements. The rest, as much as we might enjoy them more, are frills that do not have to be carried out by her.

5. It is often believed that by not abdicating the Queen is showing that she does not have confidence in the abilities of her son and heir. This is actually far from the truth. We know that Queen Victoria didn't have faith in her son and heir, the future Edward VII, because she refused to allow him to have anything to do with the ruling of the country. He did not see the red boxes, he did not partake in any of Victoria'a duties. She did not think him capable of ruling and thus did not train him for his future role. The same cannot be said of Charles. He has a part in the red boxes and the official duties. Sure, the Queen has not officially handed him the reigns, but she has shown confidence in his abilities to reign one day because she has taken the time to teach him.

I do think that if there were ever a real demand for the Queen to abdicate, either in favour of Charles (or someone else) or to abolish the monarchy entirely, she would do so. HM governs by the grace of God and the will of the people. If at any point in her reign she has considered abdicating, however briefly, I think it would not be because of a desire to retire or lay down her duty, but rather out of a desire to preserve the future of the monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 05-07-2013, 09:00 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Posts discussing the long-term impact of the Diana years have been moved to the Diana's Legacy thread.

Warren
British Forums moderator
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 05-07-2013, 12:52 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,379
Thank you, Warren!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 05-07-2013, 05:08 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,664
We have had a good, lively debate over the past few days - threw some pebbles in the pond and the resultant ripples were good! I think what came out of it is that HMQ wont abdicate and that Charles needs to be seen to be her choice, and that she will reduce her engagements.

I think that Richard Palmer of the Express has been paying attention. Here is his latest piece on the Queen's decision not to go to CHOGM

The historic palace announcement that shows the Queen is struggling | Richard Palmer | Columnists | Comment | Daily Express
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #537  
Old 05-07-2013, 05:26 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
This is not totally shocking, right..Eventually such things will keep increasing..
Actually it will soften the path for Prince Charles to automatically become the head of Commonwealth when the QUeen passes away..
__________________
The only word I hate in the Royal Dictionary - ABDICATION
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 05-07-2013, 07:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 868
This article is from Time Magazine. Obviously nothing new, but it I think we will see a spate of articles on this subject over the next few days because of the opening on Parliament.

The Queen’s Era Is Drawing to an End as Prince Charles Assumes New Royal Duties | TIME.com
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 05-07-2013, 08:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco View Post
Whether the Queen abdicates or not (she wont) , isn't really the issue. Charles is almost 65, he is looked upon by many younger people as being part of the old guard. You either like him or you don't. I don't think anyone can really know the state of HM's health but the longer she reigns, the more damage it does to Charles when he eventually does become King.
They said the same thing about King Edward VII, and he proved that those people were wrong, doing an excellent job as Monarch.

Royals are more liked at old age, the Prince of Wales will be a wonderful and popular old King.

What's the problem having a 80 years old King at his ascension? Before that, we'll have a 100 years old Queen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 05-07-2013, 08:41 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,537
Nothing and like Charles he may reign for 10 years and leave little legacy.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, elizabeth ii, queen elizabeth ii, regency, retirement


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ABBA singing "Dancing Queen" for the Swedish King and Queen allison513 Royal House of Sweden 34 11-19-2011 02:24 AM
Queen Fawzia and Queen Soraya were they involved in their country's development ? FarahJoy The Imperial Family of Iran 15 12-15-2009 08:53 PM
Valdemar II the Victorious, Queen Dagmar and Queen Berengária norwegianne Danish Royal History 2 11-10-2007 05:54 PM




Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]