The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The Queen Emeritus, don't be ridiculous.

 

[Osipi]

I'm not sure she will abdicate but I do think the workload do get to her at times. She's been doing this job for a very long time and she's a pro. The problems that she may have at this age is pretty much masked by her since of duty and determination to keep on keeping on.

She is approaching 90 though and I think we have to prepare ourselves for when we really see the evidence of her stepping back.

I do think there is a time coming when Charles steps in for his mother and kind of takes over the majority of things for her and it will be without a regency too. We have to realize that the Duke of Edinburgh is now approaching 93 years on the 10th and even though he seems hale and healthy right now, I do think there will come the time when he does pass on and the Queen will go into a period of mourning as she well should. This is the natural time when we'll see the Queen scale back when she does return to public life but more and more will be falling on Charles' shoulders and at that time, I expect Charles to ask his William, Harry and Kate to do full time royal duties and engagements.

It then will seem like a natural passage of things in the monarchy but without any major declarations of abdication or declaring a regency or whatever.

 

[katmen]

I would say, that current HM and PoW wont abdicate, but first voluntary abdicating will be William because of age and need to have more dynamic monarchy in the future.

 

[Miss Hathaway]

The relevant legal point is that there is no need for her to abdicate for Charles to be put in charge. It suffices to appoint Charles as regent. Furthermore, as also noted by others on this board, abdications require a change in the line of succession, which has to be agreed by all Commonwealth realms. All realms that have recently felt necessary to pass domestic legislation to incorporate the new Succession to the Crown Act (i.e. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and several others, though not all realms) would presumably also have to pass an Abdication Act of their own, which could take a long time.

By contrast, there is already domestic legislation in force in the UK that provides for a regency in case the sovereign is incapacitated. Although the UK legislation doesn't bind the other realms, most of them think no action on their part is necessary as the sovereign's functions in the realms could be carried out by the Governor Generals (as they already ordinarily are).

Yes, this is what I see happening. The queen, unfortunately, seems to be aging rapidly, imo, and she is going to have to make concessions. But she will not abdicate and there is no need for her to do so.

 

[MARG]

Yes, this is what I see happening. The queen, unfortunately, seems to be aging rapidly, imo, and she is going to have to make concessions. But she will not abdicate and there is no need for her to do so.

I agree, she is aging but I am not sure what triggers your response of "aging rapidly". Is it a particular thing she has done or just the fact of her actual age of 88 that has done it?

 

[kbk]

The Queen will never abdicate, but I think there should be some kind of a legal action taken in case of her incapability of performing the duties and Charles and William taking her place. Some kind of a regency.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I don't believe in regencies. All the work for none of the credit. When and if it becomes time for the Queen to pass the torch I hope she is comfortable doing so.

 

[Miss Hathaway]

I agree, she is aging but I am not sure what triggers your response of "aging rapidly". Is it a particular thing she has done or just the fact of her actual age of 88 that has done it?

It seems to me that in the last year, the queen seems more fragile, more stooped over, more wrinkled and it kind of happened all at once.

 

[Osipi]

The Queen will never abdicate, but I think there should be some kind of a legal action taken in case of her incapability of performing the duties and Charles and William taking her place. Some kind of a regency.

I don't think she'll ever abdicate and although like most people, she ages as she grows older and I don't see it in the familial history (other than George III) that she'll ever become mentally incapacitated to the point of not being able to be the monarch. I think right now the BRF has all contingencies covered and we're going to see HM and Charles working as a team more and more. I think this is the symbolism shown with the PoW and DoC attending the State Opening of Parliament with HM and the DoE.

Should the Queen go into seclusion for a while mourning the passing of the DoE, Charles is ready to act in the stead of his mother in just about all that her public duties entail. I think the people of her realms and around the world respect and honor HM and the DoE enough to know that this would be great loss and not clamor they're not seeing the Queen. As monarch, HM can perform what is needed to be done in private. Queen Victoria mourned her Albert for quite a long time and there never was a regency I believe.

Basically though, what we need to do is just wait and watch and see what happens and when it happens. Nonagenarians these days are becoming more and more amazing. The DoE is still going strong. Betty White still works actively as an actress at 93 and George H.W. Bush celebrated his 90th by doing a tandem skydive. It could be another 10 years before we really need to discuss this topic.

 

[chelly]

Besides if I remember right the Queen Mother was active untill a year before she died.

I wonder what the Queen would say to all of this talk about her retiring or that she should because she is old.

 

[cepe]

Besides if I remember right the Queen Mother was active untill a year before she died.

I wonder what the Queen would say to all of this talk about her retiring or that she should because she is old.

She'd say that abdication is for wimps

 

[ladongas]

Besides if I remember right the Queen Mother was active untill a year before she died. ...

I seem to remember that it was said she gave a cocktail party a few weeks before she died! And that she wore a red dress.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen will never abdicate, but I think there should be some kind of a legal action taken in case of her incapability of performing the duties and Charles and William taking her place. Some kind of a regency.

The 'legal action' was taken in 1937 - The Regency Act.

Under that law IF the Queen is incapable of carrying out her duties temporarily or permanently, Charles will be Regent until she either recovers or dies.

To determine if a regency is necessary takes 3 out of 5 specified persons/positions e.g. the spouse of the monarch, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Archbishop of Canterbury to sign a letter to that effect to the PM - with appropriate medical advice - and then Charles would be declared Regent.

It is also clear in the Act that the regency is only as long as the monarch is incapable - and so there is a provision for the monarch to resume their position - as happened with George III when he recovered from his first bout of 'madness'.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't believe in regencies. All the work for none of the credit. When and if it becomes time for the Queen to pass the torch I hope she is comfortable doing so.

But what would you do if she fell off her horse and was in a coma - no way she could 'pass the torch' but if no provision for a Regency the country is in a state of suspended animation until she either recovers or dies.

A Regency is there to ensure that the government of the nation can continue if the monarch of the day is incapable for any reason.

I find it interesting that you make this point when George IV is probably better known as The Prince Regent than as King and he has an entire decade named after him 'The Regency'. Far from not getting the credit he is best known for his Regency than for being King.

 

[scooter]

She'd say that abdication is for wimps

Pretty much!

 

[cdngirl]

The. Queen. Will. Never. Abdicate.

This is not even a question to consider.Won't happen.

 

[Ish]

I don't believe in regencies. All the work for none of the credit. When and if it becomes time for the Queen to pass the torch I hope she is comfortable doing so.

Giraffe, I get the impression that you think there are a lot of regents who've simply been forgotten.

This isn't really true though. There aren't actually that many regents in English/British history to begin with, and they get about as much recognition as the monarchs (people remember them about as much as the monarchs; some more so than others).

George IV is the biggie, and he received both recognition in his time and in history (as Bertie pointed out, he's better remembered as Prince Regent than as king). George is the only person to serve as regent in the last 300 years. Before him you'd have to go back to Edward IV for another, and I wouldn't say that his regents have been forgotten, as they're the ones who really shaped his reign.

Richard III may be remembered more for usurping the throne than his role as regent, but it was that role that enabled him to usurp the throne so easily. Similarly, I think his father, the Duke of York, is remembered more for his attempts to usurp the throne than his time as regent, but he certainly got credit for it in his lifetime. As did the men who served as regent during Henry VI's minority (I honestly can't remember their names, but I know his uncles played a big role), and John of Gaunt is probably best remembered for being Richard II's regent (well, and fathering the House of Lancaster). Roger Mortimer served as regent during Edward III's reign and got so much credit for it he was executed once the king seized control. Prior to him there was the regents who served during the reign of Henry III, whose names I have also forgotten.

The thing with the regents is that some are remembered because they made a name for themselves and have a legacy - much like some of the monarchs are easily remembered similar reasons. If they made their name in their role as regent then the role is remembered (as with Mortimer or John of Gaunt), but if they made it elsewhere then the regent bit might be forgotten (as with the Duke of York or Richard III).

If Charles were to be made regent he would certainly get credit for it in his time, and anyone studying his life would know of it. He might not get credit for it in the greater scheme of popular history, but that would depend on what he did as regent. I think that (sadly) what Charles is going to be remembered for in a 100 years is going to be his marriage and it's failure above all else, just like Charles II is remembered most for his mistresses.

 

[Lee27]

The only way the Queen would consider abdicating would be in the face of a major terminal illness that totally incapacitated her. But even then, I think she would see Charles appointed regent. Duty has been ingrained into the Queen. She is not going to change. The world has changed around her. She remembers the 2 previous Dutch abdications and the media jumped on that band wagon in hopes of a Queen Diana. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now. Charles was raised with the same sense of duty, so he is not going to abdicate so the media will have better looking royal family to pursue. So the media just needs to get over it.

 

[Caracciolo]

The Queen abdicate, how absurd. How can anybody think such a thing!

 

[Jacknch]

One thing for sure, there will never be an abdication in order for a new, fresher, younger monarch to take over!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Queen abdicate, how absurd. How can anybody think such a thing!

People thought exactly the same about a Pope abdicating: how absurd... Or His Majesty Don Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón, King of glorious Spain: how absurd. They abdicated nonetheless.

The House of Windsor is more progressive and not at all paralyzed by conventions and traditions, given the fact that many royals divorced and remarried, that the Heir remarried a divorced lady, that royals married "simple" commoner ladies from just around the corner, that the ban royals marrying Catholics is lifted, etc. All this shows that also the British monarchy is moving on and adapting with times. I would not chisel in marble stone that the Queen will never abdicate.

 

[Queen Camilla]

In 1981, there were some papers requesting that she abdicate in favor of the young.

Did not happen then will not happen now.

 

[Osipi]

In 1981, there were some papers requesting that she abdicate in favor of the young.

Did not happen then will not happen now.

That had to be at the time of Charles and Di fever as that is the year they were married.

I honestly think that it is both the Queen's and the DoE's level of activity and involvement in the day to day fulfillment of the roles they have and the duties that they carry out that keeps them as young and spry as they currently are. I don't think either of them, for a minute, would give any of this up. It would be as asking them not to breathe.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The difference with the Spanish and Belgian abdications is of course also King Juan Carlos and King Albert II of the Belgians are suffering serious physical problems, and this for a long time. Anyone whom witnessed the abdication ceremony in the Royal Palace of Madrid will have seen how utterly frail Don Juan Carlos has become.

Queen Elizabeth II is blessed with a good health. Anyone will understand that having constant pain, physical displeasure and a poor condition will put a strain on anyone. All those abdications in the House of Nassau (the Netherlands and Luxembourg) where the Sovereign steps aside on the highest of approval to make a smooth step aside for a younger generation indeed seems total different to the recent abdications in Spain, Belgium and the Vatican.

 

[Excalibur]

The House of Windsor is more progressive and not at all paralyzed by conventions and traditions, given the fact that many royals divorced and remarried, that the Heir remarried a divorced lady, that royals married "simple" commoner ladies from just around the corner, that the ban royals marrying Catholics is lifted, etc. All this shows that also the British monarchy is moving on and adapting with times. I would not chisel in marble stone that the Queen will never abdicate.

Yes, the British monarchy may be moving on and adapting with the times, however HM's chief motivation as to whether or not she abdicates is NOT based on traditions and/or conventions. It is based on her personal belief and conviction that she reigns "by the Grace of God" and that her occupation of the throne is a life-long commitment, as evidenced by her now-famous vow. She will leave the throne when they remove her cold dead body from upon it. JMHO.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Dutch Kings and Queens are reigning by the grace of God as well (see the concept for every Dutch Act or Royal Decree, below). We may assume that Popes are reigning by the grace of God as well. Apparently they felt it as a grace of God as well to be able to abdicate...

Souce: Montesquieu Institute The Hague: http://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/9353202/g/1305_hoofdplaat.jpg

 

[Jacknch]

The Dutch Kings and Queens are reigning by the grace of God as well (see the concept for every Dutch Act or Royal Decree, below). We may assume that Popes are reigning by the grace of God as well. Apparently they felt it as a grace of God as well to be able to abdicate...

Souce: Montesquieu Institute The Hague: http://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/9353202/g/1305_hoofdplaat.jpg

Yes, I don't think reigning by the grace of God necessarily means one should feel obliged to reign until death. Even the personal vow QE2 made when she was Princess Elizabeth does not preclude reigning all her life, simply dedicating said life to the service of her country, which could be done whether reigning or not.

I think there are more subtle reasons why the Queen will not abdicate and it has nothing to do with the abdication crisis. It is more to do with health, fitness, ability etc. If these fail, then a regency can be enacted, so in any event abdication isn't the only option.

Interestingly, I have have every faith in the idea of a monarch abdicating in order for a younger, more robust, monarch to come to the throne, with new ideas, a fresh outlook etc etc. Obviously all our monarchs for the forceable future will be as old as the hills when they start their reigns, so it will be a very long time indeed before this country sees a younger king or queen again.

 

[Osipi]

The Dutch Kings and Queens are reigning by the grace of God as well (see the concept for every Dutch Act or Royal Decree, below). We may assume that Popes are reigning by the grace of God as well. Apparently they felt it as a grace of God as well to be able to abdicate...

Souce: Montesquieu Institute The Hague: http://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/9353202/g/1305_hoofdplaat.jpg

We also have to remember that in all the cases of abdication, it was primarily a personal decision. No one was forced to abdicate nor did they abdicate because they were expected to by such and such a date. We all pretty much know that HM's personal feelings are that she is Queen "by the grace of God" until her death.

 

[Kotroman]

Abdication has been a tradition among Spanish kings since the reign of Emperor Charles V, who abdicated in favour of his son, Philip II. Philip II then abdicated the thrones of the Netherlands in favour of his daughter. The rest of the Habsburg kings had no competent heir to follow them (all being mentally retarded, sickly and/or heavily inbred), so they did not abdicate. Then came the Bourbons in the 18th century, and the abdications became rampant. Philip V, Charles III, Charles IV, Isabella II and Alfonso XIII all abdicated. The only ones who did not abdicate were those who had no son or who died unexpectedly young.

Now compare that history with British history. How many abdications took place there?

You cannot really assume that Juan Carlos's abdication will affect Elizabeth at all. After all, the abdications of his predecessors had no effect on her predecessors.

 

[scooter]

^ much as some might wish in order to propel their favorite forward! Long live QEII the greatest asset the British empire will have in this century!