The Queen: would she consider abdication or retirement? - Page 4

Lakshmi · #61 05-24-2007, 01:42 AM

I don't think queen Elizabeth would ever abdicate. But Charles may become a king in very old age...

Jo of Palatine · #62 05-24-2007, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakshmi

I don't think queen Elizabeth would ever abdicate. But Charles may become a king in very old age...

Let's hope we'll never see Charles as HRH The Prince Regent like George IV. (called "Prinny") had to be before his father died (king George III. had been ill for a long time and was unable to reign).

HRH Kerry · #63 05-24-2007, 06:48 AM

I don't believe she'll abdicate either especially since she has said that. I was just wondering how she would be styled. As I said earlier, King Leopold III was styled 'His Royal Highness Prince Leopold of Belgium, Duke of Brabant' until his death. He was however known socially as 'HM King Leopold III of the Belgians'.

I believe that Charles will be king but later on in his life. And who's to say for how long. Both of his parents are pretty senior in years, not to mention how long the Queen Mother lived.

Iain · #64 05-24-2007, 09:19 AM

I hope Charles does become King. I think he's a kindly person and would make a good monarch. As for Elizabeth's title if she gave up the throne, when someone abdicates they give up the title so she would become a Princess again. The title Queen mother is only used by widowed Queen consorts and never by Queen regnants.

**Warren** · #65 05-24-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

I'm not sure. I would think so, if the same standard is to apply for all abdications. I know that Queen Beatrix of the Netherland's mother abdicated in 1980 and was known as Princess Juliana until her death.

I guess it depends on which precedent is chosen. Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg remains Grand Duke in name, although his son is the reigning Sovereign.
Whatever the case, abdication for Queen Elizabeth seems inconceivable.

Iain · #66 05-28-2007, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

I guess it depends on which precedent is chosen. Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg remains Grand Duke in name, although his son is the reigning Sovereign.
Whatever the case, abdication for Queen Elizabeth seems inconceivable.

Luxembourg seems to have it's own way of doing things as the crown prince is known as Hereditery Grand Duke Guillaume.

MissSaga · #67 05-28-2007, 05:47 AM

Never, Never, Never,
She took a vow, and she will never absdicate.
I admire her so much, and I want to see her as queen of England, for many years to come, I am not comfortable with Charles as king, sorry

HRH Kerry · #68 05-28-2007, 06:30 AM

Why? Because she's been there for so long. Yes, she took a vow but we can never know what her she may actually do. She can't live forever and Charles may out live her and inherit the throne. What then?

HRH Kimetha · #69 05-28-2007, 04:48 PM

Besides being the reigning monarch and having the Duchy of Lancaster to pay her and her reign the upkeep, what else would she stand to loose, if she abdicated?

Sister Morphine · #70 05-28-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissSaga

Never, Never, Never,
She took a vow, and she will never absdicate.
I admire her so much, and I want to see her as queen of England, for many years to come, I am not comfortable with Charles as king, sorry

No offense, but you don't live in England. Why wouldn't you be comfortable with Charles as King? What he would do or would not do while he reigns, wouldn't affect either of us, seeing as we live in the States. We aren't even a Commonwealth nation.

Next Star · #71 05-28-2007, 06:44 PM

This same questions has been brought up many times no the queen will not abdicate nor will she will retire. She will remain queen until she dies. Charles will have to wait many years unil he becomes king. All live the queen.

Roslyn · #72 05-28-2007, 06:49 PM

IMO her Majesty can serve her people without being their reigning Queen, and it is arguable that she may be of better service to them by stepping down.

I have in mind a situation where, for example, she has a disabling stroke which affects her speech and renders her physically unable to perform her duties, or the onset of dementia with its gradual decline. Dementia presents its own challenges of course, with respect to capacity, but in its early stages she could make the decision to step down. Would it be in her subjects' interests to stubbornly stay there as Queen when she can't do her job, merely because of something she said when she was 21? I'm sure the Church would find a way to make it acceptable for her to be released from her obligations to it.

I would imagine it would be possible for her to continue to be known as Queen Elizabeth if she abdicated, since Queen is inferior to King.

It would also provide a nifty way for Camilla to be known as Princess Consort, because you couldn't have two Queens. Maybe some thought has already been given to this scenario.

Elspeth · #73 05-28-2007, 07:05 PM

I think that if she stayed as Queen but Charles became Prince Regent (even with the unfortunate memories associated with the title!), it would have much the same effects as if she stepped down, and it would honour her pledge to devote her whole life to her duty rather than having the appearance of retirement.

As already pointed out, it would avoid the monetary issues of who would pay for her in her position as an ex-monarch. Charles would get his income from the Duchy of Lancaster, William would get his from the Duchy of Cornwall, and extra provision would have to be made for the ex-Queen, whereas if a regency was set up I assume things would stay the same as they are now except that the Duchy of Lancaster might pay for some of Charles's expenses in his capacity as acting monarch.

Roslyn · #74 05-28-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think that if she stayed as Queen but Charles became Prince Regent (even with the unfortunate memories associated with the title!), it would have much the same effects as if she stepped down, and it would honour her pledge to devote her whole life to her duty rather than having the appearance of retirement.

As already pointed out, it would avoid the monetary issues of who would pay for her in her position as an ex-monarch. Charles would get his income from the Duchy of Lancaster, William would get his from the Duchy of Cornwall, and extra provision would have to be made for the ex-Queen, whereas if a regency was set up I assume things would stay the same as they are now except that the Duchy of Lancaster might pay for some of Charles's expenses in his capacity as acting monarch.

Yes, regency does make more sense.

I notice that once again the issue of avoiding the use of a title or name because of unfortunate memories associated with a particular holder has been raised. As I see it, by avoiding using the title the identification with that particular person becomes stronger, whereas if it is tackled head-on a new person can make his/her own mark on the postion and replace the previous bad associations with positive ones, or at least relegate them to their place in history. Charles could redefine Princes Regent and Kings Charles.