The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Duc_et_Pair]

In Australia and Canada, judges for example have a compulsory retirement age. Isn't that the case also in the UK?

In many countries also, public employees in general, including professors in public universities, have compulsory retirement ages, although that is not the case e.g. in US as Osipi said.

The question here is not compulsory retirement though, but plain common sense. A regency is not an offensive proposition and should not be a taboo when the Head of State is 95 and facing increasing limitations. The alternative of increasingly delegating royal functions to other family members while pretending that there is still a single functioning Head of State is unreasonable.

That is a true observation. The position of the head of state is not mandated by a democratic process but by birthright. But soit, so be it. But now duties of said head of state are even delegated to family.


Because we all love and admire Queen Elizabeth so much, it is okay. But looking at the topic with a little bit of distance show the anomalies in the situation.

 

[lucien]

As to the original question?NO,never!

 

[Durham]

If The Queen wants to have a regency in the UK then there wouldn't be any opposition. She will still remain the (grand)mother of the nation in the affections of her people & can appear as much or as little as she chooses.

In fact there doesn't even have to be a regency. Parliament can enact legislation giving a semi-regent certain limited powers only. The barest minimum. A kind of regency lite as it were.

 

[xenobia]

I have a few questions about how Counsellors of state are appointed. Is there a thread for that topic? (couldn't find one when I searched).

Can the queen appoint people not in line of succession as Counsellors of state? (Camilla and Cathrine comes to mind). And can she chose to include Anne and Edward as counsellors even if Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of them in the line of succession?

 

[Excalibur]

I have a few questions about how Counsellors of state are appointed. Is there a thread for that topic? (couldn't find one when I searched).

Can the queen appoint people not in line of succession as Counsellors of state? (Camilla and Cathrine comes to mind). And can she chose to include Anne and Edward as counsellors even if Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of them in the line of succession?

That thread is here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/counsellors-of-state-7928.html

 

[Durham]

From The Guardian:

Nothing new really. Interesting all the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...een-abdicate-70-years-prince-charles-monarchy

He does talk about the abdication of Queen Beatrix as a positive event & explains his reasoning.

 

[Claire]

As to the original question? NO ,never!

If you had asked me this question last year - even six months ago I would have agreed. Now I think we are heading for an abdication or regency.

I think the Queen is tired and I also think that she feels she is letting people down by not been able to do her duties. Between covid and her illness at the beginning of the year - I think she feels that she is physically no longer fit for the job. The Queen is a big believer in that you need to be seen to be believed.

 

[Denville]

She has managed to do the job for the past 2 years even when unalbe to go out and mingle.. and she has seemed (while frail) quite bright and chipper, in spite of losing Philip. Unless she really really got ill and bedridden, she's not going to give up.

 

[muriel]

From The Guardian:

Nothing new really. Interesting all the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...een-abdicate-70-years-prince-charles-monarchy

He does talk about the abdication of Queen Beatrix as a positive event & explains his reasoning.

I thought he laid out his case well.

 

[Osipi]

If you had asked me this question last year - even six months ago I would have agreed. Now I think we are heading for an abdication or regency.

I think the Queen is tired and I also think that she feels she is letting people down by not been able to do her duties. Between covid and her illness at the beginning of the year - I think she feels that she is physically no longer fit for the job. The Queen is a big believer in that you need to be seen to be believed.

I still do not think the Queen will ever abdicate her responsibilities to the monarchy. As long as she can do her red boxes and hold meetings with her PM weekly, she'll continue on. However, I also believe that the Queen may feel that it's her responsibility as monarch to oversee and ensure that the transition between monarchs go as smoothly as possible and that will be her focus. We're already seeing this happen and it's been happening for quite a while now. She's quietly been handing more and more over to Charles and William and she's seeing they're more than ready to step in to continue the workings of the monarchy going forward. She's actively been putting her stamp of approval on Camilla not only being Queen Consort but has recognized her service to the crown over the years.

I can attest to the fact that as we grow older, we do get the sense of things drawing to a close and that we no longer can do what we used to do and start to get our affairs in order so there's no loose ends when our time comes to transition from this life. She's 95 and I'm as old as her reign is and all I can really think is that if I am fortunate to live as long as she has, the way things are going here, I'll most likely be, at 95, drooling in my pudding somewhere and talking to my imaginary dog.

She most likely feels that she will never abdicate her duties to crown and country and it's her role now to ensure that the transition goes smoothly into the next reign. Charles will do whatever is needed to take the load off his mother and allow her to rest and he'll take care of whatever is needed to take the load off of her. The entire "Team Windsor" is involved in this. Thankfully, though, the chaff has been separated from the wheat and what remains is a strong support system both in the workings of the monarchy and as a family.

 

[Durham]

I thought he laid out his case well.

Yes I agree he did. He's always been one of the better Guardian contributors. He does have a grasp of historical context unlike many of them.

Not convinced she will, or indeed should, however.

 

[Mbruno]

From The Guardian:

Nothing new really. Interesting all the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...een-abdicate-70-years-prince-charles-monarchy

He does talk about the abdication of Queen Beatrix as a positive event & explains his reasoning.

I respect Sir Simon Jenkins, but I still think that the peculiar constitutional status of the Queen in the Commonwealth realms makes abdication impractical or a complex proposition to say the least.

A regency remains a more palatable option. Although the regency would not in principle extend to Australia or Canada, those realms can conceivably manage without a functioning monarch for a couple of years with their respective Governors General in place. A practical problem would arise only if, in addition to no monarch, there were no Governor General in office either during the regency.

As far as Canada is concerned, in the event that the office of Governor General is vacant, the Chief Justice of Canada may serve, however, as Administrator of the government for an indefinite period of time (pursuant to King George VI's Letters Patent of 1947) until there is a monarch in place to commission a new viceroy. So I don't see any difficulty.

In Australia, on the other hand, I understand that the longest serving state governor holds a dormant commission from the Queen to serve as interim administrator should the office of Governor General become vacant. My understanding is also that this dormant commission can be activated, pursuant to Queen Elizabeth II's Letters Patent of 2008, by a request for example of the Prime Minister of Australia, but I am not sure if the Queen would still have to be included in the loop at that point. Does anybody know?

In New Zealand, of course, everything is easier since the Constitution Act 1986 automatically enables a regent in the UK to assume the powers of the office of the Sovereign of the Realm of New Zealand while the regency is in force.

 

[Excalibur]

I think we find the answer to the original question in the Queen's Ascension Message. She renews her pledge from nearly 75 years ago to devote her whole life to the service of her country; she looks forward to continuing to serve; and Prince Charles will take over "in the fullness of time". The answer is an emphatic, NO.

 

[Susan D]

I don't think that QEII will ever abdicate and I think she's wrong to not abdicate for William.

 

[Durham]

I don't think that QEII will ever abdicate and I think she's wrong to not abdicate for William.

She can't abdicate & name a successor. Whoever is next in line according to the Act of Succession becomes monarch. That can only be altered by Parliament.

 

[Iluvbertie]

We have a clear answer to this question in the statement she made less than two weeks ago ...
https://www.royal.uk/queens-accession-day-message

As we mark this anniversary, it gives me pleasure to renew to you the pledge I gave in 1947 that my life will always be devoted to your service.

Everyone focussed on her comments later in the message about Camilla and overlooked that simple sentence at the beginning - a renewal of the pledge she gave as a 21 year old, before she married, became a mother and a Queen - to SERVE for LIFE.

She has renewed this pledge at both the 2012 and now the 2022 Jubilees.

 

[Excalibur]

We have a clear answer to this question in the statement she made less than two weeks ago ...
https://www.royal.uk/queens-accession-day-message

As we mark this anniversary, it gives me pleasure to renew to you the pledge I gave in 1947 that my life will always be devoted to your service.

Everyone focussed on her comments later in the message about Camilla and overlooked that simple sentence at the beginning - a renewal of the pledge she gave as a 21 year old, before she married, became a mother and a Queen - to SERVE for LIFE.

She has renewed this pledge at both the 2012 and now the 2022 Jubilees.

Exactly. When I read that first part of her message, I thought to myself, "well there's your answer."

 

[padams2359]

She will draw her last breath as The Reigning Monarch.

 

[Mbruno]

We have a clear answer to this question in the statement she made less than two weeks ago ...
https://www.royal.uk/queens-accession-day-message

As we mark this anniversary, it gives me pleasure to renew to you the pledge I gave in 1947 that my life will always be devoted to your service.

Everyone focussed on her comments later in the message about Camilla and overlooked that simple sentence at the beginning - a renewal of the pledge she gave as a 21 year old, before she married, became a mother and a Queen - to SERVE for LIFE.

She has renewed this pledge at both the 2012 and now the 2022 Jubilees.

She can technically continue to "serve" the people following an abdication. Princess Beatrix undertakes public duties as a member of the Dutch Royal House and has done so since she abdicated in 2013.

 

[Osipi]

Let me ask a question here. Does anyone actually believe that the Queen, at 95, is not able to fulfill the duties *required of the monarch only* at this time? Engagements and duties and public appearances are not a part of the *official monarch only* duties. She could rest as Queen forevermore at Windsor Castle and yet still fulfill the things only *she* can do at this time.

I believe those things to be:
1) The red boxes daily except for Christmas Day.
2) Have weekly meetings with her PM (as we've seen with Covid, it's been done via video and audio links and phone)
3) State Opening of Parliament. (In 2020 the State Opening did not take place, as Parliament had been in session since the December 2019 State Opening, and possibly because of the COVID-19 pandemic and general lockdown in the country.)

I'm sure if there are more, people that know more than I do will add to that list. So.... it *is* possible for the Queen to remain monarch until she is actually deemed incapable and by abdicating, it really wouldn't give her really that much more rest and respite than she already has physically.

I think if the Queen was truly of a mind to abdicate (in the manner of Princess Beatrix), a lot of the life would go out of her. It's her keeping active and on the ball and involved in her monarchy that is giving her (as it has for 70 years) her main purpose in life.

 

[Muhler]

I simply cannot see QEII abdicating now unless she is incapacitated by a stroke or something similar.

She is too close to the final stop for an abdication to make sense while she is still able to be out and about.
Not least when you consider that Charles is now past his prime and William is entering his prime. (The prime for a monarch IMO being 40-65. - In regards to experience, drive, stamina, willingness to implement reforms, widest public appeal and so on.)

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen has no duties that only she can perform.

Chairin the Privy Council to give official approval to all legislation, can be done by two CoSs, and can be done via video as has happened for the past two years.

She doesn't have to meet with the PM each week ... and only does so when Parliament is sitting - so about 35 times a year. She has had two 'in person' meetings in the past two years (once last year and the most recent one).

She doesn't have to Open Parliament as shown when she was pregnant with both Princes Andrew and Edward when she didn't do it and it still happened. It was opened by a non-royal as well.

She doesn't have to meet with incoming and outgoing High Commissioners and Ambassadors - can be done by CoSs as has happened in the past.

She doesn't have to read the red boxes - that is to keep her informed but it isn't a necessity and as was shown in 1936 the government isn't compelled to send all documents etc to the monarch. In 1936 many documents were deliberately withheld from the King and others were 'planted' to prove his lack of security.

Other than the 'reading the red boxes' and meeting with the PM these things have to be done but they don't have to be done by the monarch. She can appoint others to do them.

 

[wartenberg7]

If you had asked me this question last year - even six months ago I would have agreed. Now I think we are heading for an abdication or regency.

I think the Queen is tired and I also think that she feels she is letting people down by not been able to do her duties. Between covid and her illness at the beginning of the year - I think she feels that she is physically no longer fit for the job. The Queen is a big believer in that you need to be seen to be believed.

She just stated a week ago at her 70th anniversary of her accession she would carry on!

 

[Leopoldine]

I think we find the answer to the original question in the Queen's Ascension Message. She renews her pledge from nearly 75 years ago to devote her whole life to the service of her country; she looks forward to continuing to serve; and Prince Charles will take over "in the fullness of time". The answer is an emphatic, NO.

That sums everything up perfectly.

 

[wartenberg7]

She can technically continue to "serve" the people following an abdication. Princess Beatrix undertakes public duties as a member of the Dutch Royal House and has done so since she abdicated in 2013.

May be she could "technically" - but this is not how she understands her role and not like the british system works, so far.

 

[Denville]

May be she could "technically" - but this is not how she understands her role and not like the british system works, so far.

And at her age, if she did abdicate, she would harly do very much. I think that apart from her feeling of dedication to her sacred role as a royal, as she sees it, she also probalby feels that if she gave up working as much as she was able to, it would be the end of h er.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I don't think that QEII will ever abdicate and I think she's wrong to not abdicate for William.

Susan, Did you mean Prince Charles instead of William? Charles is the Prince of Wales and the first in line to the throne.

 

[Denville]

Susan, Did you mean Prince Charles instead of William? Charles is the Prince of Wales and the first in line to the throne.

No, I htink she means that the queen should abdicate nad let Willliam have the throne.

 

[Somebody]

No, I htink she means that the queen should abdicate nad let Willliam have the throne.

Most likely but of course that is not something the queen can decide.

I agree with the posters before who stated that the queen will not abdicate - something she clearly espoused again with the 'renewal' of her vows in her latest anniversary message.

 

[Denville]

Most likely but of course that is not something the queen can decide.

I agree with the posters before who stated that the queen will not abdicate - something she clearly espoused again with the 'renewal' of her vows in her latest anniversary message.

No but many people do think that the queen can do this..