The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1021  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Don't underestimate the eventual impact of Prince Philip passing away. Her love, her spouse, her rock, her most trusted confidant of so unbelievably many years. It can have a profound effect on the surviving spouse and we all know the Queen is unmistakenably more and more frail.

I would not be surprised when the Queen indeed uses the Regency route to remain Sovereign but in daily life handing over the reins to her son Prince Charles.
It would make sense to me. No one, and I mean *no one* would expect the Queen not to go into a period of mourning for her beloved Philip if he should pass on before her. I don't know that she'd enact a regency but for all purposes, the everyday working of the monarchy would pass to Charles with the Queen remaining perhaps at Windsor still doing her boxes and the things a monarch *must* do but rest handed over to Charles.

I'm sure both the Queen and Philip are not ostriching and have thought about and made plans for just about anything that could happen. When you're in your 90s, you know that plans need to be made for the inevitable.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1022  
Old 08-13-2017, 08:00 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,070
"Mourning" means different things to differ people.

I, for one, and neighbor I am helping with memorial plans, both know we "mourn" best when we can keep busy.

For some of us, after we have touched base with family, assessed their needs, made plans for internment, keeping occupied is a relief. To settle back into our every day selves, where we make decisions, get things done and move forward outside of the death itself feels highly reassuring. I am sure a psychologist would speak to "gaining control" a a method of dealing with grief .

Unlike many here on this thread, I am quite sure HM has discussed and DECIDED the circumstances under which she would declare a regency and possibly even abdicate. She is a thoughtful and deliberate woman who has never shown a fear of the future. I'm betting she is facing the unknown with a clarity and objectivity that has marked her entire reign. JMO
__________________

__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #1023  
Old 08-13-2017, 08:15 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,098
The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

Philip's funeral is already planned. The Queen doesn't have to do that. Even if the Queen pulls a Victoria and retreats from public life. It doesn't mean that a regency will be invoked. Victoria went decades without doing much of anything after Albert died.

It's a different story if the Queen's physical health breaks down or if she has a stroke like Margaret did and she can no longer do the job anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #1024  
Old 08-13-2017, 10:14 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,015
this is my thought as well. She would IMO formally mourn for 3 months. She could use other means but Regency for a temporary period seems possible which could be extended.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1025  
Old 08-13-2017, 11:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,814
I don't believe there will be an official regency; the Queen will simply hand more duties over to Charles.
She is already doing that.
Who can blame her, after all this time?
But I think it will all be done quietly, and the status quo will continue.
Reply With Quote
  #1026  
Old 08-13-2017, 11:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I don't believe there will be an official regency; the Queen will simply hand more duties over to Charles.
She is already doing that.
Who can blame her, after all this time?
But I think it will all be done quietly, and the status quo will continue.
I agree, unless the Queen's health would deteriorate to the point she is having difficulties functioning, I think all that will change is Charles and William will gradually take on more duties as she winds things down. Seems like a good plan for a smooth transition.
Reply With Quote
  #1027  
Old 08-14-2017, 02:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
I don't believe there will be an official regency; the Queen will simply hand more duties over to Charles.
She is already doing that.
Who can blame her, after all this time?
But I think it will all be done quietly, and the status quo will continue.

I think the opposite. I do think she will ask for a formal Regency so she doesn't have to meet with the PM, attend the council meetings and read the boxes, which take her hours each day, along with any official correspondence.

This would be a win-win for HM - she remains as Queen, attends say Trooping the Colour and is cheered in the streets and seen for church services but the day to day work of the monarch is past to Charles - not some of it but all of it. He would meet the Ambassadors and High Commissioners, appoint the Lord Lts of the counties (except for Lancaster as they would remain with the Duke of Lancaster) and the mundane aspects of the monarch.

She gets to relax a bit and show her support for her son and heir (and given the press stories at the moment which are only going to get worse for him and Camilla in the next 2+ weeks some show of support for him wouldn't go amiss - from his mother at least. I don't expect to see any such show of support from the Princes - they have shown their colours all too clearly.)
Reply With Quote
  #1028  
Old 08-14-2017, 02:41 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,098
The Princes who have never said a negative word in public against their stepmother even though they know all about the collapse of their parents marriage and Camilla's role in it have shown their true colors? Because the didn't talk about their father when doing a documentary about their mother?
Reply With Quote
  #1029  
Old 08-14-2017, 03:11 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
Because they never talk about their father. It is always their mother - who has been dead for 20 years, who spent no more than six weeks a year with them and who they have made sure was the focus of a lot of media coverage this year with no thought to how this would affect their father.

They have constantly said they weren't given any support when their mother died. Who should have been giving them support - their father. By saying they were given no support they were saying their father wasn't there for them.

They said they were made to walk behind the coffin 'and no one should have been made to do that (Harry). Again who would have had the final say on that - Charles - so again they are saying Charles wasn't there for them.

They didn't need to mention him - by not mentioning him and saying what they did they showed their colours - they have turned on their father this year quite clearly and now Charles and Camilla are left to take the absolute vitriole of the public with the public believing the princes are fine with that. If they weren't they would have made some comment about their father being there for them - they are happy to see their father destroyed that much is clear.
Reply With Quote
  #1030  
Old 08-14-2017, 03:59 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,796
Let's get back to the topic of the thread - further posts inciting debate concerning relationships between members of the Royal Family will be deleted without notice.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1031  
Old 08-14-2017, 04:41 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,496
I think it would be good to have something in place for when she's simply too old to carry on.
Reply With Quote
  #1032  
Old 08-14-2017, 06:05 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,851
I am sure that arrangements for managing a Regency are all as well-planned as both the Queen and Prince Philip's funerals. These things are never left to chance in royal circles.

I do not think that HM is considering abdication but should Prince Philip die soon I am sure HM will observe more than 10 days official mourning as was mandated for HMQM.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1033  
Old 08-14-2017, 08:48 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,560
I think a formal regency is quite a possibility but it all depends IMO on how much Charles can or can not do without a Regency. Could the Queen simply become a back seat sovereign, meeting ministers, signing documents etc without all the fuss and tiring visits? Whilst she is mentally capable and alert there is no reason she could not still be sovereign.

The Queen's diary has very much been focussed in recent years on State events and things the Queen has to do. Yes there are still visits to charities etc but these are forming less of a part in her diary, she could cut back on these type of charity visits.

What would be interesting is to know what exactly could and could not be done without a Regency. For example, didn't the Queen miss the State Opening of Parliament when she was pregnant so she obviously doesn't have to attend in person without a Regency needed. Likewise the Queen could I assume send someone in her place to the Remembrance Day events - especially the concert on the Sat night (though I actually think the Cenotaph event at least would be one the Queen would always want to do).

I guess the point I am trying to make is there is a big difference between what the Queen has to do to keep the government working etc and what she does that actually is not constitutionally necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #1034  
Old 08-14-2017, 09:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I think a formal regency is quite a possibility but it all depends IMO on how much Charles can or can not do without a Regency. Could the Queen simply become a back seat sovereign, meeting ministers, signing documents etc without all the fuss and tiring visits? Whilst she is mentally capable and alert there is no reason she could not still be sovereign.

The Queen's diary has very much been focussed in recent years on State events and things the Queen has to do. Yes there are still visits to charities etc but these are forming less of a part in her diary, she could cut back on these type of charity visits.

What would be interesting is to know what exactly could and could not be done without a Regency. For example, didn't the Queen miss the State Opening of Parliament when she was pregnant so she obviously doesn't have to attend in person without a Regency needed. Likewise the Queen could I assume send someone in her place to the Remembrance Day events - especially the concert on the Sat night (though I actually think the Cenotaph event at least would be one the Queen would always want to do).

I guess the point I am trying to make is there is a big difference between what the Queen has to do to keep the government working etc and what she does that actually is not constitutionally necessary.
My understanding is that a regency means a regency. i.e. once a regency s in place, the Queen is declared incapable and all royal prerogatives and powers are transferred to the Regent. I believe there are only a few exceptions set out in law. For example, a Regent is not allowed to give royal assent to a bill changing the succession to the Crown
Reply With Quote
  #1035  
Old 08-14-2017, 11:26 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,098
Stuff like Remembrance Day isn't mandatory to attend. Same with State opening. Some one else can be deputized to read the speech. Victoria only did it in person a handful of times. Basically the legislation signing is the only thing that has to been done.
Reply With Quote
  #1036  
Old 08-14-2017, 01:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 3,814
If a regency had been planned, I'm betting it is on hold until the furor over these tapes dies down!
The press is reporting that the public has turned against Camilla because of these revelations, so the Queen may put everything on the back burner for a while.
Reply With Quote
  #1037  
Old 08-14-2017, 01:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,421
The simple fact is that, in reality, there is absolutely no need for a regency at this time. Whatever plans may have been made are in place solely in the case that something should happen and a regency be needed.

It has nothing to do with "popular opinion" or tapes or Aunt Gertie's cat that predicts the stock market ups and downs. Its called being prepared for whatever may come. When we think about it, if plans for the Queen Mum's funeral hadn't already been in place (and I believe, even practiced), the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales wouldn't have been able to be executed so well after her sudden death.

People may dislike Charles and Camilla and the horse they rode in on but the reality is that private lives and their successes and failures in relationships have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to carry the responsibilities of the monarchy and do it well. IMO, I think they will be well accepted as King and Queen when the time comes.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1038  
Old 08-14-2017, 02:09 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
My understanding is that a regency means a regency. i.e. once a regency s in place, the Queen is declared incapable and all royal prerogatives and powers are transferred to the Regent. I believe there are only a few exceptions set out in law. For example, a Regent is not allowed to give royal assent to a bill changing the succession to the Crown
I feel some British posters shiver by the idea of Queen Elizabeth II going into a regency, but it is not that dramatic. Look at Norway.

From 25 November 2003 to 12 April 2004:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's treatment for cancer and revovery.

From 29 March 2005 until 7 June 2005:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's heart surgery and recovery.

The execution of the royal prerogatives was in hands of the Regent in this period. Crown Prince Haakon was the host during the New Year's Reception, he gave audience to Ambassadors, he presided the Council of State Fridays, he sanctioned acts of legislation or decisions approved by the Council of State, etc..

And all this time his father, was, is, and remained Norway's King. When he felt he was able to execute the royal prerogatives again, Crown Prince Haakon laid down the regency. It is as "simple" as that and a quite good alternative to an abdication, if you ask me.

HRH The Crown Prince, The Regent, holds his New Years Speech
Reply With Quote
  #1039  
Old 08-14-2017, 03:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I feel some British posters shiver by the idea of Queen Elizabeth II going into a regency, but it is not that dramatic. Look at Norway.

From 25 November 2003 to 12 April 2004:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's treatment for cancer and revovery.

From 29 March 2005 until 7 June 2005:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's heart surgery and recovery.

The execution of the royal prerogatives was in hands of the Regent in this period. Crown Prince Haakon was the host during the New Year's Reception, he gave audience to Ambassadors, he presided the Council of State Fridays, he sanctioned acts of legislation or decisions approved by the Council of State, etc..

And all this time his father, was, is, and remained Norway's King. When he felt he was able to execute the royal prerogatives again, Crown Prince Haakon laid down the regency. It is as "simple" as that and a quite good alternative to an abdication, if you ask me.

HRH The Crown Prince, The Regent, holds his New Years Speech
Regency is permanent thing in UK.
For situations like a surgery there are Counsellors of State. They may preside over Privy Council meetings, sign state documents, or receive the credentials of new ambassadors to the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #1040  
Old 08-14-2017, 05:28 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,098
The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

Regency isn't a permanent thing. If the monarch gets better, the regency will end. That happened with George III, he went mad, regency, got better, end of regency. He later got sick again and didn't recover so the regency lasted until he died.

There is also a regent when a monarch is underage. The regency ends when the monarch turns 18.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

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


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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
Would They Have Married? auntie Royal Life and Lifestyle 501 07-25-2014 12:23 PM




Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria daytime fashion current events denmark earl of snowdon fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy nassau news noice opening of parliament picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess diana lady spencer princess eleonore princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary style princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family uae wildlife victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises