The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1041  
Old 08-14-2017, 05:57 PM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
As ever, take with a massive pinch of salt...

DM claims the Queen has told her close circle she will in act the Regency Act if still alive when she is 95.

Is the Queen preparing abdicate? | Daily Mail Online
I tend not to believe anything the Daily Lie, sorry, Mail prints.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 08-14-2017, 06:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
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.
Regency was established only once, in 1810.
British Regency Acts don't contain mechanism to revoke regency.
Obviously every regency lasts till death of monarch or monarch's adulthood.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 08-14-2017, 07:17 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Regency was established only once, in 1810.
British Regency Acts don't contain mechanism to revoke regency.
Obviously every regency lasts till death of monarch or monarch's adulthood.
Correct - although a regency passed the House of Commons in 1789, the King recovered before the House of Lords voted on it.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 08-14-2017, 07:39 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
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.
Thats what makes me think a Regency might not happen, or not at least until the Queen feels in some way unable/unfit to sign legislation etc. Why put something in place that is not really necessary? That said if the Queen felt it necessary I think she would gladly do so, and certainly before abdication! The Queen could probably quite easily stay at Windsor or even Sandringham and still do enough to be the constitutionally needed sovereign. At the same time she could almost never appear in public - sending Charles to more of the big events (Cenotaph, Trooping, Holyrood Week, Commonwealth Day, Royal Maundy, Garden Parties etc - none of these events legally or constitutionally require the Queen to attend in person). Even for state visits we only see the Queen at a welcoming, state dinner and formal farewell.
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 08-14-2017, 07:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Thats what makes me think a Regency might not happen, or not at least until the Queen feels in some way unable/unfit to sign legislation etc. Why put something in place that is not really necessary? That said if the Queen felt it necessary I think she would gladly do so, and certainly before abdication! The Queen could probably quite easily stay at Windsor or even Sandringham and still do enough to be the constitutionally needed sovereign. At the same time she could almost never appear in public - sending Charles to more of the big events (Cenotaph, Trooping, Holyrood Week, Commonwealth Day, Royal Maundy, Garden Parties etc - none of these events legally or constitutionally require the Queen to attend in person). Even for state visits we only see the Queen at a welcoming, state dinner and formal farewell.
Regency is not the queen's decision. Other people will make this decision.
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 08-14-2017, 11:04 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,851
Just reading the conditions of instituting a Regency makes me believe there are but two options for HM. The first is to abdicate which would mean breaking the vow she made to the Commonwealth in her 21st Birthday radio broadcast.
Quote:
She said: "I declare before you all 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."
This vow was followed by the vows she made during the Coronation in 1953 she pledged to govern the countries where she is head of state - a promise which she said she would
Quote:
"perform and keep. So help me God."
The queen is a devout Christian and took her vows seriously. Strangely, I think the vow she made on her 21st birthday would be the hardest to break.

The second is to cut back her duties drastically and hand them over to Charles while still doing that which is considered essential. I think this is the preferred option as the Regency Act 1937 (which is still in force) established in law a procedure for determining the incapacity of the Sovereign due to infirmity of mind or body or due to the monarch's unavailability for another definite cause. As we can see, she is not infirm in any way and that fuzzy "definite cause" may perhaps be to allow her to spend time with Philip. But whatever we think is going to happen, we have to consider that nothing at all may happen.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 08-15-2017, 06:03 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,151


Her famous words "I declare before you all 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." actually does not say anything about the kingship. Were these words not spoken while she was still The Princess Elizabeth?

These words are often used to conclude: "See, she will never abdicate" but that is not what she said at all. She promised a lifeling dedication to serve the nation. No more, no less. Take the Duke of Edinburgh, or the Prince of Wales, or the Princess Royal: they are no King but can anyone deny they devoted their life to the service of the nation as well?
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 08-15-2017, 06:20 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,421
Looking at it from another angle here too, HM, The Queen takes her duty to her people so seriously that she may even feel that should the time come where she isn't able to do what she would deem a "proper job" of being the monarch, she would feel its her duty to have it be that her heir who could do the "proper job" be able to step in for her.

This family does prepare for all contingencies that may occur and nothing is ever left to chance. The Queen would be the last person to wish to continue in her role should it be deemed that she is no longer able to. It would be her duty at the time to gracefully step aside and have Charles appointed as regent and that's what she would prepare for ahead of time.

In all things, duty to crown and country come first.
__________________
“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
  #1049  
Old 08-15-2017, 06:37 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
Osipi - totally correct and in keeping with the actual words she vowed in at her 21st birthday speech - to 'serve all my life'. She may come to believe that the best way to 'serve' is to actually hand over.
Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 08-15-2017, 06:39 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spheno View Post
Regency is not the queen's decision. Other people will make this decision.
Other people would have to make that decision if she was incapacitated and thus unable to continue but ... she is free to make that decision for herself if she so chooses, just as she is free to abdicate (which she won't do).
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 08-15-2017, 08:56 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 5,796
Indeed, any decision of this kind will be one that the Queen will make herself - of-course, other people will be involved in the mechanism and details of it. But it will be a very personal choice in the same way that Queen Beatrix, through her professionalism and dedication to what she felt was right for her country, made the choice to abdicate - it was "the right time" so to speak.

The Queen is utterly dedicated to her role as monarch and always has been. My feeling is that invoking a regency will be an absolute last resort for her rather than something she will do at a given time - such as after her 95th Birthday as has been muted.

It is also something I think she would do more so with the start in a decline of mental health rather than physical health.

As for abdication, there is unlikely ever to be a need for her to abdicate when regency is an available option.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:12 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2
She will never abdicate. She clearly stated in her Accession speech that her life "be it long or short" would be devoted to serving her Empire. But this gracious lady has done a superb job for many decades, and who could blame her for wanting to take things a bit easier, whilst still remaining the Monarch? God save the Queen!
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:16 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,897
Looking at this pretty detached, the question I ask myself is: Why should QEII abdicate now?

Health problems? No.
Problems with her mobility? Hardly.
Political problems? No, no call for her to abdicate.
She not unpopular either to put it mildly!
Scandal? No.
Feeling old? - Perhaps, but that's not my impression.
Family issues? - Nah.
Feeling she can't perform her duties as she should anymore? - Even if that was the case, that's hardly the biggest problem she has.

So the only thing I can think of is to allow Prince Charles to get on the throne before he get too old.
Is that, considering the circumstances, likely? - Don't really think so.
Reply With Quote
  #1054  
Old 08-15-2017, 10:46 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: many places, United States
Posts: 1,471
Agree with you post Muhler. I don't see her abdicating in near future unless something really drastic happens to her health. No reason
__________________
Forgiveness is the fragrance the violet shed on the heel that crushed it - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 08-15-2017, 12:16 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregbee View Post
She will never abdicate. She clearly stated in her Accession speech that her life "be it long or short" would be devoted to serving her Empire. [...]
These words were not in her "accession speech" but in a speech for her 21st birthday. She would -suddenly- become Queen five years later. It has nothing to do with the kingship. Had her father King George VI lived for 20 more years, then her "devotion to the Empire" would be the same, as The Princess Elizabeth.
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 08-15-2017, 02:21 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,052
Nobody talks about an abdication, just a few foreign newspapers who misunderstood what Robert Jobson said/wrote.

Why are the papers and posters here talking about this again? This:

Robert Jobson (royal editor at Evening Standard and now royal commentator for the Fail on Sunday) said for years that the Queen was going to abdicate. When that didn't happen and other more trusted commentators/experts (and former royal staffers) disagreed with him, he changed his mind and then said she was going to reign for life.

But last year he came up with something new to write/talk about.

When Her Majesty turned 90 last year, he said on British/Australian TV that his sources told him she was considering a regency at the age of 95. Other more trusted commentators/experts (and former royal staffers) disagreed with him and there was no more talk about it.

But when we got the news about Philip retiring from solo engagements on may 4th, Robert Jobson started to talk (on British/Australian TV) about the regency stuff again. He said (again) that she was considering doing it at the age of 95.

Then the palace went out in the evening on May 4th and said (to Royal Correspondents) that the Queen was as committed as ever to her public life. Royal Correspondent Rhiannon Mills said this on Sky News: ''Also within that statement that was relised this morning there is that very clear message of reassurance when it comes to the Queen's role going forward. Today I'm being told very clearly that she will carry on with those engagements and that it will be business as usual, she will continue to be busy and she is as dedicated as ewer to her own public life.''

But Robert Jobson wouldn't give up.

And on July 28th, he wrote this article, where he mentions the regency stuff again:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...-a3598631.html

And on July 29th, he wrote this article, where he mentions the regency stuff again:
Queen's top aide quits in dramatic shake up of Royal staff | Daily Mail Online

Then the palace went out again on July 31th when we got the news that the Queen's Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt was to stand down. He said this: “It has been my very great privilege to serve the Queen since the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and, especially, as her private secretary for the past decade.

“In that time, as throughout her reign, her majesty’s authority has brought stability, purpose and colour to country and Commonwealth alike.

“With the Duke of Edinburgh’s recent decision to draw back from public life, the Queen’s own unwavering commitment as sovereign has the full and active support of the entire Royal family.

“It is therefore with every confidence, and with Her Majesty’s agreement, that I now hand over the responsibilities of the Queen’s private secretary to my successor, Edward Young.”

But Robert Jobson continued to talk about it, and Dickie Arbiter and other former royal staffers went out and said that as long the Queen is mentally capable, she will remain the acting monarch and we will not se a regency.

And Royal Central Editor-in-Chief Charlie Proctor wrote this article on August 4th where he spoke to Phil Dampier, who has been writing about The Royal Family for 30 years:
Will The Queen make Prince Charles Prince Regent when she turns 95? – Royal Central

Phil Dampier said this: At the moment she is in excellent health and so she won’t be giving this serious thought right now. In fact, I know she has told friends that she wants to live to 100 like her mother.

“The only reason a regency would ever be contemplated if is she became seriously ill, either mentally or physically. But I don’t believe she would consider an artificial cut off time such as reaching 95. She will consider the situation as each year passes.”

But Robert Jobson still wouldn't give up. And on Agust 5th, he wrote this:
Palace shake-up has turned into 'royal shambles' | Daily Mail Online

And on August 12th, he wrote the same again: (If you click on this DF article, you will se that the headline is this: Charles the Prince Regent? Amid major palace shake-up, is the Queen preparing to 'abdicate' and make Charles the king in all but name?)
Is the Queen preparing abdicate? | Daily Mail Online

The difference now is that other news/gossip sites have seen the last article and is making a lot of noise about it. Charlie Proctor said this on Twitter:

Charlie Proctor @MonarchyUK
Strange how all of the nationals have only just picked up on this story we reported over a week ago.

Wgat do I think:

About Robert Jobson: He is known as very unreliable and one of the few times he has been right was in 2005 when he was the recipient of the London Press Club "Scoop of the Year" award for his world exclusive that Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles were to Wed in 2005. He is rude/sexist and bullies people who don't agree with him. And he have defended all of Philip's so-called jokes.

The Queen's health: She has some problems with her knees and is a bit bent over, but she still walks wery well and quite fast when she has to, as we have seen on several occasions lately.

The Queen Mother did about 50 engagements in 2001 at the age of 100/101, and that despite the fact that she fell and injured herself more than once and was therefore very frail from 93 to 101. She also had two hip replacements, one in 1995 and one in 1998.

If the Queen manages to keep herself on her feet and avoids falling, then I think she can keep going and do what she's doing now for at least 5 years.

If she is still well after the Platinum Jubilee, then I think she can keep going with around 100-150 engagements a year until she is weakened and eventually dies after a short illness. That's what the palace (according to the The Guardian) sees as most likely.

So yes, I expect HM to be with us for years to come. But she's 91 and things can happen very fast at that age.

Philip: He is 96 years old (almost 100) and has had some health problems and 6 hospital stays since 2008. So things can happen at any time now.

So will the Queen opt for a regency at the age of 95 (the year before her Jubilee) or when Philip dies (if he passes before her) while she is healthy and mentally capable? No way. And if she does, then I will eat both my shoes and call myself stupid for the rest of my life.

And considering that I'm a pretty healthy 29-year-old with good genes, that will probably mean for a long time to come.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 08-15-2017, 02:54 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,421
A truly wonderful post that puts things very nicely into perspective. HM is in great form for her age and to be honest, I think she's in better physical condition that a lot of people 20 years her junior. She has the aches and pains that we all associate with getting older but she's not giving into them and that's what I think keeps her fit.

She still rides when she can and has never been a person to sit in front of the TV ala couch potato mode. I remember one thing that was stated in her cousin, Margaret Rhodes' book "The Final Curtsy: A Royal Memoir" that said it was almost considered a sin growing up to stay indoors all day. The cure all for just about anything is getting out and doing in the fresh air.

This is a woman that defines her life not by who she is but by what she is here to do and would no more shirk her duty than she would wearing blue jeans to a state dinner. She keeps totally on top of things, does not unnecessarily pass on what she is supposed to do to others but has made concessions to growing older. She knows her monarchy and the people she has under her wing that will be the future of the monarchy and that monarchy is at the front of her mind with all the decisions she makes. It always comes first.

People and reporters and royal experts can only scratch the surface of what they see as the close of the Second Elizabethan Age and how it will be. Although I'm sure that considering and possibly making plans for a regency for Charles should something unexpected happen, such as a stroke, is something HM may have felt she needed to do but it is not an indication of anything other than being prepared.

All of us as we grow older think of things that didn't figure in when we were younger such as a good life insurance policy or setting things up as far as our final wishes and spending our children's inheritances. We face our own mortality more and plan accordingly.

One thing for sure with Queen Elizabeth II is that she's not a person consigning herself to expect a visit from the Grim Reaper but a person with a lot of living still to do and still relishes doing it.
__________________
“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
  #1058  
Old 08-15-2017, 03:13 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,602
The rumor was not that a regency was imminent, but rather that the Queen was considering a regency at the age of 95, which sounds totally plausible to me. At 95, even if she is still of sound mind, the Queen might feel she is no longer able to discharge the duties of a full-time monarch as her various realms deserve.
Reply With Quote
  #1059  
Old 08-15-2017, 03:32 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 185
Her Majesty will not abdicate. Everything she has said/done in her life thus far, and the example she follows, which was set by her parents, indicates that she will remain Queen until her passing, at whatever age that may be.

Inevitably, she will do less and less with the advancing years and we can expect the same sort of brief, cameo appearances that characterised her Mother's final years. Inevitably also, Charles will do more; he is becoming her main representative on the world stage and, increasingly, will be so on the domestic one as well.

Unless she is deemed to be temporarily or permanently incapacitated (and that decision would not be hers alone to take - if at all), there will be no formal regency.

It's August, news is slow, and disreputable journalists from the scandal rags of the gutter, such as the "Daily Mail", are just making money by amusing their ignorant and gullible readership.
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 08-15-2017, 04:37 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,151
I have seen too many abdications (the Pope even, the Emperor of Japan, the King of Spain, etc.) to rule out any possibility. More "unthinkable" things have passed. For an example the second marriage of the future King with Camilla. " Unthinkable" that this would ever happen. Anyway: it happened.
__________________

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