The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Madame Royale]

I don't look for change as of yet, myself. Infact, I hope the Queen has another 10 to 12 years left in her, god and good health willing. And imo, with the death of Elizabeth we'll see the end of what is likely to be considered the last "golden" era of monarchy not just in England, but in Europe and the world I'm sure. Though far from certain, it's very unlikely we'll ever see a sovereign reign as long as EIIR (certainly not forgoing the King of Thailand) and I for one will miss her.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I do not think that HM will abdicate or retire. However I think, she should and let Charles become King.

 

[Warren]

I, too, look forward to the change. HM has been there for such a very long time. I would like to see a new reign in my lifetime.

I guess we'd all like to be around for a Coronation, possibly the most grand and glittering ceremony on the planet. However, we should also appreciate living in the time of what may be the longest reign in recorded British history. As each year passes HM moves further into that realm of something quite special, unique and venerated, just as Queen Victoria did. When the Queen-Empress died, it was the end of an era and some thought the beginning of the end of the Monarchy.

But here we are, approaching 110 years since the death of the great Queen and the end of that particular era. Yet the Monarchy and the dynasty have survived two world wars, the Great Depression, an abdication, political change and social upheaval, annus horibilis (now 17 years in the past), the Diana-era turmoil, and every other major and minor shock-horror scandal, from Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend to Charles and cherry brandy. The strength of the institution resides largely with the Monarch and the still-powerful and indefinable royal mystique. One day Charles will assume his destiny and become his own style of King and the social and environmental activism of his life as Prince of Wales will become muted as befitting a constitutional monarch. Charles and then William's time will come, but for the present we should savour being witness to the tail end of a very special reign of a very special Sovereign. When the era of Elizabeth II does come to a close there will be a large percentage of the world's population who will have known no other British Monarch, yet still know remarkably little about the private side of the dutiful figurehead who modelled herself on her father and who had been there for most or all of their lives.

 

[Sereta]

I hope she doesn't abdicate unless she absolutely has to.

 

[Marsel]

I guess we'd all like to be around for a Coronation, possibly the most grand and glittering ceremony on the planet. However, we should also appreciate living in the time of what may be the longest reign in recorded British history. As each year passes HM moves further into that realm of something quite special, unique and venerated, just as Queen Victoria did. When the Queen-Empress died, it was the end of an era and some thought the beginning of the end of the Monarchy.

But here we are, approaching 110 years since the death of the great Queen and the end of that particular era. Yet the Monarchy and the dynasty have survived two world wars, the Great Depression, an abdication, political change and social upheaval, annus horibilis (now 17 years in the past), the Diana-era turmoil, and every other major and minor shock-horror scandal, from Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend to Charles and cherry brandy. The strength of the institution resides largely with the Monarch and the still-powerful and indefinable royal mystique. One day Charles will assume his destiny and become his own style of King and the social and environmental activism of his life as Prince of Wales will become muted as befitting a constitutional monarch. Charles and then William's time will come, but for the present we should savour being witness to the tail end of a very special reign of a very special Sovereign. When the era of Elizabeth II does come to a close there will be a large percentage of the world's population who will have known no other British Monarch, yet still know remarkably little about the private side of the dutiful figurehead who modelled herself on her father and who had been there for most or all of their lives.

Wonderfully put, Warren!
I fully agree with your post.

Her Majesty managed to introduce a new approach to Monarchy, at the same time maintaining the ideals of her father and many of her ancestors.
When it's Charles' turn, he will introduce his own personal touch; however I think on the whole, he will maintain much the same attitude as his Mother.
Because British Monarch is not just a person, it's an Institution.


As for the immediate question of this thread, I don’t think Her Majesty would consider abdication under any circumstance. Her job is not one that allows retirement; it’s a job for life. And the Queen has shown that she realises it quite well.

 

[NotAPretender]

I wish with all my heart to see HM live to an age beyond her mothers' years.

She has much left to offer her subjects, and her service ends with her death. I genuinely believe that at the time of her accession, she believed wholeheartedly that she had been called, by God, to serve, and that only God can release her from her service.

I also believe that she considers herself "married" in a manner to being a monarch. And this is someone who believes in the basic teachings of her Faith, that marriage is indissoluble. I can only imagine how her family's cavalier attitude toward marriage has tested her patience, but I doubt it has ever tested her faith or her beliefs in what it means to be called to this service.

However, I am not a mind reader.

 

[Rebafan81]

Being from America, I have always felt a great bond with the British Royal Family, it really was the only one that was ever reported on here. I learned everything else about royals from this great forum.
I second what Warren said, I feel so blessed to have been able to witness a little bit of history and to be exposed HM.
She is such a classy lady, I feel that no matter who takes over for her, it will be a disappointment. I don't mean that they won't be a wonderful King and a great person, but how do you follow-up a woman who put everything she had into what she believed? She is, in my opinion, the last link to the Golden era before the Royals were "exposed" to the world for real people, someone appointed by God, with Divine authority. I hope she continues with good healthy and continues to enjoy her job.
God Bless the Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Being from America, I have always felt a great bond with the British Royal Family, it really was the only one that was ever reported on here. I learned everything else about royals from this great forum.
I second what Warren said, I feel so blessed to have been able to witness a little bit of history and to be exposed HM.
She is such a classy lady, I feel that no matter who takes over for her, it will be a disappointment. I don't mean that they won't be a wonderful King and a great person, but how do you follow-up a woman who put everything she had into what she believed? She is, in my opinion, the last link to the Golden era before the Royals were "exposed" to the world for real people, someone appointed by God, with Divine authority. I hope she continues with good healthy and continues to enjoy her job.
God Bless the Queen.

If you ever read the letters, editorials etc to the newspapers from about 1897 onwards you will see similar, if not the exact same sentiments expressed about the forthcoming passing of Queen Victoria with many expressing doubts about Albert Edward's (Edward VII's) fitness to take the throne. In hindsight he is seen as a very good king who set his own tone and did a brilliant job of following his mother.

We are now seeing History repeat itself and I am confident that Charles will be just as good a king as his great-great grandfather was in similar circumstances.

 

[Dierna23]

I personally think, HM would never ever consider abdiction or retirement. But it was a very interesting and informative read, to see what would happen in case of a physical impairment or mental incapacity.

 

[Madame Royale]

I do not think that HM will abdicate or retire. However I think, she should and let Charles become King.

On what logical grounds though? The Queen is of able body, mind and spirit and boasts such an approval rating throughout Britain and certainly the Commonwealth, that to abdicate would be unquestionably the most nonsensical decision ever undertaken by a British monarch, in modern times.

Unfortunately for Charles this of course means his time as monarch will be considerably lessened with each passing year. C'est la vie...that comes with the territory.

Certainly though, I think Charles will surprise a good many folk at how balanced a monarch he will (could?) be. From the interviews I've seen of the Prince of Wales, I think he's a genuinely lovely man with a healthy outlook and charitable disposition.

 

[NotAPretender]

She is such a classy lady, I feel that no matter who takes over for her, it will be a disappointment. .... I hope she continues with good healthy and continues to enjoy her job.
God Bless the Queen.

I agree wholeheartedly. She has devoted herself to her country. Her husband has devoted himself to the same service. Among her children, I only see Anne as having the same quiet devotion to service and strong principles. In rougher situations than any of her siblings have faced - for instance, the kidnapping attempt - Anne has shown herself to be the true daughter of both of her parents, in the finest sense. Anne received, through accident of birth, the best of her Royal parents, and the most limited forums through which to express it. Nonetheless, she is and remains the hardest working Royal, in the mold of Philip and Elizabeth.

Pity that it's not a matriarchy; it seems that while the UK has been able to soldier on through all types of poorly qualified kings - from temperament to disease to selfcentered self-indulgence, to drunkenness and buggery and and insanity - the queens regnant have been extraordinary.

I wish Her Majesty long life, and peace. May she outpace the years of her mother, and may her consort live to ogle women and outrage the press for many years more as well.

No abdication for this lady. She was built of stronger stuff, forged during Empire. And thank heavens there is no clamor at all for her abdication; it's heartening to know that her subjects realize her service is honorable and valuable.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree wholeheartedly. She has devoted herself to her country. Her husband has devoted himself to the same service. Among her children, I only see Anne as having the same quiet devotion to service and strong principles. In rougher situations than any of her siblings have faced - for instance, the kidnapping attempt - Anne has shown herself to be the true daughter of both of her parents, in the finest sense. Anne received, through accident of birth, the best of her Royal parents, and the most limited forums through which to express it. Nonetheless, she is and remains the hardest working Royal, in the mold of Philip and Elizabeth.

Last year Charles was actually the hardest working royal in terms on engagements done.

He has given unqualified service to the Queen and his country since he turned 18, proved his metal when fired on in a crowd in Sydney.

He is often laughed at and/or despised and put down due to the mistake he made in marrying the wrong woman (but Anne isn't to be condemned for marrying the wrong man). His other failing seems to be a man ahead of his time in espousing causes 20 years before they became fashionable to do so e.g. the environment.

Charles has inherited his parents' total dedication to the role of monarch and is continuing to be trained as the future monarch.

 

[NotAPretender]

I doubt sincerely and deeply the Her Majesty will ever abdicate. I believe that she meant what she said, that the whole of her life will be dedicated to her subjects, in service to them.

She's a remarkable woman in every respect, and I wish her a life span exceeding that of her mother. I wish her peace in her later years, a peace earned by the steel testing of many personal and "professional" tragedies.

I find it genuinely ghoulish to trumpet the virtues of her logistic heirs. It's a tad unseemly, as though one is wishing her death so that another might grasp power. One wonders, who on earth wishes her dead?

I'd rather wish her long life and a successful reign. By virture of her steadfastness to her Faith, to her vows, to her country, she has certainly earned at least that modicum of respect. What is it that the saying is? "Who looks for the shoes of the dead?" Not I. Not now.

Long and happy life, Your Majesty.

 

[AuroraB]

I agree wholeheartedly. She has devoted herself to her country. Her husband has devoted himself to the same service. Among her children, I only see Anne as having the same quiet devotion to service and strong principles. In rougher situations than any of her siblings have faced - for instance, the kidnapping attempt - Anne has shown herself to be the true daughter of both of her parents, in the finest sense. Anne received, through accident of birth, the best of her Royal parents, and the most limited forums through which to express it. Nonetheless, she is and remains the hardest working Royal, in the mold of Philip and Elizabeth.

Pity that it's not a matriarchy; it seems that while the UK has been able to soldier on through all types of poorly qualified kings - from temperament to disease to selfcentered self-indulgence, to drunkenness and buggery and and insanity - the queens regnant have been extraordinary.

IMO, if your last paragraph is not a back handed put down of Prince Charles then what is it? Certainly not a compliment.

 

[NotAPretender]

Hello AuroraB - goodness, haven't seen you before! Never in my last paragraph did I say that Charles was a drunkard, a buggerer, insane, diseased, etc.

I was saying - and I think rather clearly - that through the march of history, the UK has had a variety of kings with many, many faults - but that their queens have been extraordinary and remarkable people!

Must it be that an observation about an entire gender over the course of time be interpreted as a condemnation of the current POW?

I am and continue to say that a matriarchy might have served the UK well over the years, given the remarkable woman who now rules, and her (few and far between) female antecedents.

Of course, if you are determined to view my wishes for Her Majesty for a long life and my admiration for her daughter and for the female Queens Regnant of the UK as a slur on Charles, then of course one sees what one wishes to see, and I am absolutely not a mind reader nor in control of your thought process.

Long life and good health to Her Majesty - or will you not join me in that wish?

 

[Caphia]

there's anything wrong with that, she has her own opinions just as I do with monarchy of my own country...

Anyway back to the topic,
I must say that this lady should live 30 more years if that's possible. May God Bless her. Becuase definately I don't see Charles as a king or William for that matter, with all due respect.

 

[NotAPretender]

It's really not about her heirs, I believe. It's about Her Majesty.

She's done, as she has always done, duty. Her duty. Above all. When all else went to pieces and in a variety of circumstances, she has always, always, responded to her duty.

Is there some sort of movement afoot to force her into retirement? A wise person once said, never fear your predecessors, only your successors. Should she be wary of her lawful heir, that so many here seem to leap to conclusions and tout his "qualifications?" What is this endless drumbeat here touting her heir? I'm not in the UK; is there some strange conspiracy to unseat a sane, healthy, devoted, faithful and ordained head of state, in favor of her son?

What on earth is going on, if that's the rumblings? Again, as I have stated previously, I'm simply not a mind reader.

 

[Dierna23]

I agree wholeheartedly. She has devoted herself to her country. Her husband has devoted himself to the same service. Among her children, I only see Anne as having the same quiet devotion to service and strong principles. In rougher situations than any of her siblings have faced - for instance, the kidnapping attempt - Anne has shown herself to be the true daughter of both of her parents, in the finest sense. Anne received, through accident of birth, the best of her Royal parents, and the most limited forums through which to express it. Nonetheless, she is and remains the hardest working Royal, in the mold of Philip and Elizabeth.

Pity that it's not a matriarchy; it seems that while the UK has been able to soldier on through all types of poorly qualified kings - from temperament to disease to selfcentered self-indulgence, to drunkenness and buggery and and insanity - the queens regnant have been extraordinary.

I wish Her Majesty long life, and peace. May she outpace the years of her mother, and may her consort live to ogle women and outrage the press for many years more as well.

No abdication for this lady. She was built of stronger stuff, forged during Empire. And thank heavens there is no clamor at all for her abdication; it's heartening to know that her subjects realize her service is honorable and valuable.

I can't resist to write an answer on this post In my personal opinion I always thought, its a pity that the british monarchy isn't a matriarchy - think of Anne as a queen and then Zara - I suppose, it would turn more than well with them, both hard working, charismatic, full of power.

But be that as it may, it isn't a matriarchy and I think, Charles also does a good job, I really have respect for him.

 

[NotAPretender]

Dierna23 I can't resist to write an answer on this post In my personal opinion I always thought, its a pity that the british monarchy isn't a matriarchy - think of Anne as a queen and then Zara - I suppose, it would turn more than well with them, both hard working, charismatic, full of power.

I know. So many incredible women, so much wasted talent! I'm glad that Anne has been getting the well-deserved accolades for her work. And Zara is level-headed and resourceful. What strong stuff could be made of this clay!

Even thinking this....I'm still glad Her Majesty is in good health both mentally and physically, and I'm pretty astonished that there are so many who are so eager to shove her six feet under and promote her secondari.

 

[NotAPretender]

The Queen remains foremost, of course. Again, I have to ask - is there some sort of anti-QE outcry, or perhaps even sword-rattling by her heir, that leads so many posters here to beat the drums for the POW and denigrate HM by comparison? In my view, between the Queen and the POW, there simply is no comparison.

 

[Madame Royale]

Is there some sort of movement afoot to force her into retirement?

In no way would this even be a consideration by the 'possible' few that would have any such influence, I think it fairly safe to assume.

The respect and affection felt for this dutiful lady throughout Britain, the Commonwealth and further abroad is influence enough to keep any such "party" at bay many times over. She is THE Queen, and that is that. For EIIR, retirement and death are one in the same.

It's expected that there will be those who would like to see Charles succeed his mother sooner rather than later; that's what happens when you come across those that take a sincere interest and liking in a particular royal personage. In this instance, that person is Charles.

 

[NotAPretender]

Thanks for the clarification, MadameRoyale. Sometimes, I have to remind myself that TRF is a very small slice of a greater world, in which we share our fascination with things royal.

It's good to know that no one is trying to scuttle HM. I am an ardent supporter of democracy, and yet I admire HM greatly and find that the speculation about her potential abdication to be unseemly power jockeying. In many ways, it's of no matter if her secondari were a pock-marked syphilitic or a paragon of all that is holy. If the current ruler, HM, is sane, responsive, intelligent and well-liked, then the rush to shovel her underground to promote another seems inappropriate.

I believe, as you do, that the Queen has made this commitment for life.

 

[Skydragon]

I would rather see HM abdicate whilst she is in full control of her faculties, unlike QEQM who had become quite doddery, years before her death.

 

[Madame Royale]

Though there is nothing to suggest that she’ll succumb to a degenerative state in the years to come, either. And as long as she retains her mental capacity, I couldn't possibly see why she would need to abdicate.

If by chance (and I hope it doesn't happen) she were to decline mentally then at the most, I'd anticipate a regency to be enacted in HM name. But abdication? She made a lifelong oath and deserves (especially after so many years of devoted service and self sacrifice) the support to see out that commitment, imo...

 

[Lumutqueen]

I was saying - and I think rather clearly - that through the march of history, the UK has had a variety of kings with many, many faults - but that their queens have been extraordinary and remarkable people!

Might I just say that not all of our Queens have been that extraordinary and remarkable. We have had our fair share or remarkable Kings. And I believe Charles will be one of them.
I also think that Anne would be a wonderful Monarch, but Zara i do not think so.

 

[timtonruben359]

The Queen will not abdicate, she will remain Queen until the day she dies. We know the Queen is a very religious woman, and on her coronation day she was anointed and consecrated and swore to "rule and govern" her peoples until she draws her last breath.

It's most likely the Queen will be around for a number of years yet. She seems to be in good health and like her mother, I can see her carrying out public duties into her 90s.

I kind of feel that after the Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the Queen will go into some form of retirement. I think Charles will take over many of the public function such as traveling abroad. But the Queen will always remain THE Queen.

The Queen's death will change a lot of things. I know the monarchy will continue in Britain, but mostly likely all the commonwealth realms will become republics and indeed the British Monarch will probably no longer be its head.

 

[Dierna23]

I would rather see HM abdicate whilst she is in full control of her faculties, unlike QEQM who had become quite doddery, years before her death.

I agree with you, but it seems like with the popes (and it wasn't really nice to see how John Paul II. crucified himself in his last years IMO) - its a job for life. And maybe it will be possible with Charles one day, but I don't think, HM would ever think of abdiction.

 

[blueeyesofelvis]

I hope she does not abdicate. The Queen is a stron women and it has been taught to her that her duties are her life and she will no step down.

 

[blueeyesofelvis]

It is amazing how much information there is to all of this

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I also think that Anne would be a wonderful Monarch, but Zara i do not think so.

I agree wholeheartedly. Zara would struggle with the duties involved with being the monarch becuase her mother has made sure she has no part in official royal engagements.

I find suggestions that the Queen will go into a 'retirement' after the Diamond Jubilee and for Chalres to undertake most of her duties odd. The situation would result in a virtual Regency, except the Queen will not be going mad (like King George III) and will probably be able to perform her role as Head of State. If Her Majesty was unfortionate enough to go a bit doddery as she ages then I would expect her to abdicate. If she had a choice and was of sound mind and body, then I cannot see her giving up the role she pledged her life to carry out.