The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Iluvbertie]

I do believe I've read somewhere that the Queen and the DoE are planning on taking things a bit easier in the future but in no way believe that they'll retire from public duties. As HM has said "whether my life be short or long... "

I read that for the first time in the 1970s and have read it regularly ever since but amazingly they are still maintaining a gruelling schedule and Charles has upped his schedule over those years as well.

 

[agogo]

QE apperars to have such great health and stamina. She is a beloved queen and should never never retire. Bad luck for Prince Charles (old king) Bad luck for Prince William (young king)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think William will be all that young when he becomes King. He is already 28 and the Queen is still healthy and may very well be in her 90s before she passes - say another 15 years making William 43 and middle-aged. Charles would be 77 and is also healthy and could live as long as his parents say mid-90s for him too adding anohter 18 years for Charles from putting William to 61 - the age his father is now. So if Charles lives to 95 (and with his ancestry that isn't unreasonable) William will also be an old King.

 

[Lumutqueen]

QE apperars to have such great health and stamina. She is a beloved queen and should never never retire. Bad luck for Prince Charles (old king) Bad luck for Prince William (young king)

Like IluvBertie, I do not think William is going to be a young king. He will be slightly younger than his fathe perhaps, but not by much. I think it's better this way, to have older kings, rather than a young monarch.

 

[muriel]

Even if Charles lives till he is 80, William will be nearly 50 when he ascends the throne, so he will not exactly be a spring chicken.

 

[firelight]

It's almost unimaginable to think of the Queen not being there - she's an institution in her own right!

That said, I don't think it's undesirable to have a young monarch. A young king / queen can bring a lot of energy, and (public) interest and attention to the position than an older person might not. OTOH, an older person would have more wisdom, maturity, experience and gravitas. I think it depends a lot on the individual. Honestly, I think both William and Charles would be better in that role at an older age. I get the impression William at least would be happy to put it off for as long as he can.

 

[muriel]

...I think it depends a lot on the individual.

You are right in that it is down to the individual.

I get the impression William at least would be happy to put it off for as long as he can.

The timing is hardly for him to choose, is it?

 

[NoorMeansLight]

It's almost unimaginable to think of the Queen not being there - she's an institution in her own right!

My feelings and thoughts exactly, Firelight! On the other hand, I'd love to see Charles acceding to the throne one day.

 

[Russophile]

Even if Charles lives till he is 80, William will be nearly 50 when he ascends the throne, so he will not exactly be a spring chicken.

Who's to say he won't surpass that? HM already has and QEtQM lived to be 100. They have longevity in those Royal genes!

 

[Lumutqueen]

I could see Charles being King till he's 90+

 

[georgiea]

Who's to say he won't surpass that? HM already has and QEtQM lived to be 100. They have longevity in those Royal genes!

I hope Prince Charles gets to the throne. Both his parents have lived long lives. I hope he also has a long life.

 

[CrownPrincess5]

I don't see why she has to do either.
As long as she's in good health, physically and especially mentally, I see nothing wrong with her ruling until her last day.

 

[Polly]

I don't see why she has to do either.
As long as she's in good health, physically and especially mentally, I see nothing wrong with her ruling until her last day.

I second this view, quite strongly.

The Queen takes her Coronation Oath seriously, and always has. Her chronological age isn't an issue with me, nor should it be with anyone else.

It's bad luck for Charles, but them's the breaks. I'm not agin Charles in any way, but I hope that his mother continues for at least another decade. She is a remarkably hard-working, dedicated woman - an exemplar - and they're far and few between in this troubled world.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She doesn't have to do it, but if she became incapacitated, I would rather she abdicated than become more ill because of staying on the throne.

 

[Opal]

I wholeheartedly agree Polly. A wonderful example of this was her recent Canadian trip (and stopover in the USA). I'm impressed with the stamina her and Phillip displayed. I think they're both amazing and make a great team!

 

[Polly]

She doesn't have to do it, but if she became incapacitated, I would rather she abdicated than become more ill because of staying on the throne.

If our Queen became incapacitated a Regent would be appointed, as has happened before.

As I understand it, Her Majesty's strong principles and beliefs support the view that she was anointed by God. It's not likely that she'd willingly relinquish her throne for mere physical impediment and should she be unlucky enough to suffer any cognitive diminution then the decision would probably be made for her. On current evidence, that's not likely.

Necessarily, she's cut down on many of her trips and visits. However, it remains a credit to her that she undertook her recent trip to Canada because it was her duty to do so. And, of course, she likes Canada. I only wish that Australia were closer, but if she were really required for a special celebration, she'd come. She always has.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

She doesn't have to do it, but if she became incapacitated, I would rather she abdicated than become more ill because of staying on the throne.

I agree, and I'd like to think that the Queen would realise she would be doing more harm than good so to speak if she remained on the throne if she was (god forbid) severley ill

 

[muriel]

Difficult as it may sound, I hope the Queen is not put in a position where she has to consider making Charles a regent, and nature takes its due course whilst HM retains all her faculties.

 

[Lumutqueen]

If our Queen became incapacitated a Regent would be appointed, as has happened before.

Being Regent is just the same as being King, so why not give the role to Charles and The Queen can pass away not having to worry about anything like her role or duty.
Yes she promised her dedication to the throne, and yes back then that might have been for her to die whilst still Queen. But IMO, not now it doesn't. If The Queen became ill, I would rather she step aside, so that her illness would not get worse or quicken her death.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Difficult as it may sound, I hope the Queen is not put in a position where she has to consider making Charles a regent, and nature takes its due course whilst HM retains all her faculties.

I don't think the Queen would ever create Charles Regent but I could see a situation where the government has to create Charles Regent, as happened with George III (twice). He recovered after his first bout of madness and so was able to operate as King again but then in 1810 it became permanent.

A Regency though is also officially only a temporary situation - until the person recovers or dies and even though the chances are that the Queen might get dementia she really won't know necessarily that she has got it but the government would have to step in.

 

[Osipi]

I have to agree with you here. As its been stated here before, there have been reports of HM slowing down and taking it easier for a long while now and she's still still in remarkable health and doing things that would tire me out and she's got a quarter of a century on me.

With the medical profession at her disposal, I'm sure that she is advised as to exactly how her health is and one just does not lie to the Queen. Should the need arise (and yes there are early signs of Alzheimer's and dementia) what we'd see is a gradual shift towards her family representing her IF necessary. There are just too many factors to be considered. I think the key word here is going to be "gradual" I'm sure the government is well advised of all situations. Remember how the Queen Mum was so much a part of planning her own funeral?

One of my guesstimations of what COULD happen is that if the DoE passes before HM, it would be a time when Charles and Camilla (and William and Harry) step more so into the public eye and doing the official duties for HM while she is in mourning. She may still after that do a bit here and there and always be the Queen but just not as high keyed as she has been doing all these years. Charles may not ever be named regent out of respect for HM but in the public eye he'd be seen as the driving force of the monarchy.

 

[muriel]

...I could see a situation where the government has to create Charles Regent...

I agree, if a Regent is to be appointed, it will be done so by the government of the day.

...(and yes there are early signs of Alzheimer's and dementia)...

Are you suggesting that HM is demonstrating early signs of Alzheimer's and dementia?

 

[Osipi]

Are you suggesting that HM is demonstrating early signs of Alzheimer's and dementia?

absolutely not! My point was that should HM sneeze and feel ill... there's a mess of the best doctors to be had. IF at any point something like any disease or illness should be diagnosed, I think HM would say "tell it as it is"... and one doesn't lie to the Queen.
Anything with her health will be found quickly.

 

[muriel]

Quite right.

 

[Osipi]

Quite right.

and as Queen, inform her government. That's why I brought in the Queen Mum reference.

 

[muriel]

and as Queen, inform her government. That's why I brought in the Queen Mum reference.

Having diligently srved the kingdom and the commonwealth for nearly 60 years, I have no reason to doubt that HM would do any differently!

 

[rob2008]

HM should never abdicate because duty to the state is the whole point of monarchy. The various roles can be modified. HM could eventually sit in the balcony at the Cenotaph as the PoW lays the wreath; he could also attend the state opening of parliament on her behalf to read the speech; Maundy recipients could come to the palace; etc. The PoW should be doing more. HM took the Trooping the Colour salute on behalf of her father in 1951. Other family members should be taking a share of the queen's responsibilities. Any holder of the title Prince and princess should be doing more to assist the HM and the RF by carrying out more royal engagements. Which leads me to ask: has anyone seen much of Prince William or Harry? They are the invisible princes - avoiding public duty of the monarchy and therefore failing HM. Also, part of their duty is to get married. William more and more resembles David/ Edward VIII. HM displayed impeccable credentials in getting on with raising a family - as in all of her commitments to the UK and commonwealth. In comparison to the Queen, what current royal comes anywhere near matching her dedication to public service? Philip and Anne come closest.

 

[Warren]

The diversion into what William and Harry should be doing has been moved to the Duties, Roles & Training thread.

 

[MARG]

The Queen: would she consider abdication or retirement? No!

Would she? As both she and Prince Philip get older they will (sometime soon we think) slow down a little but retirement is out of the question and adbication might as well be a four letter word!

Queen Elizabeth II vowed her life for her county in an era when one meant what one said. She is the very embodiment of Sir Cecil Spring-Rice"s 'I Vow to Thee, My Country', including the now oft omitted second verse perceived by some as politically incorrect.

No ifs, no buts, no maybe's. The only situation I could ever imagine her not being "The Queen", is if she becomes mentally unfit to carry out her duties. In that case Prince Charles would only be Regent until such time as she dies. However, since her mother went down fighting with all her mental faculties untouched by dementia I think that is a remote possibility.

Long live the Queen!

And when God calls her home? God save the King!
__________________

 

[Russophile]

The Queen: would she consider abdication or retirement? No!

Would she? As both she and Prince Philip get older they will (sometime soon we think) slow down a little but retirement is out of the question and adbication might as well be a four letter word!

Queen Elizabeth II vowed her life for her county in an era when one meant what one said. She is the very embodiment of Sir Cecil Spring-Rice"s 'I Vow to Thee, My Country', including the now oft omitted second verse perceived by some as politically incorrect.

No ifs, no buts, no maybe's. The only situation I could ever imagine her not being "The Queen", is if she becomes mentally unfit to carry out her duties. In that case Prince Charles would only be Regent until such time as she dies. However, since her mother went down fighting with all her mental faculties untouched by dementia I think that is a remote possibility.

Long live the Queen!

And when God calls her home? God save the King!
__________________

Copy that Marg! *Russo inserts thumbs up here*