The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[BritishRoyalist]

The results of the poll maybe irrelevant but that doesn't change the fact that the questions were asked and that the answers are showing a change in people's opinions.

Only if she really ill to the point she Incapable but the Queen is not Ill and still able to do her duties. But even then she would not abdicate, At best a Regency would happen. And this question has been asked for the last 15 Years but is irrelevant as you only 1000 people's. It like during election and they take a poll of only 1000 people's. It irrelevant. Even during Queen Victoria Diamond they were saying that she should Abdicate. But the reality is abdicate won't fly with the majority of the people's like with the Dutch.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

Cepe, thanks for providing both the article and the synopsis.

While it's interesting, I wonder at times if we're reading a bit too much into the "symbolism" of current events. Yes Charles is stepping up, but him doing things for his mother isn't a new concept, nor is him being trained to be king a new concept - all of this has been going on for years, recent events are just a bit more in-your-face.

To me this seems like simply a natural course of events; HM is elderly, and while still able to do what is (in my opinion) the core elements of her role, travel presents an increasing threat to her health and abilities, so she's going to limit what she does and send Charles more. Similarly, she's likely to do fewer engagements and to let Charles take on a larger public role. That doesn't mean she's abdicating or retiring, it just means she's cutting back - something that people often suggest she does on this board, and which makes sense given her age.

To me, so long as HM can do the red boxes, state events, and periodic engagements, I don't see why she should abdicate or have a regency established.

Isn't the only necessity that she do the red boxes herself? Can't she have a representative do everything else? During Victoria's self imposed mourning in her early 40's what did she do? I don't believe it was much.

There is the possibility that the Queen will live to be her mother's age, or perhaps beyond. Her mother's death, despite her age, was in fact precipitated by Margaret's, dying only 6 weeks later. I think the question is, or might be, can a woman of 100 still do the red boxes? What is entailed in those boxes? The Queen's abilities is now no longer a given, they could change on a dime.

What I sense in these polls and articles is that the public recognizes that it would be abject cruelty to expect most people of her age to keep up her duties - this is far beyond when most of us put up our feet once and for all,and that nobody would think the less of her is she CHOOSES to pass the torch to Charles.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Isn't the only necessity that she do the red boxes herself? Can't she have a representative do everything else? During Victoria's self imposed mourning in her early 40's what did she do? I don't believe it was much.

There is the possibility that the Queen will live to be her mother's age, or perhaps beyond. Her mother's death, despite her age, was in fact precipitated by Margaret's, dying only 6 weeks later. I think the question is, or might be, can a woman of 100 still do the red boxes? What is entailed in those boxes? The Queen's abilities is now no longer a given, they could change on a dime.

What I sense in these polls and articles is that the public recognizes that it would be abject cruelty to expect most people of her age to keep up her duties - this is far beyond when most of us put up our feet once and for all,and that nobody would think the less of her is she CHOOSES to pass the torch to Charles.

Victoria may have been in mourning but she still did her job for the most part which included red boxes, etc. She just didn't appear in public and instead mostly stayed in seclusion at windsor castle for 10 years after Albert death (creating the nickname 'Widow of Windsor') She did not open Parliament between 63-65. It is rumored that the Prime Minister at the time (Gladstone) was sent to Belmoral to tell Victoria that she needed to come back to Buckingham Palace to fulfill and do her 'Queenly Duties

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I suppose my question is what is the minimum requirement for the job as opposed to what can be delegated legally?

 

[Ish]

I suppose my question is what is the minimum requirement for the job as opposed to what can be delegated legally?

I think legally she can delegate it all except the red boxes.

When Victoria stopped doing public engagements it presented a problem. Being seen and fulfilling the ceremonial aspects of the monarchy is I think a big part of the job.

The many engagements, the charity stuff, etc, I think that is all kind of fluff. The important aspect of the job (beyond the red boxes) is the more ceremonial state stuff - the trooping of the colours, the opening of parliament, state visits (if not in terms of her visiting people then in terms of her hosting others). We don't need to see HM visiting the London Underground or similar engagements, but we do need to see her doing the big stuff.

My opinion is that as long as HM can do the red boxes and the other state functions and is still comfortable doing so, she should be allowed to do so.

 

[Spheno]

I think the minimum requirement does not exist.
The Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls (three or more of them) have power to decide how much is enough.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The minimum is doing the Red Boxes and holding the councils - all of which can be done in private.

The ceremonial stuff was really set up by Edward VII - yes they existed before but not as annual events as they are now.

The fluff stuff was also really started by Edward while Prince of Wales to divert attention from the fact that Victoria wasn't appearing in public. Prior to Albert's death they tended to do more high-brow stuff but not the flim-flammery we see the royals do in their 100s these days.

George V really promoted that idea so that there was a 'job' for his family after WWI - to keep them relevant to the British people.

The State Visits etc can be hosted by Charles - just as Albert Edward hosted them under his mother, if the visitee wasn't a member of the extended family.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

The minimum is doing the Red Boxes and holding the councils - all of which can be done in private.

The ceremonial stuff was really set up by Edward VII - yes they existed before but not as annual events as they are now.

The fluff stuff was also really started by Edward while Prince of Wales to divert attention from the fact that Victoria wasn't appearing in public. Prior to Albert's death they tended to do more high-brow stuff but not the flim-flammery we see the royals do in their 100s these days.

George V really promoted that idea so that there was a 'job' for his family after WWI - to keep them relevant to the British people.

The State Visits etc can be hosted by Charles - just as Albert Edward hosted them under his mother, if the visitee wasn't a member of the extended family.

George V get lot of Credit in my book, He really Modernize the Monarchy with the thought that the Monarchy and the Royal Family had to be seen in order the survive the 20th Century (And he was right). Edward VII said after his mother died that about the monarchy (something along the lines of as II can not remember the exact quote) that in order for it to survive it needed to Change, update itself and re-inform itself and move with the times and be seen as more modernly. George V however in my opinion set the stage for the monarchy to survive for the rest of the 20th century as he created a lot of the stuff the royal family does now like walkabout s and public engagements. I think Queen Elizabeth has done a good job of keeping it Modern into the 21st Century and continuing to move with the times.

As other Europe Monarchies were falling and Crumbling one after another around them the British Monarchy stayed strong and stood tall.

 

[cepe]

Thinking out loud here........ Surely being monarch is more than doing the minimum such as reading government papers and signing documents? You don't need a monarch, that's the job of a head of state so could be a president. HMQ has said she has to be seen to be believed and today this is more necessary than ever. So being monarch is about being seen so I don't think the minimum will be enough. I think that if that is all that is possible, then abdication is required.

I know she is v popular but if she was seen to be hanging on but not doing the job, it wouldn't take much for that popularity to drop like a stone. and regency would not resolve this problem.

Her real job is maintaining the monarchy, and that might include standing down.

To be honest I'm still working this through.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Thinking out loud here........ Surely being monarch is more than doing the minimum such as reading government papers and signing documents? You don't need a monarch, that's the job of a head of state so could be a president. HMQ has said she has to be seen to be believed and today this is more necessary than ever. So being monarch is about being seen so I don't think the minimum will be enough. I think that if that is all that is possible, then abdication is required.

I know she is v popular but if she was seen to be hanging on but not doing the job, it wouldn't take much for that popularity to drop like a stone. and regency would not resolve this problem.

Her real job is maintaining the monarchy, and that might include standing down.

To be honest I'm still working this through.

Yes there is more then just reading papers and reading documents, If you look on the british monarchy website it tells you what her day is like and the role of the queen. About the the Quote I think her Grandfather said something like that once (but that was the 20th century a different time then it is now) But she is right about that. It had to be seen now to be believe especially if it want to survive the ever changing 21st Century.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George V however in my opinion set the stage for the monarchy to survive for the rest of the 20th century as he created a lot of the stuff the royal family does now like walkabout s and public engagements.

Walkabouts were invented in NZ in 1970 when Elizabeth and Philip started to walkabout amongst the people on their tour there to celebrate the voyage of James Cook.

Public engagements were done much earlier than George V - it was one of the criticisms that Victoria had about Albert Edward and Alexandra - that they did too much of the public engagements stuff - like opening things. Even Victoria and Albert did some public engagements - just more high-brow than those being done now.

George V turned the family inwards to Britain but he didn't anything new - he built on what was already happening. He knew that he couldn't keep the family associating with Europe after the War or he would face the same fate as his first cousins William, Nicholas and Alexandra - lose their thrones and possibly their lives.

 

[cepe]

Yes there is more then just reading papers and reading documents, If you look on the british monarchy website it tells you what her day is like and the role of the queen. About the the Quote I think her Grandfather said something like that once (but that was the 20th century a different time then it is now) But she is right about that. It had to be seen now to be believe especially if it want to survive the ever changing 21st Century.

Did you read the previous posts. Others were putting forward the idea that doing the minimum would been enough. I am thinking otherwise. Read back and you will see.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Walkabouts were invented in NZ in 1970 when Elizabeth and Philip started to walkabout amongst the people on their tour there to celebrate the voyage of James Cook.

Public engagements were done much earlier than George V - it was one of the criticisms that Victoria had about Albert Edward and Alexandra - that they did too much of the public engagements stuff - like opening things. Even Victoria and Albert did some public engagements - just more high-brow than those being done now.

George V turned the family inwards to Britain but he didn't anything new - he built on what was already happening$. He knew that he couldn't keep the family associating with Europe after the War or he would face the same fate as his first cousins William, Nicholas and Alexandra - lose their thrones and possibly their lives.

You are right Elizabeth is the one who created the walkabouts. I thought I remember hearing that her grandfather started some sort of tradition that is still in use today. But Edward VII was the one who said that the monarch and the Royal Family has to be seen in public Especially after 40 Years of seclusion by his mother. I watched a documentary a few months back on Edward VII and one presenters aid that when Edward came to the throne he felt that the monarch,had to be seen in public and not locked away from public in Their palace. Edward was seen a lot in public which was very different then his mother which help it move more modernly with the times in the early 20th century.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Did you read the previous posts. Others were putting forward the idea that doing the minimum would been enough. I am thinking otherwise. Read back and you will see.

Yes I did read that. I thought you were asking if they did more then that (read papers etc.) which is why I replied yes.
My Apology.

 

[Ish]

Did you read the previous posts. Others were putting forward the idea that doing the minimum would been enough. I am thinking otherwise. Read back and you will see.

I think if the minimum that she did was just the boxes and other private stuff then it would be a problem.

However I think if she continued to do state stuff, and remained visible while doing less of the fluff stuff then no one would be bothered by her remaining monarch. She could reduce things down to the bare bones in terms of her appearances, giving herself somewhat of a break, while delegating more to Charles and other royals. To me this addresses the reasons why people think that it's necessary for an abdication or regency, without imposing on her something that she clearly doesn't seem to desire.

 

[valentino1012]

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

Why would or should Charles Abdicate? And please use a better excuse then you don't want Camilla queen or because he to old. Also he not even king so how can he abdicate?

 

[cepe]

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

This post says a lot more about you than anything else.

 

[Ish]

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

Because having great hair is clearly important in a monarch (although by that count, William doesn't qualify...).

There is more to the Queen than her hats, which really are not a part of her role. The monarchy is not a popularity contest and the idea that HM should abdicate simply because her hats are boring (or because she's old) is absurd.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

Can't believe I have read such a thing.

Hair?!?Even the Diana Fanatics can come with a better argument.

Do you have any understanding of how a Hereditary Monarchy, in a Parlamentary system, works?

 

[padams2359]

Where is it written that the "Red Boxes" are the personal responsibility of the Monarch? How long was it between the time that George V lost control of his mental faculties, and the time he passed on? He was not asked or forced to abdicate. I think this entire thread is ridiculous.

 

[cepe]

Where is it written that the "Red Boxes" are the personal responsibility of the Monarch? How long was it between the time that George V lost control of his mental faculties, and the time he passed on? He was not asked or forced to abdicate. I think this entire thread is ridiculous.

What are you talking about, what was the mental incapacity of George V? He suffered ill health but that is all. Can you name your sources?

 

[padams2359]

What is the source that states the the monarch must abdicate if they cannot do the Red Boxes?

 

[BritishRoyalist]

What is the source that states the the monarch must abdicate if they cannot do the Red Boxes?

No one said that the queen should (or that she has too) abdicate if she can not do the red boxes. Where did you read that?

 

[Ish]

Where is it written that the "Red Boxes" are the personal responsibility of the Monarch? How long was it between the time that George V lost control of his mental faculties, and the time he passed on? He was not asked or forced to abdicate. I think this entire thread is ridiculous.

George V didn't lose his mental facilities, unless you're referring to the point of time in the week before his death where he was in and out of consciousness. Two things come up here - first of all, what is the point of having a monarch abdicate while they're dying? And secondly, a monarch cannot abdicate if they're mentally incapable.

Take for example George III. He was mentally incapable of doing the red boxes, or other aspects of ruling. In result a regency was set up for the last eight years of his life.

The royal red boxes actually do have to be done by the Queen. The documents within them are documents that require royal assent, which in the UK only the monarch (or a regent if there is one) can do. Giving royal assent is the most fundamental aspect of the constitutional monarch and if the monarch can't do that then the monarchy cannot run, and thus either an abdication or a regency needs to occur.

 

[Roslyn]

In reality, is the Queen ever likely to refuse Royal Assent? She doesn't run the country, the elected parliament does. Isn't she really just going through the motions?

 

[Roslyn]

Walkabouts were invented in NZ in 1970 when Elizabeth and Philip started to walkabout amongst the people on their tour there to celebrate the voyage of James Cook.

You may only have walkabouts by monarchs in mind, but her Majesty's Uncle David spent a fair bit of time walking about talking to the locals on his tours around the Empire in his younger days.

 

[Ish]

Yeah, but that's not the point - it's not whether or not she has to give royal assent that's important, it's the fact that in a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise) anything passed by the government doesn't become a law until the monarch (or a regent) gives royal assent.

This is true throughout all HM's realms, except instead of calling the representative a regent they're called other names - the GG and the LGs.

 

[Roslyn]

I suppose my point is that she gets advice on the issues anyway, and the material being put before her can be summarised for her. There need not really be much effort put into the task of doing the boxes.

 

[Ish]

I'm still not following your concern here.

My comments regarding the essentialness of the red boxes has nothing to do with the difficulty that lies in them. I simply think that they're an integral aspect of her role and that if she (or any other monarch) is unable to do them then it's time to look at a regency.