The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Curryong]

I can't see the Queen abdicating either. What I can see, as the years progress, is the Queen and the Duke gradually scaling back on their royal engagements as they progress into their 90's. (That is, barring incapacitating illness.)

If this occurs in the next few years then Charles will take over some of the ceremonial duties, and hopefully younger members of the royal family will take over some charities and organisations where the Queen and Prince Philip are currently patrons.

Charles's Private Secretary intimated a while ago, I believe, that there is no extra money in the kitty (Duchy funds) to finance extra engagements for the Cambridges beyond what they do at the moment.

Harry's position is a little different probably, as much of his focus is on wounded veterans (Invictus Games etc) so the Ministry of Defence probably assists on some engagements.

So, until the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh do begin to ease up on some of their engagements William and Kate will be left with not too much on their plates.

 

[Rudolph]

A load of rubbish in my opinion.

Bookies suspend betting on Queen announcing abdication in Christmas broadcast - Telegraph

The bookmaker Coral has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication in this year's Christmas Day broadcast.

The betting firm said it had decided to close the market after an "unusual" rash of wagers which "instantly set alarm bells ringing".

It had offered odds of 10-1 on the Queen abdicating during the Christmas message.

The speech to the nation is pre-recorded, leading to suspicions that people with inside knowledge, either from Buckingham Palace or the TV camera crew, might have acted on inside knowledge.

Nicola McGeady, a spokesman for Coral, said: "Throughout the year there has been major speculation about the Queen’s future but today’s gamble has really caught us by surprise.

 

[wbenson]

It's not the first time. And the Telegraph gave Coral a free advertisement that time too.

 

[Jacknch]

Oh well, people like to have a little bet over Christmas even if the Queen's Christmas Message is the last place she would consider making such an announcement! I wonder if they are still taking bets on the colour of her dress this year

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

Charles's Private Secretary intimated a while ago, I believe, that there is no extra money in the kitty (Duchy funds) to finance extra engagements for the Cambridges beyond what they do at the moment.

[...]

That is a bit telling about the (lack of) effiency and cost-awareness of the British royal household organization, I am afraid to say. The Duchy of Cornwall alone generates more revenue than some continental royal Houses get as a total year's budget for their total workings....

 

[wyevale]

I am afraid to say

Don't make me laugh Duc et Pair ! ANY opportunity to bash the British you leap on with alacrity !

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well, let us be honest.... Duke and Duchess of Cambridge can not do more engagements because there is not enough in the kitty.... Eeeeerhhhh....



But this aside. I do not expect any abdication from Her Majesty. When the Duke of Edinburgh dies, I can see the Queen going in stealth mode, the Prince of Wales becoming the most visible member of the British royal family, but still she will not adbicate. But any guess is as good as it is.

 

[Rudolph]

Queen's abdication speculation nothing but a PR stunt - ITV News

Welcome to April Fool's Day 2!

When a leading bookmakers announced it was suspending betting on the Queen abdicating in her pre-recorded Christmas message it was job done: a PR stunt that got the Twitterati jabbering and palace officials forced to offer a firm denial.

Apparently, you could have got odds of 10-1 on the Queen stepping down on Christmas Day until a "rush of bets" raised suspicions of insider knowledge.

The bookies clearly do believe there's one born every minute!

 

[Mbruno]

I don't believe the Queen will abdicate, but I suppose there will be a regency at some point (maybe in a not so distant future) barring any unexpected demise of the sovereign.

 

[Marty91charmed]

The bookies should find something else to do since they haven't got it right for a while now... This is all I have to say on the matter

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I repeat again, The Queen will never abdicate and this is why.

Besides The Queen's view on the coronation oath and her vow that her whole life would be devoted to service, there is a very easy reason why The Queen wouldn't abdicate. The Queen is head of state of 16 countries and head of the Commonwealth, if she decided to abdicate each country would have to pass a bill approving the abdication as the demise of the crown legislation only accounts for a monarch's death not abdication. When Edward VIII abdicated, the UK could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy, and not forget the Commonwealth.

And why on earth should she abdicate at the age of almost 90. Had she wanted to abdicate, she would have done it long ago.

It is being busy that keeps The Queen in good health.

 

[Admiral Horthy]

The Queen is head of state of 16 countries and head of the Commonwealth, if she decided to abdicate each country would have to pass a bill approving the abdication as the demise of the crown legislation only accounts for a monarch's death not abdication. When Edward VIII abdicated, the UK could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy, and not forget the Commonwealth.

Never thought of that, very good point.

 

[MARG]

I repeat again, The Queen will never abdicate and this is why.

Besides The Queen's view on the coronation oath and her vow that her whole life would be devoted to service, there is a very easy reason why The Queen wouldn't abdicate. The Queen is head of state of 16 countries and head of the Commonwealth, if she decided to abdicate each country would have to pass a bill approving the abdication as the demise of the crown legislation only accounts for a monarch's death not abdication. When Edward VIII abdicated, the UK could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy, and not forget the Commonwealth.

And why on earth should she abdicate at the age of almost 90. Had she wanted to abdicate, she would have done it long ago.

It is being busy that keeps The Queen in good health.

Actually she made her first, and I believe deepest vow, on the occasion of her 21st Birthday in a broadcast to the UK and the Empire/Commonwealth. Princess Elizabeth said in part:

If we all go forward together with an unwavering faith, a high courage, and a quiet heart, we shall be able to make of this ancient commonwealth, which we all love so dearly, an even grander thing - more free, more prosperous, more happy and a more powerful influence for good in the world - than it has been in the greatest days of our forefathers.

To accomplish that we must give nothing less than the whole of ourselves. There is a motto which has been borne by many of my ancestors - a noble motto, "I serve". Those words were an inspiration to many bygone heirs to the Throne when they made their knightly dedication as they came to manhood. I cannot do quite as they did.

But through the inventions of science I can do what was not possible for any of them. I can make my solemn act of dedication with a whole Empire listening. I should like to make that dedication now. It is very simple.

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.

But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me, as I now invite you to do: I know that your support will be unfailingly given. God help me to make good my vow, and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it.

Formalising that vow before God and her people during her Coronation was just the cherry on top and yes, there are people, a lot of people who, pray for her weekly in church and more often at home, who do indeed pray for His Servant Elizabeth, our Queen.

O God, in love you provide for your people by your power and rule over them: be pleased to bless your servant Elizabeth our Queen so that under her this nation may be wisely governed and your church be free to serve you in godly quietness. And grant that she, being devoted to you with her whole heart and persevering in good works to the end, may by your guidance come to your eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

We live in a cheap and instant world where integrity and honesty are on sale to the highest bidder. Not so our Queen, she will honour her own vow made before she even became Queen. Generations after have kept faith with her, they will as long as she needs them.

Will she abdicate? I think not.

 

[Osipi]

Beautiful post and very, very well said Marg!

 

[Mbruno]

Just as a minor comment: in order to keep "devoting her life" to the service of the peoples of the Commonwealth realms, Elizabeth II does not necessarily have to remain on the throne until her demise. Princess Beatrix or King Juan Carlos for example have abdicated and, nonetheless, still have official engagements in service of their respective countries.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

In order to keep "devoting her life" to the service of the peoples of the Commonwealth realms, Elizabeth II does not necessarily have to remain on the throne until her demise.

No, but she's not going to abdicate.

 

[timtonruben359]

There seems to be a misconception in the British press that the Queen can simply say 'I quit' and give her two weeks notice. At present it would actually be technically illegal for the Queen to quit. There is no legal mechanism in the UK (and the 15 other Commonwealth Realms) that allows a succession to take place through any other means than death. The end of a reign and the start of a new one is covered in the 1707 Succession to the Crown Act and Demise of the Crown Acts 1727 and 1901.

If the Queen decided she wished to abdicate, legislation would have to be introduced in the same way it was done for Edward VIII. Unlike in 1936, London can no longer legislate for the Commonwealth Realms which means the Queen's abdication would have to be brought into law in 16 countries. In federations like Canada and Australia it's likely that not only would the federal legislatures have to bring forward a bill, but all the provincial and state legislatures would have to legislate the Queen's abdication as well. Then of course many of the Commonwealth Realms which have been debating about the future of the monarchy would likely use this to try and bring about changes.

Then there's the question of property. Windsor and Buckingham Palace belong to the Monarch so they would become Charles's once the legislation passed for the Queen to abdicate, but Balmoral and Sandringham are the Queen's personal property and she would either have to pass the deed to Charles, or she would remain owner of those properties until she dies (this was a problem when Edward VIII abdicated. George VI had to buy Sandringham and Balmoral back from his brother).

Then there's the question of titles, what would the Queen be called off the throne? Would she convert back to a HRH? Problem is from a religious point of view because she was anointed a Queen she's a Queen until she dies too. Would she been Queen Dowager - no because she wasn't married to a King. You know how title obsessed people around the British Royals are.

Would the ex-Queen be expected to perform public duties? I doubt it would look good to have an ex-monarch sitting around doing nothing while appearing to live of the taxpayers dime....I know that's not an accurate argument but people, especially republicans will use it.

I understand abdication seems to be the new 'in thing' for monarchies across Europe and I suspect going forward most monarchs will no longer die in office. I can see the benefit in some cases of how abdication might be a good thing but I'm honestly not in favour of it myself. One of the last major selling points of monarchy in this day and age is the continuity it provides and I find that abdication cheapens that (my personal opinion). Now if the Queen was hugely unpopular and the institution looked like it could disappear (like the situation in Spain) that it would make sense but the Queen is hugely popular, more popular than at any other point in her reign.

We'll be back here in September celebrating her milestone of becoming the longest reigning monarch in British history.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Then there's the question of titles, what would the Queen be called off the throne? Would she convert back to a HRH? Problem is from a religious point of view because she was anointed a Queen she's a Queen until she dies too. Would she been Queen Dowager - no because she wasn't married to a King. You know how title obsessed people around the British Royals are.

John Prescott came up with a ridiculous idea, The Queen Emeritus.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Emeritus. It's not so ridiculous when using the modern definition.

 

[wyevale]

*If* [Heaven forfend] a title might be needed for such an eventuality.. I'd suggest HRH the Duchess of Lancaster...

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I'm with you on that one, but I don't think there is a whiff of abdication anywhere in HM's mind.

 

[Iluvbertie]

IF she was considering stepping down one thing is clear - she would do it live and not via a pre-recorded message that is seen and heard in different parts of the world at different times. It would be heard first in Tuvalu for instance. Does anyone expect that The Queen of the UK of GB and NI would announce her abdication to the Tuvalese people first - even though she is also their Queen???

 

[Skippyboo]

Plus William would not have been allowed to take the air ambulance pilot job.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[wbenson]

IF she was considering stepping down one thing is clear - she would do it live and not via a pre-recorded message that is seen and heard in different parts of the world at different times.

It's also distributed several days in advance (I'm not sure how early, but a few years ago the US network C-SPAN accidentally put it online for several hours around the 20th). It would be impossible to keep it embargoed for that long if it contained actual news.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Plus William would not have been allowed to take the air ambulance pilot job.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

William hasn't even finished (perhaps hasn't even started) his air ambulance training yet. Anyway, he could get out of that commitment quite easily.


Long live the Queen...

 

[Mbruno]

If we use the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 as a reference, the necessary changes were enacted quite fast in most Commonwealth realms, with the notable exception of Australia, where legislation had to be passed by each state parliament first before federal legislation could be enacted. As of today, I believe Western Australia is still holding up the process.

In any case, I believe that UK legislation in particular could be passed very quickly as soon as the Queen signed an Instrument of Abdication, as was the case with her uncle. It remains to be seen whether the British government would wait for all the other realms to ratify the abdication, or if the abdication act would come into force in the UK properly immediately after the royal assent. In the worst case scenario, we could have a situation where Elizabeth II would cease to be the queen of the UK, but would remain queen of Australia, Canada, etc., at least for some additional time.

There seems to be a misconception in the British press that the Queen can simply say 'I quit' and give her two weeks notice. At present it would actually be technically illegal for the Queen to quit. There is no legal mechanism in the UK (and the 15 other Commonwealth Realms) that allows a succession to take place through any other means than death. The end of a reign and the start of a new one is covered in the 1707 Succession to the Crown Act and Demise of the Crown Acts 1727 and 1901.

If the Queen decided she wished to abdicate, legislation would have to be introduced in the same way it was done for Edward VIII. Unlike in 1936, London can no longer legislate for the Commonwealth Realms which means the Queen's abdication would have to be brought into law in 16 countries. In federations like Canada and Australia it's likely that not only would the federal legislatures have to bring forward a bill, but all the provincial and state legislatures would have to legislate the Queen's abdication as well. Then of course many of the Commonwealth Realms which have been debating about the future of the monarchy would likely use this to try and bring about changes.

Then there's the question of property. Windsor and Buckingham Palace belong to the Monarch so they would become Charles's once the legislation passed for the Queen to abdicate, but Balmoral and Sandringham are the Queen's personal property and she would either have to pass the deed to Charles, or she would remain owner of those properties until she dies (this was a problem when Edward VIII abdicated. George VI had to buy Sandringham and Balmoral back from his brother).

Then there's the question of titles, what would the Queen be called off the throne? Would she convert back to a HRH? Problem is from a religious point of view because she was anointed a Queen she's a Queen until she dies too. Would she been Queen Dowager - no because she wasn't married to a King. You know how title obsessed people around the British Royals are.

Would the ex-Queen be expected to perform public duties? I doubt it would look good to have an ex-monarch sitting around doing nothing while appearing to live of the taxpayers dime....I know that's not an accurate argument but people, especially republicans will use it.

I understand abdication seems to be the new 'in thing' for monarchies across Europe and I suspect going forward most monarchs will no longer die in office. I can see the benefit in some cases of how abdication might be a good thing but I'm honestly not in favour of it myself. One of the last major selling points of monarchy in this day and age is the continuity it provides and I find that abdication cheapens that (my personal opinion). Now if the Queen was hugely unpopular and the institution looked like it could disappear (like the situation in Spain) that it would make sense but the Queen is hugely popular, more popular than at any other point in her reign.

We'll be back here in September celebrating her milestone of becoming the longest reigning monarch in British history.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Why the Queen won't abdicate (probably) - BBC Newsbeat

The palace suggested that we take a look at some of the speeches the Queen has given.

During the Coronation in 1953 she pledged to govern the countries where she is head of state - a promise which she said she would "perform and keep. So help me God."

Former royal butler to Prince Charles Grant Harold said: "She's very much the old school - she's taken on this responsibility and I think she means what she's said in her speeches.

"I wouldn't have thought she would change her mind. She's got no reason to change. She's still got the support of the Duke of Edinburgh backing her all the way.

"I know she's cutting back in duties but I think she'll stay until the sad day when her life comes to an end. She sees it as her duty to carry on to the day she dies.

 

[Iluvbertie]

We know from the Succession to the Crown Act decisions that until ALL relevant realms have passed the legislation it doesn't take effect in any realm so even if the legislation was passed in the UK until it was passed in the other realms it wouldn't take effect in the UK.


I have also heard, from some of my late father's legal colleagues, that there is still a chance that there will be a constitutional challenge to the legislation in Australia when it is passed here (not to the content of the legislation mind you). That is because each of the states have passed the legislation - meaning that they are regarded as separate monarchies to the federal government - and that needs to be fully clarified by the High Court. If there is no challenge then it means that each state as well as the federal government would have to vote on becoming a republic when we finally vote on that issue again rather than what was assumed in 1999 - that a vote federally covered the states as well.


Repeating - it isn't the content of the law that is at issue but the fact that the states and federal governments were all required to pass it.


That may even have to go to a referendum to finalise the status of The Queen at state level - before the Succession to the Crown Act is finalised down under - again at both state and federal level (if it is ruled that The Queen is separately Queen of each of the states then to remove that requires a referendum - to hand over that status solely to the federal government).

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The only thing that is interesting about this article is the last part. I quote it here.

Abdication rumours ahead of Queen’s 2014 Christmas Message
. | The Australian

In his recent memoir, former foreign minister Bob Carr provided insight into why. He related a conversation between the Queen and Australia’s outgoing high commissioner to London, the former South Australian premier Mike Rann, that touched on the abdication of Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands. “It’s not something we do here,’’ Elizabeth said.

 

[Rudolph]

And that's that. Its just not the British way.