The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Dman]

Why Queen Elizabeth must end her abdication taboo | Stephen Bates | Opinion | The Guardian

 

[Curryong]

No the Queen won't abdicate, so there's no point in discussing it. Nevertheless, this article does highlight several of the problems that I, as a convinced monarchist, have been worried about for some time.

The future King in waiting is an already elderly and not too popular figure (though personally I believe him to be committed and hardworking.) He will be followed as monarch by a middle aged man who has so far been determined to maintain his and his family's privacy at all costs. There has to be a little magic there to bind a monarch and his/her people, besides the age old rituals.

If people believe William is dull and staid now, it's not going to improve when he's in his fifties, is it? This is a man who wants to micromanage his and his wife's image to the nth degree so that all spontaneity is gone. Whether or not you like the British media, they have played a part in fashioning the BRF's image. What if people aren't going to buy it any more? Once the fairy dust of monarchy has disappeared there's little left to sustain it.

 

[Rudolph]

If you're truly a convinced monarchist, you should have no worries. Look at the latest opinion polls. William is as popular as ever and Charles' numbers are steadily climbing. Even on his worst day, Charles is still more popular than any politician.

History shows us that 'negative' press has very little impact on the monarchy. Thankfully people are able to make up their own minds.

Even during the dark days after Diana's death and Charles marriage to Camilla, monarchy barely got below 70 percent.

So no the Queen won't abdicate but when the time comes, both Charles and William will make fine kings in the public's mind

 

[Curryong]

Are Charles's numbers steadily climbing though? And what happens when the Queen dies, as she inevitably will in the next decade?

I don't know why you consistently question my commitment as a monarchist, Rudolph. Look, I've had a very long life.

When I was a small child, the monarchy and what it stood for in Britain was an integral part of people's lives. My grandchildren don't believe it when I tell them this, but people would not only stand up when the National anthem was played in the cinema at the end of a session, with the picture onscreen of the Queen on horseback at the Trooping of the Colour but would actually stand up in their homes at the end of the Queen's Speech at Christmas on TV as a spontaneous mark of respect.

The Queen and Duke came to my home town when I was a child (in Britain) and people came out in their thousands and cheered and waved flags. I was there and I remember the excitement still. I was brought up on tales of young Charles and Anne and it felt as if they were almost part of the family. People talked in general conversation about the Coronation and golden coaches and the Queen in her crown etc, the magic of royalty. People had tears in their eyes when they talked about the late King.

Are children in Britain today going to regard George and Charlotte as almost part of their family? No, probably not. Are they going to be wistful about Charles looking good in ermine and robes? Perhaps momentarily.

Or has it all just turned, since the rent in Royal mystique following the War of the Wales's, into just some nice soap opera that doesn't really affect people's lives, (the attitude of most Britons now) or a popularity contest? You bet I have worries about the future of the British monarchy. It's changed so much in my lifetime it's unbelievable!

 

[Dman]

Not sure The Queen will abdicate, but Charles will take over if she's no longer able to do the job. She can only go on if her health permits her to. If she falls seriously ill, her doctors will tell her what to do, not the other way around. That's just reality.

Charles will make a good Prince Regent if need be.

William will make a good King, because he's getting the best apprenticeship at the moment. I know folks are worried about William's feelings on privacy, but the royals have always been tough on keep their private lives private. The royals can't give 100% of themselves to the public. That's killing. They must have a degree of privacy to survive.

 

[Marty91charmed]

While I've always been against abdication, especially one coming from the queen, I'd go against popular opinion now and say that I wouldn't mind abidication in the next years. I'd like to see how that would work and affect the royal family. Don't get me wrong, I adore the queen, but she has been the monarch for over 60 years, and, to be honest, I'm a bit curious to see a change. Just for the sake of something new happening.

I would be very surprised if that happened though, and I'm sure a regency would satisfy my curiosity just the same.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Why Queen Elizabeth must end her abdication taboo | Stephen Bates | Opinion | The Guardian

1: This is the Guardian, and what they say about the monarchy must be taken with a pinch of salt.

2: I usually don't say this about people, but Stephen Bates is a hypocrite. Why? Because he suggests that the Queen must end her abdication taboo, while in the end of the article he writes ''Long to reign over us? The Windsors must hope that it’s true''.

3: Stephen Bates was the Guardian's royal correspondent, 2000-2012, and he changes his opinions all the time. He has written the book Royalty Inc: Britain's Best-Known Brand, where he writes about how the institution has evolved to maintain its popularity at a time when many other bodies have seen marked declines in esteem and popularity.

4: He was interviewed by NRK's (Norwegian version of the BBC) London correspondent Espen Aas in september last year. Then he praised the monarchy, saying that it had a bright future.

5: I have until recently thought that William and Kate was going to live their lives as they do now until the Queen dies, and I still support that decision. But I now think especially after the ridiculous criticism from the media, that maybe we'll see them as full-time working royals within 3-4 years, although as cepe said in another thread: they are not needed in terms of delivering to the current Royal agenda. Another issue/problem is who should pay for it?

When William and Kate decide to become full-time working royals, the press will let go of their criticism and mostly ignore them. We will of course se coverage of royal tours (when they still are young) and of course se the usual criticism of spending/costs, but otherwise everything will be fine.

5: And as several royal authors, so-called experts and professors have said: The longer our Queen is on the throne, the better it is for the nation and for Charles.

 

[Dman]

The Cambridge's will be finically supported when they make the (inevitable) decision to fully focus on official royal duties. It's pretty much down to them making the switch.

 

[Mbruno]

No the Queen won't abdicate, so there's no point in discussing it. Nevertheless, this article does highlight several of the problems that I, as a convinced monarchist, have been worried about for some time.

The future King in waiting is an already elderly and not too popular figure (though personally I believe him to be committed and hardworking.) He will be followed as monarch by a middle aged man who has so far been determined to maintain his and his family's privacy at all costs. There has to be a little magic there to bind a monarch and his/her people, besides the age old rituals.

If people believe William is dull and staid now, it's not going to improve when he's in his fifties, is it? This is a man who wants to micromanage his and his wife's image to the nth degree so that all spontaneity is gone. Whether or not you like the British media, they have played a part in fashioning the BRF's image. What if people aren't going to buy it any more? Once the fairy dust of monarchy has disappeared there's little left to sustain it.

Frankly, I see no problem in William becoming king in his mid-fifties. Most monarchs ascend the throne when they are middle-aged anyway. William and Catherine are fairly popular now. When they are in their 50s, their twenty-something children will be hugely popular and provide plenty of "fairy dust" to the monarchy. Actually, that is one of the advantages of monarchy being a family business: there is always the next generation !

5: And as several royal authors, so-called experts and professors have said: The longer our Queen is on the throne, the better it is for the nation and for Charles.

I disagree it was good for Charles. The PoW is already past the "ideal age" to ascend the throne and a short reign in his advanced age is not the best way for him to leave his mark in royal history. One's circumstances in life are what they are though and, often, one doesn't have control over them.

On the other hand, the perception that the longer the Queen is on the throne, the better for the nation and, I would add, the better especially for the monarchy's position in the Commonwealth realms, is as much a statement about the Queen's qualities as a sovereign as it is about the doubts that still remain over Charles' suitability to succeed her.

No matter what some posters here might claim, the truth is that Charles is still controversial to a significant part of the population in the UK and in the Commonwealth realms at large. One might argue that doesn't matter as Charles will be king by law if he survives his mother, regardless of what people think about him, but the practical reality is that we are not in the Middle Ages or not even the 19th century anymore, and popularity matters to the monarchy.

 

[Curryong]

The emotional bond, the link between the British people and members of their royal family begins in the childhood of the Royal person concerned. See my previous post about Charles and Anne.

You don't suddenly grow an emotional connection as a subject to someone you barely saw in their early years when they're a fully fledged adult. (I'm not referring to married-ins here but to born royals.) When William and Harry were little there were lots of photos and a video and we saw plenty of them as they grew up.

 

[Mbruno]

The emotional bond, the link between the British people and members of their royal family begins in the childhood of the Royal person concerned. See my previous post about Charles and Anne.

You don't suddenly grow an emotional connection as a subject to someone you barely saw in their early years when they're a fully fledged adult. (I'm not referring to married-ins here but to born royals.) When William and Harry were little there were lots of photos and a video and we saw plenty of them as they grew up.

What are you saying then ? That George and Charlotte should be seen more often out in public ? I think they are still too young for that.

One of the advantages of middle-aged kings is precisely that their young heirs are naturally forced to take up a public role at an age when they can easily connect with the public. We saw it with Felipe when he was Prince of Asturias and we are starting to see it with some of the current teenage heirs like Elisabeth of Belgium and, maybe soon, the Princess of Orange. Prince George will probably fall in the same category by default when his father is king.

 

[Curryong]

Among the current crop of heirs and Princes I admire the way Victoria and Daniel of Sweden have introduced Estelle to the Swedish public she will one day reign over in a very natural way. I also like how Albert and Charlene of Monaco have brought out their babies at important religious and national occasions and allowed adoring Monagesques to have a good look at them. They've posed as a family for photo shoots with a professional photographer as well.

 

[Skippyboo]

There were just Cambridge family photos last month (by a professional photographer too). There will be 1st birthday photos in May, the photos with the Queen, balcony appearances, polo field appearances ahead. George and Charlotte aren't being locked in the tower until they are 20. As they get older, there will be more and more appearances. They will go to Church at Christmas, on engagements and tours.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I saw the one family photograph last month and if past history is anything to go by Charlotte's birthday will be marked by one, maybe two photographs. Where are the videos, like Estelle, and the Monaco twins mixing with their future subjects?

 

[TLLK]

And it is possible that one of the Queen's birthday photos from the Easter Monday photo session will be released to the public.

 

[SLV]

When I was a small child, the monarchy and what it stood for in Britain was an integral part of people's lives. My grandchildren don't believe it when I tell them this, but people would not only stand up when the National anthem was played in the cinema at the end of a session, with the picture onscreen of the Queen on horseback at the Trooping of the Colour but would actually stand up in their homes at the end of the Queen's Speech at Christmas on TV as a spontaneous mark of respect.

But these things were taught by parents and family. If they do not teach and explain to the children, then the children do not learn. So is this lack of respect the fault of the children or the parents?

 

[Ish]

Yes, I saw the one family photograph last month and if past history is anything to go by Charlotte's birthday will be marked by one, maybe two photographs. Where are the videos, like Estelle, and the Monaco twins mixing with their future subjects?

I do think we actually get a lot of exposure to the Cambridge children - no videos really, but regular releases of photos. George was at the trooping last year, so it's safe to say he'll probably be there this year and Charlotte next year.

We don't see them as much as Estelle, but Victoria gets criticized for how much Estelle is exposed. And being a Prince/ss of Sweden or Monaco is different from being one of Britain - there is a lot more attention to the British Royal than their Continental counterparts.

Personally, I think it would be great if the Cambridges did more engagements like the play date they did in Australia, which is an inherently child-friendly engagement - and a good way to expose George and Charlotte to their future roles, with consideration to their ages. But the fact remains that the Cambridges, for better or for worse, are part time royals. They don't do many engagements as it is, so I can see why they wouldn't do ones that bring the kids along.

As for the Queen and abdications... Ok, yes, Charles will be an old King. And he will likely have a short reign. But that doesn't mean his mother should abdicate. There is no age limit on being King. And William will also be an older King, but if he's middle aged when he becomes King (and how the hell is he being accused of being middle aged now? He's in his early 30s) then that just follows the trend of middle aged monarchs happening in the continent.

People like to toss out the idea that the Queen not abdicating means she doesn't think Charles is up for the job, when they don't get that there is no precedence for the Queen to abdicate (Edward VIII's abdication is not precedence, those were very different circumstances). And if she were to abdicate it would create a precedence, which could very easily turn the monarchy into a popularity contest. Seriously, how long do you think Charles would reign before the calls for his abdication would begin? I don't think he'd get to his coronation - even now, it's a popular idea that he can give up his place in the succession to make way for his younger, more popular son. If an abdication actually happened though? It would be ridiculous.

If the Queen were to abdicate I would fully support her decision as she's served her realms dutifully for far longer than she could have expected when she made her coronation vows. But I honestly think that her abdicating and creating such a precedence, given who her heirs are and the history of the public perception of them, that doing so would be disastrous for the British monarchy.

 

[Curryong]

It's a much less deferential age now, and discussions on the Internet and on Twitter make it even less. However, there was still deference and respect for the BRF in the 1960's and even 1970's.

I believe the ripping away of a great deal of the veil, of the mystique of royalty, came with the War of the Wales's in the 1980's. I adored Diana and felt for her, but the rupture of the Wales' marriage did great harm to the image of the BRF IMO. I was partially living back in Britain then and at the time of Diana's death, and personally experienced people who had once been fervent royalists turning away from the Royal Family for the first time in their lives.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Are Charles's numbers steadily climbing though? And what happens when the Queen dies, as she inevitably will in the next decade?

I don't know why you consistently question my commitment as a monarchist, Rudolph. Look, I've had a very long life.

When I was a small child, the monarchy and what it stood for in Britain was an integral part of people's lives. My grandchildren don't believe it when I tell them this, but people would not only stand up when the National anthem was played in the cinema at the end of a session, with the picture onscreen of the Queen on horseback at the Trooping of the Colour but would actually stand up in their homes at the end of the Queen's Speech at Christmas on TV as a spontaneous mark of respect.

The Queen and Duke came to my home town when I was a child (in Britain) and people came out in their thousands and cheered and waved flags. I was there and I remember the excitement still. I was brought up on tales of young Charles and Anne and it felt as if they were almost part of the family. People talked in general conversation about the Coronation and golden coaches and the Queen in her crown etc, the magic of royalty. People had tears in their eyes when they talked about the late King.

Are children in Britain today going to regard George and Charlotte as almost part of their family? No, probably not. Are they going to be wistful about Charles looking good in ermine and robes? Perhaps momentarily.

Or has it all just turned, since the rent in Royal mystique following the War of the Wales's, into just some nice soap opera that doesn't really affect people's lives, (the attitude of most Britons now) or a popularity contest? You bet I have worries about the future of the British monarchy. It's changed so much in my lifetime it's unbelievable!

This was a very different time with a very uncritical press and just a few tv channels, no internet and no mobiles, but as my grandparents and several of the so-called experts have said: There were many Republicans in the UK in the 50s and 60s and the monarchy is safer today than it was then. Helen Mirren has also told about a strong republican environment in the UK at that time.

I saw in 2012 a poll from 1960's which I think showed 67% support for the monarchy and one from 1970s which I think showed 71% support. Most polls in recent years show around 70% support for the monarchy, while some are over 80%.

It's a much less deferential age now, and discussions on the Internet and on Twitter make it even less. However, there was still deference and respect for the BRF in the 1960's and even 1970's.

I believe the ripping away of a great deal of the veil, of the mystique of royalty, came with the War of the Wales's in the 1980's. I adored Diana and felt for her, but the rupture of the Wales' marriage did great harm to the image of the BRF IMO. I was partially living back in Britain then and at the time of Diana's death, and personally experienced people who had once been fervent royalists turning away from the Royal Family for the first time in their lives.

Diana was pretty controversial before her death. She had turned a revered institution in to her own soap opera, she attacked her husband on television, she embarrassed the Queen and was putting the future of her sons at risk etc. I'm not saying that Charles was innocent, but he didn't attack Diana on TV or in front of the kids. We also had the other scandals and the media was much more critical than they had been before.

And then Diana died, and as cepe wrote in this post:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-royal-family-and-the-media-11937-12.html#post1871170

The immediate response of the British people was to turn on the press. So what did the press do? Turn it round and blame HMQ. With hindsight we know what HMQ did in looking after her grandchildren was the right thing.

Most people today (even journalists) regrets the way they attacked/bullied the Queen in the days following Diana's death. And as Rudolph said: Even during the dark days after Diana's death and Charles marriage to Camilla, the monarchy barely got below 70 percent.

We've had record high support for the monarchy in several polls since 2002, some of over 80%.

And as you wrote yourself in this post:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-under-charles-16252-115.html#post1859932

I know the monarchy in the UK is rock solid and riding high in opinion polls at the moment (and in the last few years.)

So try to be positive and enjoy the Queen's 90th birthday.

 

[Dman]

Video:
The Queen's Cousin: "No Danger of Abdication"-
Queen's cousin: 'No danger of abdication' - BBC News

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think we actually get a lot of exposure to the Cambridge children - no videos really, but regular releases of photos. George was at the trooping last year, so it's safe to say he'll probably be there this year and Charlotte next year.

I think we are seeing way less of them than we did of William and Harry and the consequence for that is a lack of connection.

I would like to see a video of them interacting with other people rather than just a still shot with no other people around like we had for George starting school. There was nothing in those photos that allowed the public to really connect with George whereas a short video of him waving goodbye to his parents with them actually in the shot (taken in their gardens or at the main house at Sandringham and thus not a public show at all) would have been better, particularly in this day and age where video is the way news is presented.

We don't see them as much as Estelle, but Victoria gets criticized for how much Estelle is exposed. And being a Prince/ss of Sweden or Monaco is different from being one of Britain - there is a lot more attention to the British Royal than their Continental counterparts.

Estelle though is 2nd in line while George is 3rd - but she is comfortable in public which George may very well never be as he hasn't been exposed to it as being normal. Time will tell which approach was best.

Personally, I think it would be great if the Cambridges did more engagements like the play date they did in Australia, which is an inherently child-friendly engagement - and a good way to expose George and Charlotte to their future roles, with consideration to their ages. But the fact remains that the Cambridges, for better or for worse, are part time royals. They don't do many engagements as it is, so I can see why they wouldn't do ones that bring the kids along.

I don't think engagements with the children is needed. I do think that an occasional video would be fine - even if is was something like a candid video of George and Charlotte with the other great-grandchildren and HM.

As for the Queen and abdications... Ok, yes, Charles will be an old King. And he will likely have a short reign.

I always love it when people assume that Charles' reign will be short but ... he has always taken very good care of his health. If he lives as long as his mother - whatever age she is when she leaves us - he will have a reign of 22 years - hardly 'short'.

But that doesn't mean his mother should abdicate. There is no age limit on being King. And William will also be an older King, but if he's middle aged when he becomes King (and how the hell is he being accused of being middle aged now? He's in his early 30s) then that just follows the trend of middle aged monarchs happening in the continent.

William is in his mid-30s now surely at nearly 34. If the Queen lives another 10 years and then Charles goes for 22 more after that then William will be in his mid-60s - at retirement age when he finally reaches the throne.

The problem that is looming in the next century is a series of old male monarchs and they don't really inspire the same affection as younger monarchs.

I personally don't think The Queen should abdicate now - she has missed the boat on that - should have done that years ago while Charles was still young enough to be seen with his young sons but now he is too old for that so she has to stay on to keep the monarchy's popularity alive.

Charles won't abdicate either.

However, I can see William choosing to abdicate after a 10 year reign to hand over to George while George is still a young man.

I won't be alive to see it but I can see William setting a precedence of the monarch abdicating at 75 for instance.

People like to toss out the idea that the Queen not abdicating means she doesn't think Charles is up for the job, when they don't get that there is no precedence for the Queen to abdicate (Edward VIII's abdication is not precedence, those were very different circumstances). And if she were to abdicate it would create a precedence, which could very easily turn the monarchy into a popularity contest. Seriously, how long do you think Charles would reign before the calls for his abdication would begin? I don't think he'd get to his coronation - even now, it's a popular idea that he can give up his place in the succession to make way for his younger, more popular son. If an abdication actually happened though? It would be ridiculous.

The Queen is a produce of her times of course but times are changing and the idea of a younger monarch with the children still being young and photogenic and thus images of a 'happy family' is gaining credibility given the European abdications and the rise in popularity of the institutions that followed.

Charles can ask the UK parliament and the other realms to pass the necessary legislation - as Edward VIII did - but he won't do that as it will raise the questions about republics etc in some of the other realms and he believes it is his right and that he shouldn't be pressured into giving it up.

If the Queen were to abdicate I would fully support her decision as she's served her realms dutifully for far longer than she could have expected when she made her coronation vows. But I honestly think that her abdicating and creating such a precedence, given who her heirs are and the history of the public perception of them, that doing so would be disastrous for the British monarchy.

I totally agree with this comment - she has to keep going now.

 

[tommy100]

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

 

[Mbruno]

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 don't know if that is true or not, but, as I wrote here before, I fully believe that there is a great possibility that Charles might become regent before he becomes king . It would be an easier way for the Queen to retire without having to formally abdicate and it wouldn't require any additional legislation in the UK.

There is the small detail though that a regency in the UK would automatically apply also to New Zealand (under current NZ law), but would otherwise have no legal effect for example in Australia and Canada. So, unless Australia and Canada took the necessary steps (whatever they are) to make Charles the regent, he couldn't for example appoint a new Governor General for those realms or appoint new State Governors in Australia specifically, which happens to be a practical problem to name only one.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

I don't know if that is true or not, but, as I wrote here before, I fully believe that there is a great possibility that Charles might become regent before he becomes king . It would be an easier way for the Queen to retire without having to formally abdicate and it wouldn't require any additional legislation in the UK.

There is the small detail though that a regency in the UK would automatically apply also to New Zealand (under current NZ law), but would otherwise have no legal effect for example in Australia and Canada. So, unless Australia and Canada took the necessary steps (whatever they are) to make Charles the regent, he couldn't for example appoint a new Governor General for those realms or appoint new State Governors in Australia specifically, which happens to be a practical problem to name only one.

The Australia Act 1986 and Governor-General Act 1974 need to be changed to explicitly state "regent". At the moment, it clearly states only the Queen. I am surprised that both acts specifically state Queen rather than Regent.

It looks like there is no need for a change of the Constitution, which would invoke a referendum

So the change needs to go through Parliament and that is about it. I couldn't imagine either party not allowing this change to go through.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Regency Act was passed in 1937 and so it predates the Australian government's ratification of the Statute of Westminster and so it does apply here. The amendments made in 1953 had to be passed in Australia, and was done so, because it was after we had ratified the Statute of Westminster (which we did in 1942).

Thus the 1937 Regency Act does apply here - as indicated by Mr Menzies in 1953 when discussing the requested amendments passed in 1953.

Our constitution makes it clear that references to the British monarch (at the time it was written it referred to The Queen - meaning Victoria) apply to all subsequent monarchs so no need for any referendum as the constitution is very clear.

The reason the two acts mentioned above don't mention a regent is that there was no need to do so as the 1937 Regency Act applies here.

It is also why Australia didn't have to pass legislation for the abdication in 1936 - because we hadn't ratified the Statute of Westminster which gave us the powers to make a lot of laws for ourselves. It was this necessity in Eire that lead them to remove all mention of the monarch from their government and thus they became a republic.

The governments of the day would have included the words 'regent' had that been necessary.

The Australia Act clearly says that 'no laws AFTER ... ' that is no laws after the passing of this act in the UK will have effect in Australia but it doesn't repeal that laws that already apply here - such as the 1937 Regency Act, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Marriage Act etc which was passed before we ratified the Statute of Westminster.

The laws themselves also allow for them to be amended by further legislation if required - it is one of the clauses.

 

[Ish]

The 1937 Regency Act (nor subsequent Acts in 1943 and 1952) isn't applicable in Canada.

Instead, LPs were issued in 1947, authorizing the GG to use all the monarch's powers except the ability to amend the LPs. Thus, a Regency isn't required in Canada; everything, including the appointment of a new GG can be done by the GG.

I think the only time when this would be an issue is if the monarch required a regent, and the GG was incapacitated in a way that prevented him/her from being able to appoint a new GG. Not sure what would happen in that (highly unlikely to happen) event.

 

[wbenson]

I think the only time when this would be an issue is if the monarch required a regent, and the GG was incapacitated in a way that prevented him/her from being able to appoint a new GG. Not sure what would happen in that (highly unlikely to happen) event.

The letters patent cover that too. The Chief Justice can act in the event of the "death, incapacity, removal, or absence" of the GG. And then on down the line to the most senior available justice of the Supreme Court.

 

[Denville]

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

Unlikely to be true. I'm sure the queen has discussed this with her advisersa and family in rencen times, but she is not going to abdicate and she's not IMO likely to have Charles as a regent unless she became very ill.

 

[Mbruno]

The letters patent cover that too. The Chief Justice can act in the event of the "death, incapacity, removal, or absence" of the GG. And then on down the line to the most senior available justice of the Supreme Court.

The opinion in this link is that the power to appoint a new GG is not covered by the Letters Patent, but that, as you said, the practical solution in case the office became vacant during a Regency would be for the most senior available justice to take over as Administrator.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Unlikely to be true. I'm sure the queen has discussed this with her advisersa and family in rencen times, but she is not going to abdicate and she's not IMO likely to have Charles as a regent unless she became very ill.

Don't underestimate the eventual impact of Prince Philip passing away. Her love, her spouse, her rock, her most trusted confidant of so unbelievably many years. It can have a profound effect on the surviving spouse and we all know the Queen is unmistakenably more and more frail.

I would not be surprised when the Queen indeed uses the Regency route to remain Sovereign but in daily life handing over the reins to her son Prince Charles.