The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Osipi]

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.

It would make sense to me. No one, and I mean *no one* would expect the Queen not to go into a period of mourning for her beloved Philip if he should pass on before her. I don't know that she'd enact a regency but for all purposes, the everyday working of the monarchy would pass to Charles with the Queen remaining perhaps at Windsor still doing her boxes and the things a monarch *must* do but rest handed over to Charles.

I'm sure both the Queen and Philip are not ostriching and have thought about and made plans for just about anything that could happen. When you're in your 90s, you know that plans need to be made for the inevitable.

 

[AdmirerUS]

"Mourning" means different things to differ people.

I, for one, and neighbor I am helping with memorial plans, both know we "mourn" best when we can keep busy.

For some of us, after we have touched base with family, assessed their needs, made plans for internment, keeping occupied is a relief. To settle back into our every day selves, where we make decisions, get things done and move forward outside of the death itself feels highly reassuring. I am sure a psychologist would speak to "gaining control" a a method of dealing with grief .

Unlike many here on this thread, I am quite sure HM has discussed and DECIDED the circumstances under which she would declare a regency and possibly even abdicate. She is a thoughtful and deliberate woman who has never shown a fear of the future. I'm betting she is facing the unknown with a clarity and objectivity that has marked her entire reign. JMO

 

[Skippyboo]

Philip's funeral is already planned. The Queen doesn't have to do that. Even if the Queen pulls a Victoria and retreats from public life. It doesn't mean that a regency will be invoked. Victoria went decades without doing much of anything after Albert died.

It's a different story if the Queen's physical health breaks down or if she has a stroke like Margaret did and she can no longer do the job anymore.

 

[cepe]

this is my thought as well. She would IMO formally mourn for 3 months. She could use other means but Regency for a temporary period seems possible which could be extended.

 

[Mirabel]

I don't believe there will be an official regency; the Queen will simply hand more duties over to Charles.
She is already doing that.
Who can blame her, after all this time?
But I think it will all be done quietly, and the status quo will continue.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I don't believe there will be an official regency; the Queen will simply hand more duties over to Charles.
She is already doing that.
Who can blame her, after all this time?
But I think it will all be done quietly, and the status quo will continue.

I agree, unless the Queen's health would deteriorate to the point she is having difficulties functioning, I think all that will change is Charles and William will gradually take on more duties as she winds things down. Seems like a good plan for a smooth transition.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't believe there will be an official regency; the Queen will simply hand more duties over to Charles.
She is already doing that.
Who can blame her, after all this time?
But I think it will all be done quietly, and the status quo will continue.

I think the opposite. I do think she will ask for a formal Regency so she doesn't have to meet with the PM, attend the council meetings and read the boxes, which take her hours each day, along with any official correspondence.

This would be a win-win for HM - she remains as Queen, attends say Trooping the Colour and is cheered in the streets and seen for church services but the day to day work of the monarch is past to Charles - not some of it but all of it. He would meet the Ambassadors and High Commissioners, appoint the Lord Lts of the counties (except for Lancaster as they would remain with the Duke of Lancaster) and the mundane aspects of the monarch.

She gets to relax a bit and show her support for her son and heir (and given the press stories at the moment which are only going to get worse for him and Camilla in the next 2+ weeks some show of support for him wouldn't go amiss - from his mother at least. I don't expect to see any such show of support from the Princes - they have shown their colours all too clearly.)

 

[Skippyboo]

The Princes who have never said a negative word in public against their stepmother even though they know all about the collapse of their parents marriage and Camilla's role in it have shown their true colors? Because the didn't talk about their father when doing a documentary about their mother?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Because they never talk about their father. It is always their mother - who has been dead for 20 years, who spent no more than six weeks a year with them and who they have made sure was the focus of a lot of media coverage this year with no thought to how this would affect their father.

They have constantly said they weren't given any support when their mother died. Who should have been giving them support - their father. By saying they were given no support they were saying their father wasn't there for them.

They said they were made to walk behind the coffin 'and no one should have been made to do that (Harry). Again who would have had the final say on that - Charles - so again they are saying Charles wasn't there for them.

They didn't need to mention him - by not mentioning him and saying what they did they showed their colours - they have turned on their father this year quite clearly and now Charles and Camilla are left to take the absolute vitriole of the public with the public believing the princes are fine with that. If they weren't they would have made some comment about their father being there for them - they are happy to see their father destroyed that much is clear.

 

[Jacknch]

Let's get back to the topic of the thread - further posts inciting debate concerning relationships between members of the Royal Family will be deleted without notice.

 

[royal rob]

I think it would be good to have something in place for when she's simply too old to carry on.

 

[MARG]

I am sure that arrangements for managing a Regency are all as well-planned as both the Queen and Prince Philip's funerals. These things are never left to chance in royal circles.

I do not think that HM is considering abdication but should Prince Philip die soon I am sure HM will observe more than 10 days official mourning as was mandated for HMQM.

 

[tommy100]

I think a formal regency is quite a possibility but it all depends IMO on how much Charles can or can not do without a Regency. Could the Queen simply become a back seat sovereign, meeting ministers, signing documents etc without all the fuss and tiring visits? Whilst she is mentally capable and alert there is no reason she could not still be sovereign.

The Queen's diary has very much been focussed in recent years on State events and things the Queen has to do. Yes there are still visits to charities etc but these are forming less of a part in her diary, she could cut back on these type of charity visits.

What would be interesting is to know what exactly could and could not be done without a Regency. For example, didn't the Queen miss the State Opening of Parliament when she was pregnant so she obviously doesn't have to attend in person without a Regency needed. Likewise the Queen could I assume send someone in her place to the Remembrance Day events - especially the concert on the Sat night (though I actually think the Cenotaph event at least would be one the Queen would always want to do).

I guess the point I am trying to make is there is a big difference between what the Queen has to do to keep the government working etc and what she does that actually is not constitutionally necessary.

 

[Mbruno]

I think a formal regency is quite a possibility but it all depends IMO on how much Charles can or can not do without a Regency. Could the Queen simply become a back seat sovereign, meeting ministers, signing documents etc without all the fuss and tiring visits? Whilst she is mentally capable and alert there is no reason she could not still be sovereign.

The Queen's diary has very much been focussed in recent years on State events and things the Queen has to do. Yes there are still visits to charities etc but these are forming less of a part in her diary, she could cut back on these type of charity visits.

What would be interesting is to know what exactly could and could not be done without a Regency. For example, didn't the Queen miss the State Opening of Parliament when she was pregnant so she obviously doesn't have to attend in person without a Regency needed. Likewise the Queen could I assume send someone in her place to the Remembrance Day events - especially the concert on the Sat night (though I actually think the Cenotaph event at least would be one the Queen would always want to do).

I guess the point I am trying to make is there is a big difference between what the Queen has to do to keep the government working etc and what she does that actually is not constitutionally necessary.

My understanding is that a regency means a regency. i.e. once a regency s in place, the Queen is declared incapable and all royal prerogatives and powers are transferred to the Regent. I believe there are only a few exceptions set out in law. For example, a Regent is not allowed to give royal assent to a bill changing the succession to the Crown

 

[Skippyboo]

Stuff like Remembrance Day isn't mandatory to attend. Same with State opening. Some one else can be deputized to read the speech. Victoria only did it in person a handful of times. Basically the legislation signing is the only thing that has to been done.

 

[Mirabel]

If a regency had been planned, I'm betting it is on hold until the furor over these tapes dies down!
The press is reporting that the public has turned against Camilla because of these revelations, so the Queen may put everything on the back burner for a while.

 

[Osipi]

The simple fact is that, in reality, there is absolutely no need for a regency at this time. Whatever plans may have been made are in place solely in the case that something should happen and a regency be needed.

It has nothing to do with "popular opinion" or tapes or Aunt Gertie's cat that predicts the stock market ups and downs. Its called being prepared for whatever may come. When we think about it, if plans for the Queen Mum's funeral hadn't already been in place (and I believe, even practiced), the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales wouldn't have been able to be executed so well after her sudden death.

People may dislike Charles and Camilla and the horse they rode in on but the reality is that private lives and their successes and failures in relationships have absolutely nothing to do with the ability to carry the responsibilities of the monarchy and do it well. IMO, I think they will be well accepted as King and Queen when the time comes.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

My understanding is that a regency means a regency. i.e. once a regency s in place, the Queen is declared incapable and all royal prerogatives and powers are transferred to the Regent. I believe there are only a few exceptions set out in law. For example, a Regent is not allowed to give royal assent to a bill changing the succession to the Crown

I feel some British posters shiver by the idea of Queen Elizabeth II going into a regency, but it is not that dramatic. Look at Norway.

From 25 November 2003 to 12 April 2004:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's treatment for cancer and revovery.

From 29 March 2005 until 7 June 2005:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's heart surgery and recovery.

The execution of the royal prerogatives was in hands of the Regent in this period. Crown Prince Haakon was the host during the New Year's Reception, he gave audience to Ambassadors, he presided the Council of State Fridays, he sanctioned acts of legislation or decisions approved by the Council of State, etc..

And all this time his father, was, is, and remained Norway's King. When he felt he was able to execute the royal prerogatives again, Crown Prince Haakon laid down the regency. It is as "simple" as that and a quite good alternative to an abdication, if you ask me.

HRH The Crown Prince, The Regent, holds his New Years Speech

 

[Spheno]

I feel some British posters shiver by the idea of Queen Elizabeth II going into a regency, but it is not that dramatic. Look at Norway.

From 25 November 2003 to 12 April 2004:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's treatment for cancer and revovery.

From 29 March 2005 until 7 June 2005:
Crown Prince Haakon was the Regent of Norway during the King's heart surgery and recovery.

The execution of the royal prerogatives was in hands of the Regent in this period. Crown Prince Haakon was the host during the New Year's Reception, he gave audience to Ambassadors, he presided the Council of State Fridays, he sanctioned acts of legislation or decisions approved by the Council of State, etc..

And all this time his father, was, is, and remained Norway's King. When he felt he was able to execute the royal prerogatives again, Crown Prince Haakon laid down the regency. It is as "simple" as that and a quite good alternative to an abdication, if you ask me.

HRH The Crown Prince, The Regent, holds his New Years Speech

Regency is permanent thing in UK.
For situations like a surgery there are Counsellors of State. They may preside over Privy Council meetings, sign state documents, or receive the credentials of new ambassadors to the UK.

 

[Skippyboo]

Regency isn't a permanent thing. If the monarch gets better, the regency will end. That happened with George III, he went mad, regency, got better, end of regency. He later got sick again and didn't recover so the regency lasted until he died.

There is also a regent when a monarch is underage. The regency ends when the monarch turns 18.

 

[Iain]

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 tend not to believe anything the Daily Lie, sorry, Mail prints.

 

[Spheno]

Regency isn't a permanent thing. If the monarch gets better, the regency will end. That happened with George III, he went mad, regency, got better, end of regency. He later got sick again and didn't recover so the regency lasted until he died.

There is also a regent when a monarch is underage. The regency ends when the monarch turns 18.

Regency was established only once, in 1810.
British Regency Acts don't contain mechanism to revoke regency.
Obviously every regency lasts till death of monarch or monarch's adulthood.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Regency was established only once, in 1810.
British Regency Acts don't contain mechanism to revoke regency.
Obviously every regency lasts till death of monarch or monarch's adulthood.

Correct - although a regency passed the House of Commons in 1789, the King recovered before the House of Lords voted on it.

 

[tommy100]

Stuff like Remembrance Day isn't mandatory to attend. Same with State opening. Some one else can be deputized to read the speech. Victoria only did it in person a handful of times. Basically the legislation signing is the only thing that has to been done.

Thats what makes me think a Regency might not happen, or not at least until the Queen feels in some way unable/unfit to sign legislation etc. Why put something in place that is not really necessary? That said if the Queen felt it necessary I think she would gladly do so, and certainly before abdication! The Queen could probably quite easily stay at Windsor or even Sandringham and still do enough to be the constitutionally needed sovereign. At the same time she could almost never appear in public - sending Charles to more of the big events (Cenotaph, Trooping, Holyrood Week, Commonwealth Day, Royal Maundy, Garden Parties etc - none of these events legally or constitutionally require the Queen to attend in person). Even for state visits we only see the Queen at a welcoming, state dinner and formal farewell.

 

[Spheno]

Thats what makes me think a Regency might not happen, or not at least until the Queen feels in some way unable/unfit to sign legislation etc. Why put something in place that is not really necessary? That said if the Queen felt it necessary I think she would gladly do so, and certainly before abdication! The Queen could probably quite easily stay at Windsor or even Sandringham and still do enough to be the constitutionally needed sovereign. At the same time she could almost never appear in public - sending Charles to more of the big events (Cenotaph, Trooping, Holyrood Week, Commonwealth Day, Royal Maundy, Garden Parties etc - none of these events legally or constitutionally require the Queen to attend in person). Even for state visits we only see the Queen at a welcoming, state dinner and formal farewell.

Regency is not the queen's decision. Other people will make this decision.

 

[MARG]

Just reading the conditions of instituting a Regency makes me believe there are but two options for HM. The first is to abdicate which would mean breaking the vow she made to the Commonwealth in her 21st Birthday radio broadcast.

She said: "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."

This vow was followed by the vows she made 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."

The queen is a devout Christian and took her vows seriously. Strangely, I think the vow she made on her 21st birthday would be the hardest to break.

The second is to cut back her duties drastically and hand them over to Charles while still doing that which is considered essential. I think this is the preferred option as the Regency Act 1937 (which is still in force) established in law a procedure for determining the incapacity of the Sovereign due to infirmity of mind or body or due to the monarch's unavailability for another definite cause. As we can see, she is not infirm in any way and that fuzzy "definite cause" may perhaps be to allow her to spend time with Philip. But whatever we think is going to happen, we have to consider that nothing at all may happen.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Her famous words "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." actually does not say anything about the kingship. Were these words not spoken while she was still The Princess Elizabeth?

These words are often used to conclude: "See, she will never abdicate" but that is not what she said at all. She promised a lifeling dedication to serve the nation. No more, no less. Take the Duke of Edinburgh, or the Prince of Wales, or the Princess Royal: they are no King but can anyone deny they devoted their life to the service of the nation as well?

 

[Osipi]

Looking at it from another angle here too, HM, The Queen takes her duty to her people so seriously that she may even feel that should the time come where she isn't able to do what she would deem a "proper job" of being the monarch, she would feel its her duty to have it be that her heir who could do the "proper job" be able to step in for her.

This family does prepare for all contingencies that may occur and nothing is ever left to chance. The Queen would be the last person to wish to continue in her role should it be deemed that she is no longer able to. It would be her duty at the time to gracefully step aside and have Charles appointed as regent and that's what she would prepare for ahead of time.

In all things, duty to crown and country come first.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Osipi - totally correct and in keeping with the actual words she vowed in at her 21st birthday speech - to 'serve all my life'. She may come to believe that the best way to 'serve' is to actually hand over.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Regency is not the queen's decision. Other people will make this decision.

Other people would have to make that decision if she was incapacitated and thus unable to continue but ... she is free to make that decision for herself if she so chooses, just as she is free to abdicate (which she won't do).