am i the only one who think if the queen abdicate it will secure the monarchy future and decrease the possibility of relames like canada , jamaica , scotland and australia to ask for independence because a lot of those relames and republicans are connecting the monarchy with the queen because of her long reign and they think that the monarchy should end with her but if she was there to support prince charles it will be much better for the monarchy cause the people will get used to the thought of king charles while still having a great symbol of the monarchy
Here is the long version, which I posted for a while ago:
When it comes to the other realms: That hasn't somthing to do with the Charles or the monarchy. It's has to do with that they don't want a foreigner as head of state.
1 - Will the Queen abdicate? No she will not, as I and others have said several times before.
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 Coronation Oath, 2 June 1953:
https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
The Christmas Broadcast 2002:
https://www.royal.uk/christmas-broadcast-2002
Fortified by this and the support you have given throughout the last twelve months which has meant so much to me, I look forward to the New Year, to facing the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, and to continuing to serve you to the very best of my ability each and every day.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee message 2012:
https://www.royal.uk/queens-diamond-jubilee-message
In this special year, as I dedicate myself anew to your service
Nocookies | 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.
Letter to The Times, published Wednesday 4th February 2015, from the Principal Private Secretary to TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall
Our view
His Royal Highness has always preferred not to comment on matters which relate to a future whose date is unknown, and would arise only after the death of his mother.
These are just some of the statements/evidence that show us that she will never abdicate. Former Prime Ministers, former staffers etc have said the same. And the fact that the Queen will never abdicate has nothing to do with Charles with Charles popularity. She had not abdicated regardless Charles being popular or not.
2 - Should the Queen abdicate? No she should not, as I and others have said several times before, becauce that would have been disastrous for the British monarchy and this is why:
As I've said before on others threads, The monarchies in the UK, Denmark and Norway remains popular, and some polls have shown record high support the last four years. This is not going to change unless we get some very very major scandals, which is unlikely.
Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent ~70% support for the continuation of the Monarchy. And Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 82%, others at around 70 to 76%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 66 to 70%.
The vast majority of the population will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity.
And it will be very difficult in Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands too:
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the parliaments for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
I don't think we will see a republic in Sweden or Belgium either, and I hope that the Spanish monarchy will survive.
So all these monarchies (with the exception of Belgium and Spain) are safe for at least the next 100 years. And should the Spanish monarchy be abolished, it will not affect the UK. And I don't think it will affect Denmark and Norway either.
The Netherlands:
Abdication is a tradition there, it has taken place since 1948.
Spain:
Juan Carlos had repeatedly said that he would not abdicate, but because of his stupidity, he had no choice.
Belgium:
Albert was frail and did it for health reasons, but look how he have behaved towards his son after he abdicated.
Denmark and Sweden:
If Margrethe and Carl Gustaf decides to abdicate, they can do it without any problems and it will not hurt the monarchies.
Norway:
I used to say the same about the Norwegian situasjonen too, but Haakon and Mette-Marit has been in some trouble with the press lately, so it hadn't been wise for Harald to abdicate now.
But we can't compare these monarchies with the British monarchy.
As far as UK is concerned, I actually think it is the safest Monarchy in the world, along with the Japanese, but an abdication can destroy it, and this is why:
Even if the Queen's vow that her whole life would be devoted to service and her view on the coronation oath hadn't been so important to her as it is, she wouldn't have abdicated, and this is the reason. 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.
If the Queen had abdicated it would have (as the member Ish said in another thread) created major problems for Charles and led to a fierce debate about the monarchy's future.
The republicans, the press (especially the mirror, the guardian, the independent and of course the mail/fail) would have gone absolutely crazy and they would have done what they could to dig up dirt about Charles.
It is better that Charles takes over when the Queen dies. It will go quietly without much debate, because people/media will be very occupied by the Queen's death. That will be a remarkable and very sad event.
The longer she reigns the better it is for Charles, in my opinion.
This was brilliantly written by EIIR (a former member here) in 2012.
When it comes to Charles acceding the throne I feel people miss the point. There is likely to be a huge outpouring of national grief when The Queen passes away. It's important not to underestimate how powerful that will be. Hundreds of thousands of people queued for days in order to file past the Queen Mother's coffin. The level of mourning for the Queen is likely to be a great deal deeper - the Queen is not only a much loved head of state, she's an international icon.
That national grief will, naturally, lead to a great deal of sympathy flowing to the RF generally, and Charles as the next in line.
There will also be a certain fascination in having a new monarch - the vast majority of Britons have only ever known one monarch. The process of new stamps, notes, coins, not to mention a coronation to look forward to. There's also the fact that Charles' reign is likely to be relatively short and William and Catherine will be closer to the throne while also having their own children who will, no doubt, fascinate us all in much the same way their parents have.
This is all a rather long winded way of saying I really don't believe that there will be any significant change to the British monarchy when Charles takes over. I think Charles will be a surprisingly popular King; he'll be at the 'sweet old man' age rather then in middle aged no mans land. It's an unfortunate fact of life nowadays; we see the young as interesting and cool, and the elderly as sweet and wise. It's the in between stage where people just aren't that interested.
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.
If she becomes too frail to carry out her constitutional duties, a regency will be created.
No. There'd be no reason to discontinue them that I can think of. They were started originally to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire. I don't know whether that's been paid for completely; but if it has, I'm sure that the funds can be well-used somewhere else. The historic buildings have to be kept up.
