The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement? - Page 10

Roslyn · #**181** 04-15-2009, 09:15 PM

Ah! Now this is why astrology is hogwash. I, too, am a Taurus, and while I am hard working (though not always at things that I should be working hard at), stable, secure, stubborn (the last three really just mean set in our ways and resistant to change) and warm, no-one's ever likely to accuse me of being "a sterling example of morality, service, duty before personal happiness, dedication and faultlessly upright behaviour".

Russophile · #**182** 04-15-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Ah! Now this is why astrology is hogwash. I, too, am a Taurus, and while I am hard working (though not always at things that I should be working hard at), stable, secure, stubborn (the last three really just mean set in our ways and resistant to change) and warm, no-one's ever likely to accuse me of being "a sterling example of morality, service, duty before personal happiness, dedication and faultlessly upright behaviour".

Well for laughs since you dont believe, pick up a copy of Linda Goodman's Sign or Love signs. Enjoy!

Skydragon · #**183** 04-16-2009, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn

no-one's ever likely to accuse me of being "a sterling example of morality, service, duty before personal happiness, dedication and faultlessly upright behaviour".

I am relieved to hear it!

------------------
General reply

Duty before personal happiness is all very well, as long as it is not the personal happiness of someone else that is being sacrificed.

I believe the time will come that she has to hand over the reins to Charles, after all QEQM was somewhat confused in her last years and who would want to see that happen to HM?

MARG · #**184** 04-16-2009, 07:50 AM

I'm with Skydragon on this one. Already we are starting to see the PofW appearing more and more prominently, even now there are plans for him to accompany HM on an overseas visit.

She's a canny lady our Queen. I think the increasing frailty of the DofE has changed her outlook on life. That the royal couple married for love has been bourn out by their continued lovingly restrained longevity, but somehow I don't think the notion of traveling abroad alone appeals and so she's starting to bring the "B" team up to scratch.

I think the PofW will become regent in all but name in years to come, particularly after the death of his father. They have been the supreme "Double Act" for too many years for the Queen to view the alternative with any degree of happiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Duty before personal happiness is all very well, as long as it is not the personal happiness of someone else that is being sacrificed.

I think the royal couple will want to spend as much time together as they can at this stage of their lives.

muriel · #**185** 04-16-2009, 07:55 AM

I can certainly see the point in the Queen slowing down,and whist this has been talked about for a while, I think we may start to see it soon. That said,I sense someof this may be determined by the health of the DoE. He is a very active mind, and as long as he is fit, I am sure he would like to keep himself busy carrying out royal duties.

You are right, the Queen may choose to spend more "private" time with the Duke, and consequently, let Charles gradually increase his role to the point where he is regent in all but name.

scooter · #**186** 04-16-2009, 11:50 AM

'I declare before you all, that my whole life, whether it be long or short will be devoted in service to you all' as QE said in 1952. I dont see her turning over the reins to Charles unless she is mentally or physically incapacitated. Unless I am mistaken, there has been no prescedent, other than poor mad King George, for a Regent for a Sovereign who has attained their majority. They rule until death. Charles will hopefully have a long wait. Long Live Queen Elizabeth. England wont see her equal again.

Skydragon · #**187** 04-16-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG

I think the PofW will become regent in all but name in years to come, particularly after the death of his father.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muriel

and consequently, let Charles gradually increase his role to the point where he is regent in all but name

I think we are agreed that Charles will perform more of HMs duties, without the need for his mother to step aside or retire completely.

Lets hope that with longevity HM remains clear minded.

BMC · #**188** 04-16-2009, 08:15 PM

She'll never abdicate but will turn over more public duties to Prince Charles.

She's a very special lady & the UK is very fortunate to have her as Queen.

scooter · #**189** 04-16-2009, 09:31 PM

If you look at the prescedent of Queen Victoria who lived to a great old age, it's highly unlikely that QEII will step down before death. I am sure that Victoria was no longer the sharpest knife in the drawer at the end of her life. If Elizabeth is not incapacitated, I cant see it happening. Nor, I should think, would any subject be in favor of trading in QEII and the Duke of E.

MerryWolfe · #**190** 04-25-2009, 06:25 PM

I hope not.
I am not the biggest fan of the British Monarchy but i do adore the Queen and everything she does.

Vecchiolarry · #**191** 04-25-2009, 10:41 PM

Hi,

I cannot see The Queen abdicating. She is one of the few now in the world who remembers the 1936 abdication and the upheaval it caused.

But, I can see her retiring more & more and letting Charles and Camilla take over more & more public duties.

The Queen should still open Parliament and hand out Maundy money, etc. but C & C could do most of the rest.
It would be a great way for them to become more ingratiated with the public. And, I think they need that!!!

Larry

wbenson · #**192** 04-28-2009, 01:38 AM

A digression about Camilla's title and the prospect of altering the succession laws has been removed.

wbenson
British Forums Moderator

Catherine Helvin · #**193** 07-28-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

Well summed up LauraMCS. After that there really isn't much more to say.

Spot on. From what I understand about the Queen, she is a very deeply religious lady and ever since she was a child, she had a sense of duty. This is the code that both she, her mother and grandmother Queen Mary have all lived by.

scooter · #**194** 07-28-2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catherine Helvin

Spot on. From what I understand about the Queen, she is a very deeply religious lady and ever since she was a child, she had a sense of duty. This is the code that both she, her mother and grandmother Queen Mary have all lived by.

Indeed, this is why I hope that she will rule untill death. I agree that this ...religion (morality) and duty...is the code that QEII, QEQM and QM all lived their whole lives by. Which to me was a moral standard to all...and to me something that a regnant Queen or Queen Consort should exemplify.

Ella Kay · #**195** 07-28-2009, 09:09 PM

I firmly believe that HM will reign until her death. If for some reason she became incapacitated and unable to reign, I think Charles would take over as prince regent until her death. I don't think she would ever abdicate.

Catherine Helvin · #**196** 07-29-2009, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ella Kay

I firmly believe that HM will reign until her death. If for some reason she became incapacitated and unable to reign, I think Charles would take over as prince regent until her death. I don't think she would ever abdicate.

Yes, that's what happened with George III.

scooter · #**197** 07-29-2009, 05:40 PM

I firmly believe that the only reason that the POW would (or could) become Regent is if HM The Queen was physically or mentally incapacitated. In the absence of that, the POW will have to wait his turn. Long live Queen Elizabeth! An example to us all.

Iluvbertie · #**198** 07-29-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

I firmly believe that the only reason that the POW would (or could) become Regent is if HM The Queen was physically or mentally incapacitated. In the absence of that, the POW will have to wait his turn. Long live Queen Elizabeth! An example to us all.

I think the only reason for a Regency would be mental incapacity not physical.

Just because the Queen can't do some of the physical side of the role of monarch is no reason for her to have a Regency as she could still do the essential parts of the job - those that require a mental capacity e.g. meeting with the PM and signing the legislation.

scooter · #**199** 07-29-2009, 08:48 PM

I agree Iluvbertie, except for example if HM had some kind of head injury or stroke event, which would render her absolutely comatose or physically incapable. I hope that day is decades away and that she lives to QEQM's life span.

Iluvbertie · #**200** 07-29-2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

I agree Iluvbertie, except for example if HM had some kind of head injury or stroke event, which would render her absolutely comatose or physically incapable. I hope that day is decades away and that she lives to QEQM's life span.

Both the examples you have given would render her mentally incapable of doing the job.

I can't think of any physical injury, alone, that would affect her ability to do the job. She could be a quadraplegic and still be mentally capable of being Queen but a head injury, causing mental impairment would result in mental inability. A head injury, by itself won't stop her being able to do the job, only if it also results in a mental inability.