The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[VictoriaB]

I admit I knew diddly about declaring a Regency.
According to Wikipedia (Regency Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) the Regency Act of 1937 dacares the following will happen if the monarch is incapacitated or under the age of 21:

• A regent is declared chosen as the next over 21 year old in line of succession, living in the UK and eligible under the Act of Settlement of 1701 (non RC, etc.)
• The Regent gets the help of the Counselors of State. Current counselors are the adult spouse of the monarch and the next four adults in line of succession: The Prince of Wales, Prince William of Wales, Prince Harry of Wales and The Duke of York. See - The Monarchy Today > Queen and State > Queen and Government > Counsellors of State

This was interesting. Does anyone know what happens in a regency if the spouse of the monarch is under 21? I know it won't happen, but I did wonder about this?

The Regency Act 1953 states the age of majority for the heir to the throne is 18 not 21.

Similarly, while the age at which Royals become eligible to be counsellors of state is usually 21, in the case of the heir to the throne it is, again 18.

Regency Act 1953

Regency Act 1943

 

[Ish]

I expect that the Regent would be the most senior royal available (that is position, experience and age). Existing examples would be Andrew or Anne.

But the act says that the regent is "the next over 21 year old in line of succession, living in the UK and eligible under the Act of Settlement of 1701," implying that the regent is not necessarily the most senior royal available, but the next person of age in the line of succession. Thus, were HM, Charles, and William to die before the Cambridge Baby is of age, the regent would be Harry, not Andrew or Anne, as Harry is the next in the line of succession. Andrew would only become regent if Harry were deceased, Anne if Harry, the Yorks, and Edward were deceased.

 

[cepe]

thank you Ish.

 

[Skippyboo]

The 1953 act made Phillip the regent if the Queen died before Charles reached 18 instead of Princess Margaret, who would been regent per 1937 act. I would think if William some how came to the throne before baby cambridge was 18. Like in 1953, they would have to pass a new regency act to make Kate the regent until her child was old enough instead of Harry. Charles wouldn't need one since William is over 18 and would be able to take over if his father became ill.

 

[Ish]

The 1953 act made Phillip the regent if the Queen died before Charles reached 18 instead of Princess Margaret, who would been regent per 1937 act. I would think if William some how came to the throne before baby cambridge was 18. Like in 1953, they would have to pass a new regency act to make Kate the regent until her child was old enough instead of Harry. Charles wouldn't need one since William is over 18 and would be able to take over if his father became ill.

This is totally getting off topic at this point, and might need to be moved to a different (or new?) thread, but would Catherine be the best person to be the regent? I would debate if Harry would be the best person himself (as the next person in line over 21). Not to demean Catherine's origins, but I would think that someone who was raised as a Royal would be more fitting as a regent than someone who is merely royal by marriage. In the case of the DoE, he was always a Royal, he just wasn't born into the BRF. In the case of Catherine, she wasn't a Royal prior to 2011, and as such is still very new to the Royal game, especially in comparison. And, as cepe pointed out, it seems like a more senior royal (i.e. Anne, Andrew, or even Edward) would be more suited to the role of regent than Harry, who is much younger, or Catherine, who is newer to being a Royal.

 

[VictoriaB]

This is totally getting off topic at this point, and might need to be moved to a different (or new?) thread, but would Catherine be the best person to be the regent? I would debate if Harry would be the best person himself (as the next person in line over 21). Not to demean Catherine's origins, but I would think that someone who was raised as a Royal would be more fitting as a regent than someone who is merely royal by marriage. In the case of the DoE, he was always a Royal, he just wasn't born into the BRF. In the case of Catherine, she wasn't a Royal prior to 2011, and as such is still very new to the Royal game, especially in comparison. And, as cepe pointed out, it seems like a more senior royal (i.e. Anne, Andrew, or even Edward) would be more suited to the role of regent than Harry, who is much younger, or Catherine, who is newer to being a Royal.

Again, mods please feel free to move to an appropriate tread.

I agree Catherine should not act as Regent, but I also think it would have been wrong for the Duke of Edinburgh to be appointed Regent in place of the Princess Margaret. My personal opinion is that the Regent should be in the Order of Succession and the Dof E wasn't (or was so far down that it was not relevant).

Leaving aside the personalities (I happen to think the Duke would have been a more dutiful Regent than Margaret), there is a difference between taking family decisions such as on the welfare of the infant monarch, which the Duke was the right person to do, and fulfilling the constitutional role of the monarch.

I accept that the Monarch has few "real" powers nowadays but it just doesn't seem right that someone with no right to succeed to the throne is the defacto monarch for maybe 18 years. It would be like the First Lady taking on the powers of the President instead of the Vice President were the President to be incapacitated.

 

[cepe]

I've been told that some of you cannot see the article - it is quite long and it would take a long to abbreviate. The most interesting aspect is the results of a poll which accompanies the article.

There were 2 key questions:

Q1: If the Queen becomestoo ill to regularly carry out royal duties or appear in public, should ahe remain monarch or let the throne pass to her heirs:

Remain on the Throne: 51%
Step down: 41%
Don't know: 8%

Interestingly, it doesnt mention mental incapacity in which case, IMO, the government would step in and direct the appointment of a regent

Q 2: Who would you prefer eventually to succeed the Queen?

Prince Charles 44%; Prince William 37%; Dont know 7%; neither should be no monarch 12%

Apparently the same question in a poll last May was 38% Charles and 44% William, so it has changed over.

 

[Ish]

I've been told that some of you cannot see the article - it is quite long and it would take a long to abbreviate. The most interesting aspect is the results of a poll which accompanies the article.

There were 2 key questions:

Q1: If the Queen becomestoo ill to regularly carry out royal duties or appear in public, should ahe remain monarch or let the throne pass to her heirs:

Remain on the Throne: 51%
Step down: 41%
Don't know: 8%

Interestingly, it doesnt mention mental incapacity in which case, IMO, the government would step in and direct the appointment of a regent

Q 2: Who would you prefer eventually to succeed the Queen?

Prince Charles 44%; Prince William 37%; Dont know 7%; neither should be no monarch 12%

Apparently the same question in a poll last May was 38% Charles and 44% William, so it has changed over.

The Charles vs. William thing seems to change regularly. Regardless, I doubt they'll skip Charles for William unless there's a clear majority - unless they have to change it to save the monarchy they'll avoid change in fear of losing the monarchy.

My understanding of the terms for a regent is that if the monarch is unable to carry out the role due to infirmity of body or mind, a regent is established. As such, if HM is to ill to carry out her function (and her illness lasts for a long time), she's going to be replaced by Charles in the name of regency, without an abdication.

 

[cepe]

I agree but it was interesting that the question to the public never raised the issue of mental incapacity.

There is no way that Charles will be overlooked. If you have a constitutional monarchy, you cant just pick the bits you like. Its all or nothing, IMO

 

[Ish]

I think it's largely because people don't seem to realize that there is this contingency plan in place.

People seem to think that monarchy is this set thing; the king (or queen) rules until either they die, abdicate, or are deposed. They seem to think that there isn't a system in place to check a monarch who cannot - due to some form of infirmity in mind or body - rule. But there is, the regency.

The question of whether or not HM should abdicate or not stems out of the idea that 1) because of her age HM cannot do her job anymore, 2) there is no system in place to cover for HM in the case that she cannot so her job, and 3) Charles deserves to be king because he's been waiting for so long.

However, 1) HM clearly can do her job, regardless of her age, and is in a position where she can to a degree pick and chose what she does herself and what she delegates to Charles, Anne, and other younger royals, 2) there is a system, the regency, and 3) Charles can deal. This isn't the 14th century, we don't need monarchs who come to the throne by deposing their parents.

As to whether or not we can pick and chose what royals we like, I agree with you - we shouldn't be able to. But within the constitutional monarchy we have done exactly that, or at least Parliament has. Parliament chose not to accept Edward VIII (by choosing to not accept Wallis). Likewise, Parliament chose not to accept James II and James the Old Pretender, installing instead Mary II and William III. Parliament then chose not to accept any children that William III had from any marriage other than those born to Mary II until after the death of Anne (there were no such children, but they didn't know that at the time). And when it became apparent that Anne wasn't going to be succeeded by her own child, Parliament chose to seem a number of closer candidates (including James) who were deemed to be undesirable in favour of George I. We might think that you can't pick and chose - and I agree we shouldn't be able to, as it can be seen as a way to destabilize the monarchy - but it doesn't mean that it has 't happened.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Parliament then chose not to accept any children that William III had from any marriage other than those born to Mary II until after the death of Anne (there were no such children, but they didn't know that at the time).

That was actually logical as William's own right to the throne was behind that of Anne.

The line of succession before James II's son was born was: Mary, Anne, William.

So when parliament said that William's children with any other woman besides Mary were to come behind Anne's children it made sense as it returned them to their place in the line of succession based on their father's right.

Just imagine that The Queen had died while young with Charles becoming King say aged 18 and Philip had remarried - no one would expect Philip's children from that second marriage to be in the line of succession based on Philip being the husband of The Queen but on Philip's own right to the throne - difference of course is that Philip's personal claim is about 400th while William's was 3rd at the time he married.

 

[Ish]

That was actually logical as William's own right to the throne was behind that of Anne.

The line of succession before James II's son was born was: Mary, Anne, William.

So when parliament said that William's children with any other woman besides Mary were to come behind Anne's children it made sense as it returned them to their place in the line of succession based on their father's right.

Just imagine that The Queen had died while young with Charles becoming King say aged 18 and Philip had remarried - no one would expect Philip's children from that second marriage to be in the line of succession based on Philip being the husband of The Queen but on Philip's own right to the throne - difference of course is that Philip's personal claim is about 400th while William's was 3rd at the time he married.

Except William was crowned in his own right. Yes, it was a co-monarchy, but he ruled in his own right and it's debatable as to whether or not the crown was given to him because Mary insisted on it or if it was given to Mary simply to legitimize the appearance of William's crown. William III was a usurper and measures regarding the succession of his offspring were made to lesson the blow of his being a usurper.

 

[Iluvbertie]

William wasn't a usurper - he was given the job by parliament. His wife was the legitimate heir once parliament removed her father.

Parliament made sure that the rights of any children reflected the rights of the parents: Mary's offspring with William to follow them.
Anne's offsping to take precedence over William's because William's own personal claim was behind Anne but only just.

Yes William was crowned in his own right but that was as much because he headed an army, as it was because he was both married to Mary AND because he was the most senior male in the line of succession - being 3rd in his own right.

His children by anyone other than Mary was done to ensure that the line of succession followed the correct line - Mary, Anne, William - the only difference to that line was allowing William to be crowned in his own right.

You contradict yourself by saying that William's children were placed behind Anne's to placate him being a usurper as that is their correct place based on the line of succession before the Glorious Revolution began. If he was a usurper as you claim he would never have agreed to his children with someone other than Mary being behind his sister-in-law's children but would have insisted that they follow him.

 

[Dman]

The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests:
The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests - Telegraph

I think it's an fair argument.

 

[Elly C]

I have no strong feeling about the need for the Queen to stay the monarch until she dies. As one of her subjects, I wouldn't feel she had broken her vow to her country in anyway. The oath "to serve" for the rest of your days is surely not broken if she decides to abdicate. She can serve by being a help and support to Charles. As for concerns about the constitution, I think history teaches us this has a wonderful way of adapting to situations as they rise. I don't think the Queen would consider it right to abdicate, but that doesn't mean the matter shouldn't be aired, and I hope John Prescott's view isn't just dismissed as stirring up trouble.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests:
The Queen should think about retiring, Lord Prescott suggests - Telegraph

I think it's an fair argument.

While it may be a fair argument, I still don't believe she will abdicate.

She watched her uncle abdicate and the shame that accompanied that abdication. Granted, she would be abdicating for a very different reason than her uncle, nevertheless as a little girl watching what her family and country went through has no doubt left an impression on her. Things that happen to us as children effect us far differently than similar events do when we're adults.

As a 21 year old she pledged to serve her country her whole life whether it be long or short. As a woman with great honor, I think she would see abdicating as not living up to her word.

As a mother, I would think she would want to see her son in his role as King and could advise him until her death, much like Beatrix. Again, though, I don't think it will happen.

 

[Spheno]

There is no need to abdicate. when the queen will feel not strong enough for job then Regency will be established. Easy and without any crisis.

 

[royalistbert]

Simply have a regency if The Queen doesn't feel up to it.

 

[Dman]

The odds of The Queen abdicating is probably slim but it may get to the point where she will be unable to carry out her duty as Monarch and make Charles regent.

He's ready to take over things now if he have to.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Well, if the Queen is like her mother (and seems that she is), she will not be with a weak mind by the time she reaches one hundred years old, nor the Queen Mother was with a weak body.

I can see the Queen steping down from all the cerimonial duties, leaving them for Charles and Camilla. So, Her Majesty may stick only with her executive duties, like meetings with the Prime Minister and read the Red Boxes.

But, of course, I can't rule out the possibility of a Regency by the end of Her Majesty's reign.

 

[wyevale]

If ONLY 'Lord' Prescott would take his own advice !!!

 

[NGalitzine]

She is approaching 87 and as of yet does not seem to suffer from any of the usual geriatric ailments. Colds, flu, stomach upsets, back pain can and do happen to people of any age. No one has ever suggested that her mind is not as sharp as always, so as long as her mind and her general health hold up I don't think the idea of abdicating would occur to her and no reason why it should.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Even if she gets senile, an abdication will be unecessary.
The Prince of Wales can become Regent, while Her Majesty will stay as Queen for the rest of her life.

 

[Nice Nofret]

oh, I very much hope, the next coronation will be in times of prosperity - that it could be a splendid and really beautiful event; now is too much austerity in the air to have gorgeous pageantry .

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

oh, I very much hope, the next coronation will be in times of prosperity - that it could be a splendid and really beautiful event; now is too much austerity in the air to have gorgeous pageantry .

Don't worry about the next Coronation, we'll still having to celebrate the Platinum Jubilee, in 2022.

 

[branchg]

The Queen has made it very clear throughout her reign that she would never consider abdicating and will serve until her death.

If she becomes incapacitated and unable to discharge the duties of the Crown, the provisions of the Regency Act would come into place and Charles would be appointed The Prince Regent, just like George IV was before he became The Sovereign.

 

[padams2359]

I am not really concerned about a Regency anytime soon, based on the Queen's current normal schedule. However, if things change to Balmoral or Sandringham heavily on the schedule, and out of season, could show signs that something maybe up with QEII or DoE. It would show that they are giving the PoW a wide berth. JMO.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It would show that they are giving the PoW a wide berth. JMO.

Say what?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Even if she gets senile, an abdication will be unecessary.

The Prince of Wales can become Regent, while Her Majesty will stay as Queen for the rest of her life.

If she is senile she wouldn't be able to abdicate as she wouldn't be 'in sound mind' and that is essential for an abdication.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

If she is senile she wouldn't be able to abdicate as she wouldn't be 'in sound mind' and that is essential for an abdication.

So, Her Majesty will never abdicate. She'll not do that as long as she's with a healthy mind. And a senile woman can't abdicate.

Abdication, never. Regency, possible.