The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[pgm1952]

How could that fine woman possibly step down? There is no doubt that she is getting older and small changes in routine hint at this (longer weekends at Windsor as well as investitures held there, and Prince Charles seeing the contents of the red boxes and doing one or two investitures himself) but the idea that Her Majesty would completely throw in the towel is almost absurd. As the granddaughter of George V and Queen Mary she knows that duty is till death. The effects of the Abdication were firmly impressed on her young mind and she saw the effect it had on her father and mother. When Queen Wilhemina of the Netherlands abdicated in 1980 the Queen of England is believed to have said "typical Dutch". Abdication is not typical British and thus not typically what she would do.

[IloveCP]

I dont think she should.She made a vow when she was 21 and she should stick to it.

[AnnEliza]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

I dont think she should.She made a vow when she was 21 and she should stick to it.

I am sure that she will.

[Daria_S]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

I dont think she should.She made a vow when she was 21 and she should stick to it.

Ditto. I think abdication/retirement are out of the question. She's very conscious of her duty.

[Tyger]

I think she may go into a sort of semi-retirement - never actually addicating - but having Charles assume more and more of the role she has borne until he is front-and-center while she focusses elsewhere - as is only right for someone of her age. I think there needs to be some 'letting-go' on the part of her subjects - to allow her some breathing space in her declining years. (I have seen a shift in her ease of mobility - even in her face - in the last couple of years - it also seems to me that she is wearing 'a lot' of make-up recently - oddly).

I base this idea of semi-retirement in large part on what I am seeing in the recent pictures of the Duke of Edinburgh - and watching his behavior, like with the Camerons. (The press was all jolly about it - making it sound 'funny' but think about what he was doing - and the look on the Queen's face).

The Duke is failing fast - at 90 it has to happen sometime (as to us all). This is a man who has always been there for the Queen - like her handbag that gives her comfort. (I am not saying the DoE is an accessory piece - he is far, far more than that of course - he is her confidant and the husband who rules their family). As he fails I could see her wanting to focus on him. He would have nursing, of course, but at her age, slowly nearing 90 herself, might not her priorities shift? Shouldn't she be allowed to do that, too? Finally?

She has already lost one important confidant - her mother. Losing Phillip will be hard on her - and I base this on what I know about the elderly and especially long marriages.

[IloveCP]

Do you think the British people will understand if she "quit" whe she turns 90 or 100 like her mother?What do you think of a 100 year old monarch?

[lady of hay]

Abdication is a dirty word in the UK , as said in previous posts the Queen took on this role for life making a vow at the age of 21, she had seen what the abdication crisis had done to her parents, especially her father.
I very much doubt that the British people would want her to step down, slow down yes but not give up the "top job"

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by IloveCP

Do you think the British people will understand if she "quit" whe she turns 90 or 100 like her mother?What do you think of a 100 year old monarch?

If the monarch is not coherent - think about the scene in 'The King's Speech' with the ailing King. Its hard, no question, but it does begin to happen. The Queen Mother just had to 'appear' a few times - the Queen has a bit more to her job than just 'appearing'.

As for the abdication in the 1930's, that was a very different situation. One can't compare the two as equivalent. The Queen has done her duty. An heir is in line who is mature and well-prepared. The two situations are not equivalent.

Honestly, I think there are moments when the peoples' 'expectations' become harsh, even cruel. Unreasonable, even. Inhumane, I might venture. There comes a time when one needs to step back and pay attention to the needs of one's impending destiny. Of course, some people die in an instant - but for those who are gifted with a long curve in - why not let them to it?

[Vasillisos Markos]

If the Queen becomes unable to perform her duties, I imagine a regency would be put in place. Her age will probably curtail her duties, as it should, but I don't see her voluntarily relinquishing the throne.

[lady of hay]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

If the Queen becomes unable to perform her duties, I imagine a regency would be put in place. Her age will probably curtail her duties, as it should, but I don't see her voluntarily relinquishing the throne.

Such a thing would , I believe, be more pallitable to those of us in the UK

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

If the Queen becomes unable to perform her duties, I imagine a regency would be put in place. Her age will probably curtail her duties, as it should, but I don't see her voluntarily relinquishing the throne.

Why? With all the talk of the British monarchy becoming 'modern' - why not in this area as well?

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by lady of hay

Such a thing would , I believe, be more pallitable to those of us in the UK

Because (some) people hate Charles? Is that the reason to force the Queen to serve even under extreme circumstances?

[Aliza]

The Queen should remain Queen as long as she lives; if necessary, a Regency can always be arranged. HM regards her Coronation as a "Holy Sacrament" and thus obligating her to remain as Queen until death.

When HM was informed of Queen Juliana of the Netherlands abdicating for her daughter, she sniffed to her Private Secretary, "how Dutch". I don't think the possibility of stepping down even occurs to her, as she vowed to serve her whole life, "whether it be long or short". And HM is a lady of her word, to say the least, God bless and save her!

[lady of hay]

Originally Posted by Tyger

Because (some) people hate Charles? Is that the reason to force the Queen to serve even under extreme circumstances?

I don't think anyone could " force " the Queen to do anything she did not want to do. As said in a prior post, she does have Queen Mary's sence of "duty". Prince Charles may/ may not be popular but he is heir to the throne, his mother may out live him, and who knows, Charles may decide when his time comes that he does not want to be king. After all Diana said that she didn't think he was right for the "top job" and she proberbly knew him better than we do.

[olebabs]

Even though I'm not Her Majesty's biggest fan, I can only admire and respect her work and her sence of duty. She has endured a lot during her reign and she deserves to take it a little easy now. I think no one would fault her for steppping down and devote her remaining years to her grandchildren and great grandchildren (I hope for some more soon :-)) As my grandmother used to say; they are life's dessert

[Tyger]

Originally Posted by lady of hay

I don't think anyone could " force " the Queen to do anything she did not want to do. As said in a prior post, she does have Queen Mary's sence of "duty". Prince Charles may/ may not be popular but he is heir to the throne, his mother may out live him, and who knows, Charles may decide when his time comes that he does not want to be king. After all Diana said that she didn't think he was right for the "top job" and she proberbly knew him better than we do.

Interesting. Charles seems as duty bound as anyone if one looks at his life, Queen included. Your scenarios for him seem implausible - but maybe wishful thinking?

Regarding Diana 'knew him better' - I think all the evidence is that she didn't really know him, didn't really 'get' him - if she did, she would have stayed married to him, I would guess. Will Diana's petulant attempt at public 'payback' to Charles for whatever she felt he had or had not done to-or-for her continue to be the gauze through which Charles is to be judged/seen? I wonder what it is about Diana's string of slurs that continues to be so alluring and compelling that they are routinely restated as 'facts'.

What would be so terrible about having Charles become King? In the event the Queen decides that it is wiser to have the transition in her lifetime - to avoid any unpleasantness for him? I could see a mother - as mother but also as Queen - being concerned in that way for her son - and her heir - having to deal with the fall-out (still) from someone who smeared the RF.

[COUNTESS]

She will not abdicate. She doesn't feel that this is a job you can retire from. As lomg as she is healthy, she is right.

[Mirabel]

Anyway, I think Charles would make a fine king!
He is compassionate, intelligent, and interested in many aspects of life.

I agree that Diana didn't really know him very well (nor did he know her, that was the problem!)

But Charles is known for his willingness to take advice about all sorts of matters, so what could be better?

[Renata4711]

I hope that the Queen will outlive Charles.

[Nice Nofret]

Originally Posted by Renata4711

I hope that the Queen will outlive Charles.

Do you wish to outlive YOUR children? What a terrible thing to wish for

If you like the Queen how could you wish she has to bury her own son