The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement? - Page 19

EarlOfDawleyMagna · #**361** 02-22-2013, 02:14 PM

I don't really agree with abdications I think it is a position for life and should remain thus. I do however see potential for a 'Regency' if the Monarch was not able to perform duties effectively. For example The Queen could semi retire and perform the duties she can (but no more) while Charles as Regent could do everything else.

Another idea that could set a new precedence (for situations where a Monarch is elderly) could be that The Monarch opens up to a dual sovereignty whereby Charles could become King alongside his Mother. This could even be possible with Mother and daughter or father and son.

EarlOfDawleyMagna · #**362** 02-22-2013, 03:11 PM

I don't think The Queen would ever abdicate. I think she as the rest of us see her position as one for life. However I do feel that her sense of duty may in the future, should she become incapable through ill health of fulfilling her commitments consider a Regency. Thus making Charles Prince Regent.

As a possible alternative and set a new precedence for such a situation should the Palace consider a dual sovereignty with Mother and Son becoming in effect Queen Elizabeth 11 and King Charles 111 at the same time. This move would infact honour the announcement made by the Palace stating Camilla would become Princess Consort, thus when Charles becomes King in his own right could elevate Camilla to Queen Consort.

Lumutqueen · #**363** 02-22-2013, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna

I don't really agree with abdications I think it is a position for life and should remain thus. I do however see potential for a 'Regency' if the Monarch was not able to perform duties effectively. For example The Queen could semi retire and perform the duties she can (but no more) while Charles as Regent could do everything else.

Another idea that could set a new precedence (for situations where a Monarch is elderly) could be that The Monarch opens up to a dual sovereignty whereby Charles could become King alongside his Mother. This could even be possible with Mother and daughter or father and son.

Charles can only act as Regent if his mother is considered to be infirmity of mind or body or of unavaliability for a definite cause. Therefore she cannot semi retire and perform duties she chooses. Dual Sovereignty makes no sense.

EarlOfDawleyMagna · #**364** 02-22-2013, 05:05 PM

Dual sovereignty makes clear sense to me as there are many benefits.

1, The Queen would not be abdicating. So not breaking a commitment and promise she holds so dear.

2, She could choose to do what she could and no more (a clear advantage over a Regency) where as you rightly pointed out she wouldn't be able to.

3, Charles could keep the wheels moving while his mother winds down a bit.

We are in near unchartered territory with the age of a Sovereign. As of now The Queen is in amazing health and can clearly fulfil her numerous duties but lets remember The Queen Mother she lived till over 100 and clearly couldn't do full a royal duties at the capacity needed to fulfill the role. It is likely at some point The Queen will go the same route. Keeping her sanity but not being as robust in body.

I think the dual sovereignty would solve this problem and could become an option and set a new precedent.

Lumutqueen · #**365** 02-22-2013, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna

Dual sovereignty makes clear sense to me as there are many benefits.

1, The Queen would not be abdicating. So not breaking a commitment and promise she holds so dear.

2, She could choose to do what she could and no more (a clear advantage over a Regency) where as you rightly pointed out she wouldn't be able to.

3, Charles could keep the wheels moving while his mother winds down a bit.

We are in near unchartered territory with the age of a Sovereign. As of now The Queen is in amazing health and can clearly fulfil her numerous duties but lets remember The Queen Mother she lived till over 100 and clearly couldn't do full a royal duties at the capacity needed to fulfill the role. It is likely at some point The Queen will go the same route. Keeping her sanity but not being as robust in body.

I think the dual sovereignty would solve this problem and could become an option and set a new precedent.

You can't have two monarchs doing the same job. Elizabeth pretty much picks and chooses what she does now and Charles is keeping the wheels moving as The Queen winds down. The Queen is not in amazing health, illness often prevents her from her duties.

EarlOfDawleyMagna · #**366** 02-22-2013, 06:43 PM

Of course you can have two Monarchs! It happened with William & Mary!!!

The Queen is in very good health for her age. She doesn't cancel much and the Palace has done a fantastic job in changing how they do things such as investitures (more of them for less duration) so she can keep up and not lose momentum. Charles as Prince Of Wales doesn't quite have the same gravitas as if he were King alongside his Mother. I think for the future it could be a viable option.

Lumutqueen · #**367** 02-23-2013, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna

Of course you can have two Monarchs! It happened with William & Mary!!!

The Queen is in very good health for her age. She doesn't cancel much and the Palace has done a fantastic job in changing how they do things such as investitures (more of them for less duration) so she can keep up and not lose momentum. Charles as Prince Of Wales doesn't quite have the same gravitas as if he were King alongside his Mother. I think for the future it could be a viable option.

William and Mary were quite a different situation. The Queen hasn't done a full investiture this year, she 'invests' people privately at Windsor or BP.

Charles will never have the same gravitas as The Queen, and especially if he is Monarch at the same time. The press will have a field day with all the 'stealing the crown' 'can't wait' comments.

Iluvbertie · #**368** 02-23-2013, 03:50 AM

In Britain a Regency is defined by law - the monarch must be unable to undertake their duties and it has to be signed off by a number of different people.

The co-monarchy of William and Mary came about because William was 3rd in line to the throne in his own right - line from James II was Mary, Anne, William. He was also the leader of an invading force. It was made very clear that William's own children from anyone other than Mary would be behind Anne and her children in the line of succession.

Would Britain like a co-monarchy - definitely not. The Queen will soldier on until her last breath unless she is mentally unable to do so in which case a Regency will be declared with Charles as Regent and he will then carry out all the monarch's duties and sign all the legislation that a Regent is legally able to do (a Regent can't sign legislation that changes the line of succession or something that affects the Presbyterian Church in Scotland).

monarchist-us · #**369** 02-23-2013, 04:43 AM

I hope HM never abdicates. It is possible (if not likely) that she will delegate a large chunk of her duties to Charles if she becomes ill or when the Duke of Edinburgh dies (I have a feeling she will probably wind down quite a bit after that).

Iluvbertie · #**370** 02-23-2013, 04:58 AM

She won't abdicate.

Charles already does a lot for her.

If she is unable to carry out her duties a Regency will be declared with Charles as Regent until she dies when he will become King.

It is really quite simple - The Queen will never ever abdicate.

muriel · #**371** 02-23-2013, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

She won't abdicate.

Charles already does a lot for her.

If she is unable to carry out her duties a Regency will be declared with Charles as Regent until she dies when he will become King.

It is really quite simple - The Queen will never ever abdicate.

Fully agree with you, the Queen will never abdicate. C&C already do quite a lot, and will continue to take on more of HMs burden.

EarlOfDawleyMagna · #**372** 02-23-2013, 06:19 AM

I guess time will tell. As I say we are in near unchartered waters. It's a very good opportunity to set a new Precedence. It would certainly sort out the Camilla issue as 'Princess Consort' then when Charles is solo King he could elevate her to Queen Consort without having broken what the announcement said Camilla's title would be.

vkrish · #**373** 02-23-2013, 07:51 AM

Though I am dead set against abdication, I not not even eager to see a 102-year old Queen in infirmity, 81-year old Prince Regent having to stay back from most engagements due to health issues, and 46-year old William taking over all investitures, etc.
All I can hope (only for good) is the Queen passes away at the right time, but then it is only in the hands of God. And none of us can judge/desire/expect it.

Lumutqueen · #**374** 02-23-2013, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna

It would certainly sort out the Camilla issue as 'Princess Consort' then when Charles is solo King he could elevate her to Queen Consort without having broken what the announcement said Camilla's title would be.

There's no "issue", when Charles becomes King, Camilla will be his Queen. It would take an act of parliament to strip her of her title. No need for elevation.

EarlOfDawleyMagna · #**375** 02-23-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

There's no "issue", when Charles becomes King, Camilla will be his Queen. It would take an act of parliament to strip her of her title. No need for elevation.

Yes technically that is true! I for one want Camilla to be Queen and fully agree that by law the wife of a King is Queen, however upon the announcement of their marriage it was made very clear that Camilla would be styled Princess Consort when Charles accedes. Much in the same way Camilla is legally Princess Of Wales but styled Duchess Of Cambridge. I feel this was said at the time to make the public more accepting of the marriage. But to go against it now Charles would lose face. That is the tricky issue he has placed himself in.

NGalitzine · #**376** 02-23-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna

Yes technically that is true! I for one want Camilla to be Queen and fully agree that by law the wife of a King is Queen, however upon the announcement of their marriage it was made very clear that Camilla would be styled Princess Consort when Charles accedes. Much in the same way Camilla is legally Princess Of Wales but styled Duchess Of Cambridge. I feel this was said at the time to make the public more accepting of the marriage. But to go against it now Charles would lose face. That is the tricky issue he has placed himself in.

Whatever the intention was in 2005, all it would take would be a statement from the PM of the day to say that they have advised the new monarch that his wife should be known by the traditional title of a kings wife which is Queen Consort. Anyway, discussions of Camillas future title is off topic.

Lumutqueen · #**377** 02-23-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna

Yes technically that is true! I for one want Camilla to be Queen and fully agree that by law the wife of a King is Queen, however upon the announcement of their marriage it was made very clear that Camilla would be styled Princess Consort when Charles accedes. Much in the same way Camilla is legally Princess Of Wales but styled Duchess Of Cambridge. I feel this was said at the time to make the public more accepting of the marriage. But to go against it now Charles would lose face. That is the tricky issue he has placed himself in.

It wasn't made 'clear', it was mentioned once and hasn't been mentioned again. I doubt anybody will actually remember it unless you follow royalty, so he won't loose face with the mass public.

EarlOfDawleyMagna · #**378** 02-23-2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

It wasn't made 'clear', it was mentioned once and hasn't been mentioned again. I doubt anybody will actually remember it unless you follow royalty, so he won't loose face with the mass public.

It was more than clear it was mentioned all over the news and in all subsequent 'should Camilla be Queen?' type debates ever since. It only needs to be mentioned once, it was part of the official wedding announcement issued by Clarence House. It wasn't just a flippant remark and mark my words when Charles accedes he will be expected to adhere to his words. Personally I feel he shouldn't have mentioned the issue at all in the wedding announcement.

Lumutqueen · #**379** 02-23-2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfDawleyMagna

It was more than clear it was mentioned all over the news and in all subsequent 'should Camilla be Queen?' type debates ever since. It only needs to be mentioned once, it was part of the official wedding announcement issued by Clarence House. It wasn't just a flippant remark and mark my words when Charles accedes he will be expected to adhere to his words. Personally I feel he shouldn't have mentioned the issue at all in the wedding announcement.

Exactly why should he 'adhere' to words that probably weren't even his?

royalistbert · #**380** 02-23-2013, 02:19 PM

How embarrassing Camilla the only Princess Consort in Europe. For Gods sake Charles man up and declare Camilla Princess of Wales.