The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement? - Page 26

Ish · #**501** 05-03-2013, 03:23 PM

I don't think HM's not abdicating is simply because she likes being in control and doesn't want to be sidelined (or have her husband be sidelined). She was raised to believe that once a monarch, always a monarch, and that when she was anointed Queen it was for life. She may not have said in her coronation oath that she was doing this for life, but I think it was hugely implied. She took a vow, she's made an oath, she was anointed before God. Her decision not to abdicate isn't simply an ego or control issue, it's that to abdicate she would have to break this vow and go against what she was raised to believe was expected of her.

There are three people who would keep her from abdicating (beyond God); Queen Mary, King George VI, and the Queen Mother.

vkrish · #**502** 05-03-2013, 03:30 PM

Queen Camilla, Breaking the "records" and Holding the "power" will be the last things in the minds of The Queen and The DoE..

cepe · #**503** 05-03-2013, 03:49 PM

There is nothing wrong with abdication. Willem-Alexander hasn't succeeded to the crown in sorrow at the death of his mother. she is there if he needs her. it is a good option.

The Queens attitude has been dictated by the mess Edward VIII made and her mothers view that it caused the early death of George VI.

I have real issues in just how much the Queen has contributed to society. she has lived her life in a bubble, removed from reality. Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and Harry have some inkling or even real experience of life on the outside and she doesn't. From the day she was born she has been cocooned from the real world. The only times she has been really put under pressure was the outfall of her parents response to the abdication (the source of that message( "I dedicate etc....); Andrew going to war in the Falklands (ultimately ok but mothers do worry sometimes about sons); Aberfan (even she admits she responded too late); Diana (she got her priorities right IMO, but the generally the country didn't agree.

Our Queen stays because she doesn't know anything else, so she stays for herself. That doesn't make it a good thing. It will be interesting to see what historians say.

The Prince of Wales knows and understands what it is to plough your own furrow and establish yourself . He has created a model where the BRF can support and encourage young enterprise; look after our military within and post service; support the arts and the environment. His children follow in his footsteps - not HMQs

but she will never abdicate.

Ish · #**504** 05-03-2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkrish

Queen Camilla, Breaking the "records" and Holding the "power" will be the last things in the minds of The Queen and The DoE..

Honestly, at this point I highly doubt HM hasn't thought about the record. I mean, she's off by less than 2 and a half years. I doubt she's looking at the Platinum Jubilee or surpassing Louis XIV as the longest reigning monarch in European history, but I would really be surprised if she wasn't aware of how close to Victoria's record she is and how long she has to live to hit it

I don't think that's why she hasn't abdicated, but I wouldn't be surprised if at this point she has September 10, 2015 highlighted in her mind as a day to live to. We've seen the willpower of a monarch when it comes to their longevity before - William IV famously said "I trust to God that my life may be spared for nine months longer" so that a regency wouldn't be required in the minority of Victoria. He then managed to hold onto life for just another 10 months. I wouldn't be surprised if HM has at least thought "I trust to God that my life may be spared until September 10th, 2015."

BritishRoyalist · #**505** 05-03-2013, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

The people keeping her from abdicating are herself, Queen Victoria & Prince Phillip.

Queen Elizabeth won't abdicate at least until after she surpasses Queen Victoria. She came this far, she is not going to let Victoria win.

The Queen likes to be in control (her pillow said it all 'It's nice to be Queen.')

I don't think she'll ever want to be known as Princess Elizabeth after being Queen Elizabeth.

Prince Phillip would fall in rank behind his son and I don't think Phillip would like that.

I have to agree with everything you said. I wouldn't be surprise if The Queen made a promise to her Mother (and probably to her father as well) that she would never Abdicate and that she would reign until the end. The Queen take to her duty as Queen seriously and made a promise in her 21st birthday to the service the people's for her whole life whether it long or short. Someone said in a previous post said something along the lines of hat she has a sense of duty and take her role as Monarch seriously like her Father (George VI), Grandfather (George V) And her Great Great Grandmother (Victoria) . I can't see her abdicating. Now I could see a Regency happening (Charles stepping in as a Regent) in the events that the Queen started to suffer from Dementia, Alzheimer's or something like that and she could no longer fulfill her duty, I could see something (like a Regency) like that happening maybe after 90th Birthday. The Queen is also Two Years away from becoming the longest reigning monarch in british history and I have no doubt that she will live past 90 and reach that milestone.

vkrish · #**506** 05-03-2013, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish

Honestly, at this point I highly doubt HM hasn't thought about the record. I mean, she's off by less than 2 and a half years. I doubt she's looking at the Platinum Jubilee or surpassing Louis XIV as the longest reigning monarch in European history, but I would really be surprised if she wasn't aware of how close to Victoria's record she is and how long she has to live to hit it

I didnt mean that she is unaware or indifferent to the record(s).
I was saying that the "record" will have absolutely no impact on her consideration/non-consideration of abdication.
Whether she dreams of British or European or even World record, is totally upto her, and about that, there is absolutely nothing anyone, herself included, can do. No one can control or limit anyone's dreams, even our own

.
I am sure she crossed the stage where her own or her family's actions will threaten her position ('97-like).
So it is completely upto her health, as of now, to decide those "records".
She got some great genes, and maintained it with equally great healthy lifestyle..lets see what happens..

Ish · #**507** 05-03-2013, 04:52 PM

I agree - I don't think she'd avoid abdicating because of the record at all. I think there are far more important reasons as to her not abdicating at play here.

As for the DoE's stance on records - he's already met his and is the longest serving royal consort overall. He'll have to live another 10 years or so to be the longest lived consort overall, but I believe he's already the longest lived male consort.

Prince Charles is the longest-serving heir apparent, and if HM breaks Victoria's record then PC is likely to also break the record for longest-serving Prince of Wales. HM is also the longest lived British monarch, and PC will be the oldest monarch at the start of his reign when he ascends (and Camilla will be the oldest consort at the start of the reign).

Warren · #**508** 05-03-2013, 07:33 PM

Could members please attack the issues and not each other.
Posts contravening this basic rule of forum discourse have been removed.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

Mariel · #**509** 05-04-2013, 12:01 AM

I haven't studied all this like some people, but I think it would be a motherly gesture for the Queen to announce her retirement date when the Cambridge baby is baptized. For the following Spring, so the coronation of Charles would come in good weather. I'm an American so I don't really have a say, but that's what I would do if I wanted Charles to be able to expand his role. Charles shouldn't have to be carried down the aisle at Westminster.

NGalitzine · #**510** 05-04-2013, 12:43 AM

Although Charles is fully trained and prepared for his future role, he has been reading state papers and meeting with government ministers for years now, I think he rather enjoys the freedom and leeway to act that has now and that he will lose when he is monarch. I do think he wants to live to become monarch in order to fullfill his destiny but at this stage of the game I doubt he is in a rush for it to happen. He can afford to wait and I think HM has made is pretty clear on more than one occassion that she sees her role as monarch as a lifetime duty, not one that can be set aside.

vkrish · #**511** 05-04-2013, 03:57 AM

Exactly, I feel Charles is more than happy by the Queen not abdicating.
he got enormoue leverage and influence with the government and ministers, which, I doubt any other Europen CPs have..He can champion all the things he want, and add up to his "CV"..Actually, he is having the cake and eating it, too.
Accession will spoil all this for him..He has to completely shut down his mouth, and become a dumb figure-head, who nods and signs down evrything put in front of him. I hope that occurs as late as possible..
And Mariel,why we should we end all this just for the sake of a "joyful ceremony"? I assure you he need not be "carried to Westminster" atleast till he is 90+..
And BTW his coronation will anyways be a joyful celebration...

Skippyboo · #**512** 05-04-2013, 01:36 PM

The queen isn't going to abdicate because it isn't the British way. The British monarchs are anointed during their coronation. It is a job for life. Look at the people who influenced her when she was little - her parents and grandparents. All people who put duty to country above personal pleasure unlike uncle David.

The coronation isn't a morbid occasion. The ceremony isn't right after the death of previous monarch but a year and a half later. The queen became queen in feb 1952 and crowned in June 1953. The last time we had a long serving queen, the long time pow stepped up and did a pretty good job as monarch when not many people expected he would.

Iluvbertie · #**513** 05-04-2013, 06:56 PM

The coronation, traditionally, is held at least 12 months after the death of the previous monarch but I have read that they don't want to have as long a break between the death and coronation next time (can't remember where).

The reason for the long break was that George VI died in February and they like to hold coronations in summer as it is better weather so Elizabeth was June 12 months later. The gap between George V and George VI was similarly January 36 to May 37 but George V was only 13 months - May 10 - to June 11.

Edward VII had an even longer period from Jan 01 to Aug 02 but he said he wouldn't be crowned until the Boer War had ended and then he had to have surgery on the day of his original planned coronation.

Victoria was 13 months - May 37 to June 38.

padams2359 · #**514** 05-04-2013, 07:20 PM

Queen Elizabeth will draw her last breath as Queen And Monarch. There may be a Regent in place for quite some time, but alas, only a Regent, and I am guessing the conversation does not come up in her presents very frequently.

Lenora · #**515** 05-05-2013, 11:13 AM

Abdication may be acceptable in Holland, but fiddling with institutions is not for the British
The Dutch way is not for us | Victoria Coren | Comment is free | The Observer

**Marengo** · #**516** 05-05-2013, 05:23 PM

An entertaining article, though not very friendly. Basically comparing the royal family with a soap opera.

Moonmaiden23 · #**517** 05-05-2013, 05:29 PM

I agree Marengo, and I found the author's snide attempts at humor more cruel than funny. Prince Andrew does more than play golf and fornicate with models. Isn't it time to lay off this guy??

I do agree with her that the Queen is the best thing going for the BRF. I do NOT want her to abdicate any time soon.

cepe · #**518** 05-05-2013, 05:36 PM

Abdications are part of British history going back 1000 years - along with being deposed; overlooked; and murdered.

It is not a bad thing - it is the circumstances that create the need that cause the emotion.

Iluvbertie · #**519** 05-05-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Erton

If the HM was to abdicate, do you think this would help Charles in particular and the monarchy as a whole?
If HM was to abdicate, it would make sense when Charles has high approval ratings. Right now his approval is below the Duchess of Cambridge and Camilla is almost off the radar.

Can you post a link to this poll showing these statistics?

It is also a fact of life that the younger generation are always more popular than the older one unless the older one is ancient.

Going back to the early 80s Diana was tops followed by the Queen Mum and then surprisingly Andrew - that didn't change who were the important ones - The Queen and Charles.

cepe · #**520** 05-05-2013, 06:08 PM

If everyone values the Queen that much and think she knows what's best for the monarchy in the UK; plus people keep on and on about how old she is and needs a rest - given those circumstances and she made the decision to stand down, who is going to argue. She will be saying "I want Charles to be King"

Monarchy is not a popularity contest - you take what comes next.

For those who don't want Charles, then it will be a case of "it won't be for long" (hopefully incorrectly).

Duty is not supposed to be a millstone round anyone's neck - either the giver or receiver.

However, the reality is she is already slowing down; within 5 years she will be almost invisible, especially if Philip dies. If she has any care at all about the monarchy, then she will really step back (probably not abdicate) and give Charles the main stage.