The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist

George V however in my opinion set the stage for the monarchy to survive for the rest of the 20th century as he created a lot of the stuff the royal family does now like walkabout s and public engagements.

Walkabouts were invented in NZ in 1970 when Elizabeth and Philip started to walkabout amongst the people on their tour there to celebrate the voyage of James Cook.

Public engagements were done much earlier than George V - it was one of the criticisms that Victoria had about Albert Edward and Alexandra - that they did too much of the public engagements stuff - like opening things. Even Victoria and Albert did some public engagements - just more high-brow than those being done now.

George V turned the family inwards to Britain but he didn't anything new - he built on what was already happening. He knew that he couldn't keep the family associating with Europe after the War or he would face the same fate as his first cousins William, Nicholas and Alexandra - lose their thrones and possibly their lives.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist

Yes there is more then just reading papers and reading documents, If you look on the british monarchy website it tells you what her day is like and the role of the queen. About the the Quote I think her Grandfather said something like that once (but that was the 20th century a different time then it is now) But she is right about that. It had to be seen now to be believe especially if it want to survive the ever changing 21st Century.

Did you read the previous posts. Others were putting forward the idea that doing the minimum would been enough. I am thinking otherwise. Read back and you will see.

[BritishRoyalist]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Walkabouts were invented in NZ in 1970 when Elizabeth and Philip started to walkabout amongst the people on their tour there to celebrate the voyage of James Cook.

Public engagements were done much earlier than George V - it was one of the criticisms that Victoria had about Albert Edward and Alexandra - that they did too much of the public engagements stuff - like opening things. Even Victoria and Albert did some public engagements - just more high-brow than those being done now.

George V turned the family inwards to Britain but he didn't anything new - he built on what was already happening$. He knew that he couldn't keep the family associating with Europe after the War or he would face the same fate as his first cousins William, Nicholas and Alexandra - lose their thrones and possibly their lives.

You are right Elizabeth is the one who created the walkabouts. I thought I remember hearing that her grandfather started some sort of tradition that is still in use today. But Edward VII was the one who said that the monarch and the Royal Family has to be seen in public Especially after 40 Years of seclusion by his mother. I watched a documentary a few months back on Edward VII and one presenters aid that when Edward came to the throne he felt that the monarch,had to be seen in public and not locked away from public in Their palace. Edward was seen a lot in public which was very different then his mother which help it move more modernly with the times in the early 20th century.

[BritishRoyalist]

Originally Posted by cepe

Did you read the previous posts. Others were putting forward the idea that doing the minimum would been enough. I am thinking otherwise. Read back and you will see.

Yes I did read that. I thought you were asking if they did more then that (read papers etc.) which is why I replied yes.
My Apology.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by cepe

Did you read the previous posts. Others were putting forward the idea that doing the minimum would been enough. I am thinking otherwise. Read back and you will see.

I think if the minimum that she did was just the boxes and other private stuff then it would be a problem.

However I think if she continued to do state stuff, and remained visible while doing less of the fluff stuff then no one would be bothered by her remaining monarch. She could reduce things down to the bare bones in terms of her appearances, giving herself somewhat of a break, while delegating more to Charles and other royals. To me this addresses the reasons why people think that it's necessary for an abdication or regency, without imposing on her something that she clearly doesn't seem to desire.

[valentino1012]

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

[BritishRoyalist]

Originally Posted by valentino1012

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

Why would or should Charles Abdicate? And please use a better excuse then you don't want Camilla queen or because he to old. Also he not even king so how can he abdicate?

[cepe]

Originally Posted by valentino1012

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

This post says a lot more about you than anything else.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by valentino1012

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

Because having great hair is clearly important in a monarch (although by that count, William doesn't qualify...).

There is more to the Queen than her hats, which really are not a part of her role. The monarchy is not a popularity contest and the idea that HM should abdicate simply because her hats are boring (or because she's old) is absurd.

[BrazilianEmpire]

Originally Posted by valentino1012

can't see the boring hats anymore. she should abdicate and charles too. i think william and kate are an inspiration.there's potential in kate, she has great hair.

Can't believe I have read such a thing.

Hair?!?Even the Diana Fanatics can come with a better argument.

Do you have any understanding of how a Hereditary Monarchy, in a Parlamentary system, works?

[padams2359]

Where is it written that the "Red Boxes" are the personal responsibility of the Monarch? How long was it between the time that George V lost control of his mental faculties, and the time he passed on? He was not asked or forced to abdicate. I think this entire thread is ridiculous.

[cepe]

Originally Posted by padams2359

Where is it written that the "Red Boxes" are the personal responsibility of the Monarch? How long was it between the time that George V lost control of his mental faculties, and the time he passed on? He was not asked or forced to abdicate. I think this entire thread is ridiculous.

What are you talking about, what was the mental incapacity of George V? He suffered ill health but that is all. Can you name your sources?

[padams2359]

What is the source that states the the monarch must abdicate if they cannot do the Red Boxes?

[BritishRoyalist]

Originally Posted by padams2359

What is the source that states the the monarch must abdicate if they cannot do the Red Boxes?

No one said that the queen should (or that she has too) abdicate if she can not do the red boxes. Where did you read that?

[Ish]

Originally Posted by padams2359

Where is it written that the "Red Boxes" are the personal responsibility of the Monarch? How long was it between the time that George V lost control of his mental faculties, and the time he passed on? He was not asked or forced to abdicate. I think this entire thread is ridiculous.

George V didn't lose his mental facilities, unless you're referring to the point of time in the week before his death where he was in and out of consciousness. Two things come up here - first of all, what is the point of having a monarch abdicate while they're dying? And secondly, a monarch cannot abdicate if they're mentally incapable.

Take for example George III. He was mentally incapable of doing the red boxes, or other aspects of ruling. In result a regency was set up for the last eight years of his life.

The royal red boxes actually do have to be done by the Queen. The documents within them are documents that require royal assent, which in the UK only the monarch (or a regent if there is one) can do. Giving royal assent is the most fundamental aspect of the constitutional monarch and if the monarch can't do that then the monarchy cannot run, and thus either an abdication or a regency needs to occur.

[Roslyn]

In reality, is the Queen ever likely to refuse Royal Assent? She doesn't run the country, the elected parliament does. Isn't she really just going through the motions?

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Walkabouts were invented in NZ in 1970 when Elizabeth and Philip started to walkabout amongst the people on their tour there to celebrate the voyage of James Cook.

You may only have walkabouts by monarchs in mind, but her Majesty's Uncle David spent a fair bit of time walking about talking to the locals on his tours around the Empire in his younger days.

[Ish]

Yeah, but that's not the point - it's not whether or not she has to give royal assent that's important, it's the fact that in a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise) anything passed by the government doesn't become a law until the monarch (or a regent) gives royal assent.

This is true throughout all HM's realms, except instead of calling the representative a regent they're called other names - the GG and the LGs.

[Roslyn]

I suppose my point is that she gets advice on the issues anyway, and the material being put before her can be summarised for her. There need not really be much effort put into the task of doing the boxes.

[Ish]

I'm still not following your concern here.

My comments regarding the essentialness of the red boxes has nothing to do with the difficulty that lies in them. I simply think that they're an integral aspect of her role and that if she (or any other monarch) is unable to do them then it's time to look at a regency.