The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Roslyn]

Did she have a trauma from the abdication of her uncle? Her father perhaps, but not her, I think. I don't think that would be a reason for her not to do so. Besides, there would not be a recreating of such a trauma if she did abdicate. Her son is expected to succeed her and is more than ready for the job.

Whether or not Elizabeth personally had a traumatic reaction to the abdication, I think that her mother's fury over the whole business from the time David met Wallis through until the time King George VI died and beyond for the rest of her life would have generated strong enough shockwaves to have a traumatic effect on anyone in her vicinity, and QEII was in her vicinity for much of that time. So, yes, I think QEII would have been traumatised by the abdication for that reason alone. I am fairly sure that her parents' attitude to it was probably behind that declaration of hers on her 21st birthday. No way in the wide world will she abdicate.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Whether or not Elizabeth personally had a traumatic reaction to the abdication, I think that her mother's fury over the whole business from the time David met Wallis through until the time King George VI died and beyond for the rest of her life would have generated strong enough shockwaves to have a traumatic effect on anyone in her vicinity, and QEII was in her vicinity for much of that time. So, yes, I think QEII would have been traumatised by the abdication for that reason alone. I am fairly sure that her parents' attitude to it was probably behind that declaration of hers on her 21st birthday. No way in the wide world will she abdicate.

At the same time that "traumatic event" made her husband King and made her daughter Queen. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was absolutely aware of ranks and precedence in the social pyramid, reached the summum of all possible positions, Queen of the United Kingdom, Empress of India even.... so we may take it with a little grain of salt that there was a "trauma" indeed. She was over it. In no time. She became the supreme top hen in da' hen house...

 

[crm2317]

I think the Queen's sense of duty would prevent her from abdicating. However if Prince Philip passes away first, I can see her declaring a regency. I don't think she would carry on the same without him beside her.

 

[Cris M]

At the same time that "traumatic event" made her husband King and made her daughter Queen. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was absolutely aware of ranks and precedence in the social pyramid, reached the summum of all possible positions, Queen of the United Kingdom, Empress of India even.... so we may take it with a little grain of salt that there was a "trauma" indeed. She was over it. In no time. She became the supreme top hen in da' hen house...

And soon after her husband became King the country entered a devastating war that lasted for six years. She saw her husband deteriorating in front of her, before he died at the age of 56, leaving her a widow at the age of 52. She also saw her daughter taking on the responsibility of be Queen of vast, albeit in decline, Empire, sacrificing her time with her two young children.

Let's look beyond all the perks, Duc. It's no wonder the abdication traumatized all the people involved, including the Queen Mother and the Queen.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

You can not connect the abdication of Edward VIII, the outbreak of WWII three/four years later and the ailments of the King, mainly caused by his heavy smoking. Like A + B = C. The King developed lung cancer, suffered occlusion of the arteries and also trombosis. Even when he remained the Duke of York, living a life on England's pleasant pastures green, in all seclusion, it is most unlikely he would not have developed these diseases to the lungs, arteries and trombosis. It was death cause Number One amongst the British before junk food, fat and sugar entered society.

 

[ladongas]

You can not connect the abdication of Edward VIII, the outbreak of WWII three/four years later and the ailments of the King, mainly caused by his heavy smoking. Like A + B = C. The King developed lung cancer, suffered occlusion of the arteries and also trombosis. Even when he remained the Duke of York, living a life on England's pleasant pastures green, in all seclusion, it is most unlikely he would not have developed these diseases to the lungs, arteries and trombosis. It was death cause Number One amongst the British before junk food, fat and sugar entered society.

Whether "we" connect it or not, those near to him certainly did. It is quite likely that the stress and privations of war did indeed shorten his life by some considerable amount. His brother ( the DoW) lived to the age of 78, despite having been a heavy smoker and a likely alcoholic.

While George VI was 'fighting a war' and enduring the bombing of London, the former Edward VIII was giving and attending dinner parties, playing golf, visiting his tailor, playing bridge, and enjoying light work and recreation in Nassau, far away from war.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So you are connecting A + B = C because basically you say the Duke of York would not have sufferend lung cancer, occlusion of the arteries and trombosis when he was not the King. That is a conclusion you can make. I do not share that conclusion. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon lifed her life to the max, lived beyond a century and enjoyed every minute of it, we may assume.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

So you are connecting A + B = C because basically you say the Duke of York would not have sufferend lung cancer, occlusion of the arteries and trombosis when he was not the King. That is a conclusion you can make. I do not share that conclusion. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon lifed her life to the max, lived beyond a century and enjoyed every minute of it, we may assume.

I tend to agree that Queen Elizabeth's father would have died young no matter what, but it is a matter of record that the Queen Mother blamed his ascension to the throne for his relatively young death. I don't know if it is certain that Queen Elizabeth shares that belief, but I think she does--and it is one of the reasons that she won't abdicate.

I don't think she aspired to Queen. She knew it was possible when she married Prince Albert, but it was assumed that Prince Edward would eventually marry and have a child of his own. Moreover, she never forgave Wallis Simpson for the abdication, which also indicates that she wasn't particularly happy to ascend the throne.

The Queen Mother certainly made the most of it and enjoyed being Queen. But I think she would have been just as happy married to a royal duke. If Edward VII had married someone else, the Queen Mother would have been forced to defer to his wife but she would have been fine with that. If she didn't like her sister-in-law, she would have just stayed clear and held her own court someplace else.

 

[ladongas]

So you are connecting A + B = C because basically you say the Duke of York would not have sufferend lung cancer, occlusion of the arteries and trombosis when he was not the King. That is a conclusion you can make. I do not share that conclusion. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon lifed her life to the max, lived beyond a century and enjoyed every minute of it, we may assume.

Here's what I said: It is quite likely that the stress and privations of war did indeed shorten his life by some considerable amount.

Do you think that having to be King, when his brother had refused to fulfil his role, helped his health? Certainly not. His wife saw the toll it took on him, and regardless of other factors, stress of that sort is not conducive to health or long life. Spending time in the country, or in a warm climate...that would have helped, but he had to be King, because his brother selfishly refused to.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] but he had to be King, because his brother selfishly refused to.

That is open for discussion. Had the Government allowed the King to marry the love of his life, then he would not have abdicated, of course.

In retrospect, with the flood of divorces and divorcees in the British royal family, the treatment of the Queen's uncle was remarkable.

 

[scooter]

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67

The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67

The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

I see what you saying but Edward VIII I do not consider having died young. 77 is the average lifespan for men today so in 1972 that would have been pretty good.

 

[AdmirerUS]

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67
The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

Well, women do generally have longer life expectancies. The better questions, given the discussion might be:

1. How long did the last 10 monarchs remain in rule (and yes, the women dominate here) before the role took it's toll?
2. How much longer did the king live than general life expectancy for men in GB (which was, for example, 47 in 1900, 60 in the 1930s and 65 in the 1950s).

Compared to the general population, kings fared quite well.

 

[JessRulz]

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67

The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

George VI was actually 56, which is considerably younger than the other Kings. I'm sure another 10 years of his life, while not making him 'ancient', would have been warmly welcomed by his family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Those kings, though, all lived unhealthy lifestyles as well.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Spending time in the country, or in a warm climate...that would have helped, but he had to be King, because his brother selfishly refused to.

So there's that tantalizing, very large, alternative time-line of history: had Edward VIII not abdicated, had Wallis Simpson been able to reach him and persuade him that, if he abdicated, she would not stay with him (which I understand she was trying to do but could not get through on the phone - can someone here either confirm or correct me on this impression?), had he, in short, reigned as king until his death in 1972 without issue, what a different life for Elizabeth, and possibly for Charles. Potentially there would have been a more 'normal' relationship with his mother, for example.

Here's a possibility: Edward VIII dies in 1972, and at the prospect of a woman on the throne, there are calls for Elizabeth to step aside for her son, Prince Charles. Imagine that! Plus Charles marries young and more quickly, Amanda Knatchbull, as Mountbattan planned.

 

[scooter]

George VI was actually 56, which is considerably younger than the other Kings. I'm sure another 10 years of his life, while not making him 'ancient', would have been warmly welcomed by his family.

My typo, Jezz, thanks for correcting!

 

[ladongas]

And in the alternative time-line, just suppose that after Edward VIII abdicated, George VI also refused to serve, and so on down the line. Would the Monarchy have survived a surge of quitters? And how would a newly Republican Britain have withstood the horror of WWII without that golden thread of monarchy connecting them to their long and glorious past? One can't know, of course, but things could have gone badly wrong if Bertie and Elizabeth had been quitters.

 

[Lady Nimue]

And in the alternative time-line, just suppose that after Edward VIII abdicated, George VI also refused to serve, and so on down the line. Would the Monarchy have survived a surge of quitters? And how would a newly Republican Britain have withstood the horror of WWII without that golden thread of monarchy connecting them to their long and glorious past? One can't know, of course, but things could have gone badly wrong if Bertie and Elizabeth had been quitters.

If George VI refused to serve, who would have the crown passed to?

Do you think William will be a 'quitter'?

 

[ladongas]

If George VI refused to serve, who would have the crown passed to?

Do you think William will be a 'quitter'?

The preteen Princess Elizabeth would have been next in line.

No.

 

[padams2359]

She will draw her last breath with the crown in her head. As it should be.

 

[Queen Camilla]

She could aim for being the longest reigning monarch ever. She only needs 20 years.

Living to 109 is quite possible.

 

[Ish]

She could aim for being the longest reigning monarch ever. She only needs 20 years.

Living to 109 is quite possible.

She can't be the longest reigning monarch ever while Bhumibol Adulyadeh, King of Thailand, is alive, as he's been reigning for, I believe, 6 years longer than she has.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

The longest reigning monarch in world history was an Egyptian Pharaoh (cannot recall his name) who ruled for 100 years and died aged 105. So, it's basically impossible. We must also remember that Her Majesty has more stress and pressure than her late mother.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The Queen could become the longest reigning monarch with verifiable dates of reign.

King Bhumibol Adulyadeh of Thailand had some recent health problems and although younger than the Queen, most women live longer than men.

IMO, it would be great to have QEII as the monarch with the longest verifiable reign.

 

[royal rob]

The Queen could become the longest reigning monarch with verifiable dates of reign.

King Bhumibol Adulyadeh of Thailand had some recent health problems and although younger than the Queen, most women live longer than men.

IMO, it would be great to have QEII as the monarch with the longest verifiable reign.

Only if she wasn't in pain and mentally ok.
I cant see the point of having the longest reign otherwise. IMO
What does that count for really.
Charles mightn't even get to be king and I'm sure that's not what you would want


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

The longest reigning monarch in world history was an Egyptian Pharaoh (cannot recall his name) who ruled for 100 years and died aged 105. So, it's basically impossible. We must also remember that Her Majesty has more stress and pressure than her late mother.

The longest reigning monarch in world history of verifiable dates is Sobhuza II of Swaziland who ruled for just shy of 83 years.

There are monarchs who reigned longer, but the exact dates are unknown. The longest undisputed reigning monarch in world history with unclear start/end dates is Raja Sawai Basavalinga I of Sundem, who reigned for approximately 79 years - we know what year his reign started and when it ended, but not the exact date it started or ended.

There are three monarchs whose reigns may have been longer, but these dates are disputed. The longest such reign is Pepi II Neferake of Ancient Egypt who is claimed to have ruled for 94 years (some say more than 100, but that's typically believed to be a myth), but the dates are unclear and many historians seem to be of the opinion that his reign was actually a much shorter 64 years.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

King Bhumibol is 87. He is very ill, he suffers from parkinson's disease, heart problems, he has had several strokes and is in a wheelchair. He has been in the hospital almost constantly since 2009.

The Queen is almost 90, but she is very vigorous. Yes, she has lived a more stressful life than her mother, but people close to her says she is in better shape than the Queen Mother was at the same age.

I know that Harry has said that it would have been difficult for her to do what she does without Philip, but the people who has worked for her said during the diamond jubilee that they doubt that she will go into mourning if he dies before her. They thought like me that she will just carry on with her duty.

If she manages to stay on her feet and not fall / stumble and injure herself then I doubt that she's going to need a regent.

The Queen Mother performed official duties until she was 101 years old, and the main reason to why she was frail were all the falls she had.

 

[royal rob]

All this talk makes me think of all the plans that must have been made and ready to put into action if or when they will be needed. I remember reading that the Queen mothers funeral was planned with her input. I'm sure there's plans for the Queen, Phillip, Charles and Camilla
Anyway I'm off topic


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen and Philip's funerals have been planned for years - as has Charles'. They are part of the duties of the Earl Marshal (The Duke of Norfolk - this is an hereditary position) and he regularly goes through those plans with them, just as he did with the Queen Mother. It is also his responsibility to plan Charles' coronation.


These days the plans would be on computer and so are ready to go when the occasion arises.


He also has the broad plans for royal weddings - such as William's - with things like the timings and broad setting plans with precedence lists etc.