The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly! Further more I have the rather strong opinion that William is no where ready to be King. At best I can see him being King in his 50s or so. Not before.
The succession list should remain as is!
 
It doesn't matter.. I don't believe he would want to be King a day earlier than he absolutely has to.. as he is pretty lacklustre IMO about doing royal duties. but regardless fo how he feels or how a section of the public feels, the next King is Charles.
 
It doesn't matter if "people prefer William".. not that I think they do.. Charles is going to be the next King. And the queen's not going to abdicat.

It may not matter legally, but polls show for a fact that "people prefer William".

Exactly! Further more I have the rather strong opinion that William is no where ready to be King. At best I can see him being King in his 50s or so. Not before.
The succession list should remain as is!


William is probably better prepared to ascend the throne than his grandmother was when she became queen at a much younger age. In fact, given the mostly ceremonial role of the king these days, It doesn't really take that much preparation to be an effective monarch. Two qualities seem to be important though in the modern monarchy: empathy with the public and being discreet/uncontroversial. On those two counts, I put William ahead of his "more experienced" father.
 
It doesn't matter.. I don't believe he would want to be King a day earlier than he absolutely has to.. as he is pretty lacklustre IMO about doing royal duties. but regardless fo how he feels or how a section of the public feels, the next King is Charles.


I just counted 11 engagements for William from September 1 to September 12. That didn't count for multiple engagements in Liverpool the other day. The online CC wasn't totally up to date. William has been pretty busy since the move back to London.

William did have a part time job and two young kids and still did similar numbers to Harry who did not have a second job or a young family.

Still the popularity or lack of popularity doesn't govern the line of succession, the law does and the law says Charles is next.
 
I think you have a point here - a lot of people already want William to replace Charles. My mom asked me this the other day; she thought the Queen should 'skip Charles for William' and doesn't understand why she shouldn't or can't. I explained it to her, but of course there are many people out there who don't follow the monarchy's traditions closely and only know the 'pop culture' version of royalty that they see in glossy magazines and entertainment shows.

So if the idea of Charles becoming king over William is already unpopular, I don't think it will get any better if he's an 80 year-old man. The Diana story will get dredged up again, the suitability of Camilla to become Queen will be debated in popular media, and this will all contrast with William and Kate and their stable family and relative young age.

I don't think there will be an abdication really, but I do wonder about a regency. Although I wonder if it's too late already to draw people away from their preference for William.

I can't begin to imagine how uncomfortable that must make William feel that that is a strong desire among many people that he bypass his father. But, then again, the Royals are used to dealing with the press.
 
I think you have a point here - a lot of people already want William to replace Charles. My mom asked me this the other day; she thought the Queen should 'skip Charles for William' and doesn't understand why she shouldn't or can't. I explained it to her, but of course there are many people out there who don't follow the monarchy's traditions closely and only know the 'pop culture' version of royalty that they see in glossy magazines and entertainment shows.

So if the idea of Charles becoming king over William is already unpopular, I don't think it will get any better if he's an 80 year-old man. The Diana story will get dredged up again, the suitability of Camilla to become Queen will be debated in popular media, and this will all contrast with William and Kate and their stable family and relative young age.

I don't think there will be an abdication really, but I do wonder about a regency. Although I wonder if it's too late already to draw people away from their preference for William.

You very much have a point, that applies to most monarchies (the Dutch being an exception), that is that in contrast to earlier times monarchs nowadays can expect to live long. Which means that every second heir will be "old" by the time he/she can take over. Having spend most of their lives in a kind of limbo and when they finally sit on the throne their subjects find them irrelevant because they are too old and haven't been on the throne long enough to make a lasting impact.
That is very much the problem for Charles.

It's not the problem that he is unpopular (that may also be debatable BTW) or Diana is still casting her shadow over his life. The problem is that Charles has been waiting so long that his ship has long since sailed.
Even if QEII should die tomorrow Charles will only be seen as an interim figure and he won't have the time, and probably not the energy either to really make a lasting impact on the "firm" let alone Britain. (Keep in mind that QEII has been blessed with an extraordinary good health.) Charles will be Charles the Old, rather than Charles the Reformer, or Charles the wise or even Charles the Blunderer. He will be a footnote in the minds of most people. - Because no matter what it's W&K who are the stars of the show. They are the ones people look to. They are the ones people follow. They are the ones who have the energy to be seen here there and everywhere. Simply because W&K are now in their prime.
They are the ones most people can relate to age-wise, family-wise, lifestyle-wise even, while Charles is for the OAP's.
Okay, I'm putting things a bit on the edge to illustrate my point, but I actually mean it. I'd say to most people >50 Charles is far less relevant than W&K.
So yes, it does make good sense to "skip" Charles.

That QEII should abdicate for other reasons than health, so that Charles should get on throne, is IMO too late. Such an abdication should have happened 20 years ago.
It's too late now. It makes no sense to abdicate in order to have someone younger and with more energy than yourself on the throne if that person has a himself reached the retirement age.
It makes much more sense to abdicate and have Charles renounce the throne in order for W&K to take over. - Then they can have the time to make a lasting impact and they can have the time for people to develop a similar devotion to W&K as people have to QEII.

So should QEII die tomorrow Charles would his country and the monarchy a great service if he only reigned for max ten years before abdicating himself. That would give W&K time to look after their children in their early years, before taking over in earnest. - And Charles would still be able to advise his son.

And it's a problem in other monarchies. We have CP's who are now approaching 50. (Denmark, Norway and to some extent Sweden). The CP's there are in their prime. They are increasingly, if not already, the ones most people look to. Yet the monarchs in those three countries are in fine health and can be expected to be around for many more years, if for no other reason than that they have access to the best possible health care.
Or should they do like the BRF? Wait and wait until the grandchildren are ready to take over?
And how about the future? The average lifespan is increasing. People born today can fully expect to live until 100, perhaps longer, and still be in pretty fine shape. - Are we to have monarchies where the average monarch is 90 years old? Having ascended the throne at the age of 80?

Wouldn't it be better to have a system where the CP's take over around the age of 45 and reign for some 30 years?

Abdications have taken place for generations in the Netherlands. Yet, the NLRF is still around. It has recently taken place in Spain, Belgium and soon Japan without any sign of the monarchies there come tumbling down.
 
:previous:

The tradition is not Dutch but more in the House of Nassau, which saw the following abdications:
Willem I of Orange-Nassau, King of the Netherlands and Grand-Duke of Luxembourg
Marie-Adelheid of Nassau, Grand-Duchess of Luxembourg
Wilhelmina of Orange-Nassau, Queen of the Netherlands
Charlotte of Nassau, Grand-Duchess of Luxembourg
Juliana of Orange-Nassau, Queen of the Netherlands
Jean of Nassau, Grand-Duke of Luxembourg
Beatrix of Orange-Nassau, Queen of the Netherlands

So it is waiting for an abdication of Henri of Nassau, the current Grand-Duke. In both the Netherlands and Luxembourg the monarchies look "strong and stable" to use a term and all these abdications have not at all eroded the support for the institution. On the contrary, we may say that in said countries, as well in Spain and Belgium, and soon in Japan, the monarchy has been (will be) rejuvenated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The abdication of Marie-Adelheid was quite different from the others; under huge pressure - not because the monarchy was stable, the monarch getting older and the next generation well prepared (of course Willem I also had some other reasons to abficate, including being unhappy about changes in his position).

Going back to the situation in the UK. I expect Charles to follow his mother: no abdication (after he has waited for so long). William might have a very different opion. I don't think he shares his grandmother's conviction that being King is for life (that abdicating would go contrary your God-given task), so I wouldn't be surprised if he would abdicating at some point in favor of George. It might, however, depend on the timing of his ascension to the throne.
 
I think with all the talk of perhaps a regency when the Queen reaches 95 has absolutely nothing to do with popular opinion nor does it have anything to do with how other monarchs and heads of state are advocating abdication.

What it all has to do with is being prepared. It is having ideas in motion to encompass and ensure that the monarchy in the UK rolls along like a well oiled machine in top form to serve the people.

Elizabeth and Philip are in their 90s. Reaching that age does give one the knowing that they are not immortal. They know their health and clarity of mind when they wake up every morning is something to be thankful for. They know things can change at the drop of a hat. Older people tend to make wills as they grow older to express what their wishes are. The monarchy is like that too that all possibilities are covered and put into place to handle whatever may come.

Whatever happens, things are in place for Charles. He will be king upon the death of his mother. William will have his time to be the heir to the throne. All is as it should be. The monarchy is just astute enough to be prepared for all contingencies.
 
Given the family's longevity history (the last King exempted, heavy smoker etc.) things are stacked up for the next three heirs being relatively eldery, at least of pensionable age when taking the throne.

Of course Charles will be King - well unless he himself decides against it and why would he do that?

William is only starting to assume a full time royal role and still in the process of completing his own family. I very much doubt daily red boxes play any part in his own view of the future as of yet. Time enough for that when the time comes.
 
Y'know, the more I think about this rumor (and yes it is just a rumor that has been denied) that the Queen will put a regency into effect once she turns 95, the more I think that should this actually happen, by the time the Queen reaches 95 years old, most likely we wouldn't even see a change in things.

Bit by bit, Charles and Camilla are taking on more and more of the grunt work making things easier for the Queen. We do not see HM do the red boxes day in and day out. Charles does already get his own boxes. I believe they're blue. When we think about Charles actually stepping in as a regent, is there really all that more that he'd be doing that he's not doing already?

I believe we already are seeing a monarchy in transition. Its just happening so smoothly that its not that noticeable to us. :D
 
Y'know, the more I think about this rumor (and yes it is just a rumor that has been denied) that the Queen will put a regency into effect once she turns 95, the more I think that should this actually happen, by the time the Queen reaches 95 years old, most likely we wouldn't even see a change in things.

Bit by bit, Charles and Camilla are taking on more and more of the grunt work making things easier for the Queen. We do not see HM do the red boxes day in and day out. Charles does already get his own boxes. I believe they're blue. When we think about Charles actually stepping in as a regent, is there really all that more that he'd be doing that he's not doing already?

Great post, Osipi. :flowers: I concur.

I believe we already are seeing a monarchy in transition. Its just happening so smoothly that its not that noticeable to us. :D

I think that is exactly what is taking place. :cool: This is just my opinion of course but I have a hunch (and I could be very wrong) that it is a family decision, too (that's why Andrew was part of the spin regarding a staff shake-up). We will never know until decades in the future, but I think there is a necessity for the shift due to the aging of the two principals (Queen and Philip). Any public assertion regarding her capacity must be seen as PR. Philip's 'retirement' from active duty may presage her doing the same. Not an abdication, or even a regency, just a retiring substantially from public duties.

BTW for Charles to take on all the state occasions, he would have to be regent, not so? :ermm:
 
As far as I understand it, the current regency rules are as follows:


⦁ If the heir to the Crown is under 18 when he/she ascends the throne , the next person in the line of succession who is over 21 and a British subject residing in the United Kingdom automatically becomes the regent unless there is specific legislation appointing someone else for that position (as was the case with Prince Philip for example when Charles was a minor).

⦁ If the monarch is incapacitated, the heir to the Crown, if he/she is over 18 and a British subject residing in the United Kingdom, assumes the office of regent. If the heir to the Crown does not qualify, the next person in the line of succession who is over 21 and a British subject residing in the United Kingdom becomes the regent .

⦁ The inability of the monarch to discharge the duties of his/her office must be attested based on evidence by at least three of the following five persons: the monarch's consort, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons; the Lord Chief Justice; or the Master of the Rolls; a declaration of incapacity based on "infirmity of body or mind" must include medical evidence.

⦁ The monarch's consort, and the first four persons in line to Crown who are British subjects residing in the United Kingdom and over 21 (or over 18 in the specific case of the heir to the throne) serve as Counsellors of State; if the monarch is temporarily ill or absent, but not otherwise incapacitated, he /she may delegate any of the official tasks of his/her office to one or more Counsellors of State.

⦁ A regency in the UK automatically extends also to New Zealand under the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986, but would not extend automatically for example to Australia or Canada. Some people argue that the inability of the monarch to discharge the royal powers and prerogatives would not be relevant in the Commonwealth realms because of the role in the realms of the Governor General , but that is debatable.
 
Last edited:
Is there a specific role for the Counsellors of State during a regency, or is this mainly a provision for when there is no regency. And would an additional Cousellor of State be appointed in case of a Regency (as one of the Counsellors of State has become Regent)?

Based on these rules, the current Counsellors of State are: The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, Prince Henry of Wales and The Duke of York.

When Charles ascends the throne the Counsellors of State would be (with their current titles): The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke of Cambridge, Prince Henry of Wales, The Duke of York and Princess Beatrice of York.
 
Is there a specific role for the Counsellors of State during a regency, or is this mainly a provision for when there is no regency. And would an additional Cousellor of State be appointed in case of a Regency (as one of the Counsellors of State has become Regent)?

Based on these rules, the current Counsellors of State are: The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, Prince Henry of Wales and The Duke of York.

When Charles ascends the throne the Counsellors of State would be (with their current titles): The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke of Cambridge, Prince Henry of Wales, The Duke of York and Princess Beatrice of York.


My understanding is that the counsellors of state continue to have the same role under a regency, with the only substantial difference being that the delegation of powers to the counsellors, when necessary, is made by the regent rather than the sovereign.
 
My understanding is that the counsellors of state continue to have the same role under a regency, with the only substantial difference being that the delegation of powers to the counsellors, when necessary, is made by the regent rather than the sovereign.

Thanks, so they would just have a Counsellor less to divide the work if necessary but William Harry and Andrew should provide enough options (given that the monarch's spouse retired) if Charles would need to delegate something as Regent.
 
Y'know, the more I think about this rumor (and yes it is just a rumor that has been denied) that the Queen will put a regency into effect once she turns 95, the more I think that should this actually happen, by the time the Queen reaches 95 years old, most likely we wouldn't even see a change in things.

Bit by bit, Charles and Camilla are taking on more and more of the grunt work making things easier for the Queen. We do not see HM do the red boxes day in and day out. Charles does already get his own boxes. I believe they're blue. When we think about Charles actually stepping in as a regent, is there really all that more that he'd be doing that he's not doing already?

I believe we already are seeing a monarchy in transition. Its just happening so smoothly that its not that noticeable to us. :D

Charles can read as many red boxes as he wants, but he has as much authority to assent Orders, Decrees, Writs, Warrants, Letters of Patent, Bills, Acts, Treaties, etc. like you and me, namely: zero. The royal prerogatieve remains with the Queen as long as there is no Regent.

Audiences, receptions, investitures, visits, ceremonies, even the Queen's Speech, all can be done on behalf of the Queen but NOT the red boxes, that is my understanding. It is out of the question that Charles sanctions legislation in name of the Queen as long he is not formally the Regent.
 
Last edited:
Charles can read as many red boxes as he wants, but he has as much authority to assent Orders, Decrees, Writs, Warrants, Letters of Patent, Bills, Acts, Treaties, etc. like you and me, namely: zero. The royal prerogatieve remains with the Queen as long as there is no Regent.

Audiences, receptions, investitures, visits, ceremonies, even the Queen's Speech, all can be done on behalf of the Queen but NOT the red boxes, that is my understanding. It is out of the question that Charles sanctions legislation in name of the Queen as long he is not formally the Regent.

Small correction on your post. Charles does not read red boxes. I believe the boxes he gets are blue and totally different from the red boxes the Queen gets. :D
 
He will be briefed in running dossiers (his boxes), as happens in most governments. The rubberstamping of the loads of documents remains with the Queen. That is the core royal prerogative, the Queen really needs to lay it down, or to pass away, for Charles to execute it.

Of course as The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Etc Charles has his own responsibilities, for an example the Duchy of Cornwall, but that is no execution of a role as head of state.
 
Last edited:
Small correction on your post. Charles does not read red boxes. I believe the boxes he gets are blue and totally different from the red boxes the Queen gets. :D

I understood the post ("C can read as many red boxes as he wants but") as stating that even if he would read the red boxes - as long he has not been appointed regent or become king, he has NO authority.
 
I understood the post ("C can read as many red boxes as he wants but") as stating that even if he would read the red boxes - as long he has not been appointed regent or become king, he has NO authority.

That is correct. Only the Queen has the ability to "rubber stamp" anything and to my knowledge, she never slacks in that duty and only does not get the red boxes on Christmas Day and Easter Sunday.

She could be 100 years old and infirm as far as the legs go and not able to get out and about but as long as she has her full mental capabilities, the red boxes are hers and hers alone. My point is that Charles does get his "blue boxes" and is kept up to date on what is going on but has no power whatsoever to "rubber stamp" anything or even comment on them legally. He needs to be informed though just in case as the heir to the throne. :D
 
Small correction on your post. Charles does not read red boxes. I believe the boxes he gets are blue and totally different from the red boxes the Queen gets. :D

The information in the boxes Charles (and William) get isn't 'totally different' but either the same or a selection of what the Queen gets each day.

Charles is often asked to comment - particularly if something relates to the Duchy of Cornwall as his approval is required for any such legislation to be past (the last time a Duke of Cornwall refused such consent was a few hundred years ago but that approval is still required).
 
It is really rubberstamping. When we take one minute for reading one pagina of highly legislative language, then reading 60 pages alone costs a hour. And the Queen gets loads and loads of Bills, explanatory memoranda, notes, reports, governmental studies, letters, requests, invitations and of course extensive correspondance. There are people still believing the Queen reads everything in the red boxes. Spare the effort. Even Mrs May or Mr Johnson are just rubberstamping. They leave the scrutiny to the departmental mandarins and as the Queen will sign anything which passed the democratically elected Parliament, she does not even have to read, just sign, as she wil never block the will of the sovereign Parliament. So it is just a daily session of some 20 minutes of scratching with ink.
 
Queens duties that cannot be delegated:

Give the Royal Assent to legislation.
Appoint a prime minister.
Constitutional arbitration (hung parliaments etc)


In addition, the Queen retains the important function of appointing and dismissing governors-general in the 15 other realms of which she is Head of State.

EDIT: I found this interesting - "Only the Queen can exercise the functions, first identified by Bagehot, of being consulted, advising and warning, at weekly meetings with the prime minister. Some of these functions are mainly symbolic, except in emergency situations, but not all of them are. The Queen still retains a residual discretion which only she can employ."
 
Last edited:
She may, in theory, still appoint the GG of Australia and the State Governors but she would never refuse unless she wants us to be a republic within weeks.

We would never countenance her interference in our country in that way and that is the only function she has left here anyway as we took away everything else in the 1980s.

I suspect that Canada is the same.
 
:previous: In that her only real power is appointing the GG yes. Though she does so with the suggestion made by the prime minister at the time.

But not that we are on the verge of becoming a republic. Honestly if the queen was down to one country (beyond GB) my bet would be on Canada being last. There is really no major republican movement in Canada, besides Quebec, and Quebec wants to get rid of us too. Most Canadians tend to view the queen as simply on our money and the GG appearanes. The only thing that really gets much ire is the cost of some of their trips here. Otherwise Canadians tend to see her, and even Charles, quite benevolently for the most part. The mind set I grew up around, even in school, the PM is really our head of state. The queen is simply a figure head on our money.
 
Queen STEPPING DOWN? Monarch will ‘stand aside’ to allow Charles to REIGN in three years.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...ce-charles-buckingham-palace-reign-royal-news

Queen Elizabeth II is the longest-reigning British monarch, but will hand over the reins to Prince Charles sooner than expected, according to a new explosive Royal biography.

Ho hum. This is predicted on a regular basis, and has been for at least the last 20 years. I didn't believe it back then, and I don't believe it now. The only way the Queen would step down would be if her health required Charles to step in as Regent, and there are no signs of that happening.
 
Queen STEPPING DOWN? Monarch will ‘stand aside’ to allow Charles to REIGN in three years.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...ce-charles-buckingham-palace-reign-royal-news

Queen Elizabeth II is the longest-reigning British monarch, but will hand over the reins to Prince Charles sooner than expected, according to a new explosive Royal biography.

Oh goodie. More science fiction to read. This is a good thing for those people expecting to be sent to the nether regions though. They get to pack ice skates should this actually be a fact. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom