The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Denville]

Nonsense. If this is what the bio is saying its not particularly well done

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Hopefully Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will never abdicate. For her the word abdicate should be removed not only from the dictionary but also from the encyclopedia.

 

[jacqui24]

I don’t believe she’ll abdicate or even a regency. But handing some duties over to PoW as she gets older is only natural.

 

[Curryong]

Well, Robert Jobson is a journalist! No doubt a lot of this will be repeated in this new bio by him. He said he has spoken to Charles when writing it, but I doubt that the Prince of Wales imparted that little gem!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As stated in the article, Mr. Jobson does not say that Queen Elizabeth will abdicate.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

I don't believe that the queen will abdicate. She has stated that she is not going do that. And she remembers her uncle's shameful case which just makes abdication impossible thing. Probably the queen will give more duties to Charles but EII will abdicate only with her death.

 

[Curryong]

As stated in the article, Mr. Jobson does not say that Queen Elizabeth will abdicate.

No he doesn't say that the Queen will abdicate. The inference is though that she will step aside for Charles when she is 95 and allow her son the main role. I don't believe she will abdicate or step aside (unless incapacitated) and my remarks in my former post still stand.

 

[Denville]

She may well be feeling the strain of her age, at 95, as it is, she's passing on more work to Charles and Philip has now retired...

 

[Osipi]

If the Queen is anything, she's pragmatic and a realist. I believe even William said something along the lines of that she doesn't like to leave things unfinished. With as much as the monarchy means to her, ensuring its continuity and its relevance is of utmost importance and she'll strive to always do what is best for the monarchy above putting herself first.

She's spent decades preparing Charles for his role and even William who says his grandmother was a huge influence. I believe that the more she hands over to her children and grandchildren, the more peace of mind she'll have because she'll actually be seeing them in their roles and rest assured that they're ready, willing and able.

 

[Somebody]

The queen has been very clear from the start that she is in it for life. I believe she sees it as a sacred duty that she is to serve as queen as long as she may live. Only if she would no longer be able to perform the most basic tasks of a monarch Charles will step in as regent.

Until that moment (if it ever comes) she will keep handing down more and more to him while the queen concentrates on the main/formal tasks of the sovereign.

 

[Denville]

She is in her 90s, and has a few health issues, and she can't go on forever.. She is doing ab it less, now has Charles takng on more of her work, and has the 4 younger ones on royal duties...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The State Visit of King Willem-Alexander showed how frail the Queen was. It also showed that almost everything was taken over by other royals: the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall on day one, the Earl and Countess of Wessex on day two, plus the Duke of Kent during the naval demonstration on the Thames.

Essentially the Queen escorted the King during the short ride from Horse Guards' Parade. And the State Banquet, which showed the towering Dutch guests aside a shrinked and difficult walking Queen. One could see it was energy consuming for the tired lady. These two program points.

That was it. When I look to Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Japan or even the Vatican, all the Sovereigns consider a step back when they feel their physical or psychical wellbeing affects their high office. There is absolutely nothing dishonourable in handing the reins over into younger and stronger hands.

 

[wyevale]

absolutely nothing dishonourable in handing the reins over

I completely agree.. but HMQ is an anointed Monarch, whose solemn vow before GOD was 'for life', whose religious beliefs make those promises unbreakable for her [personally]. This [I believe] is what prevents an actual abdication, far more than the behaviour [disgraceful as it was] of her worthless, wayward Uncle.

 

[Ista]

I completely agree.. but HMQ is an anointed Monarch, whose solemn vow before GOD was 'for life', whose religious beliefs make those promises unbreakable for her [personally]. This [I believe] is what prevents an actual abdication, far more than the behaviour [disgraceful as it was] of her worthless, wayward Uncle.

I agree with all of this. It is an essential and profound difference from some of those other monarchies mentioned. She views her role as a sacred duty. Like QMII of Denmark, she is Queen for life. She may continue to hand over engagements to younger representatives, but the actual role of sovereign is hers until she dies. At the most, Charles might serve as Regent, but he will not be King until she is gone.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I completely agree.. but HMQ is an anointed Monarch, whose solemn vow before GOD was 'for life', whose religious beliefs make those promises unbreakable for her [personally]. This [I believe] is what prevents an actual abdication, far more than the behaviour [disgraceful as it was] of her worthless, wayward Uncle.

But the underlying message is also: "the highest office of state actually means nothing, it is an empty shell, so empty that even a 90+ years old person in a frail state can easily fulfill it".

 

[alvinking]

But the underlying message is also: "the highest office of state actually means nothing, it is an empty shell, so empty that even a 90+ years old person in a frail state can easily fulfill it".

The ageism transpiring in the post is ugly. As long as the person is not mentally incapacitated to the point where she is unable to assume her duties, that is all that matters

 

[Kataryn]

But the underlying message is also: "the highest office of state actually means nothing, it is an empty shell, so empty that even a 90+ years old person in a frail state can easily fulfill it".

As with all "offices of state" there is one person who represents it and a lot of others who actually do the work with the holder of the office. So even if Her Majesty is now an old lady, the people who work for her run her office like clockwork and she has family and others to represent her when necessary. And if she one day is incapable to actively wear the crown, a regent will be appointed to do it for her. Where is the problem?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The ageism transpiring in the post is ugly. As long as the person is not mentally incapacitated to the point where she is unable to assume her duties, that is all that matters

Ah, I see. I trust you will absolutely, without any doubt, hire a dishwasher or a secretary aged 90+. Good for you and your company.

 

[Claire]

I am not going to argue - but although the Queen may be physically and mentally able to do the job - is it fair to her. She is well over the age when people retire. She has done her duty, no one can dispute that - no one will criticize her for saying she would like some time for herself.
However I don't expect the monarchy in England to exist for another 100 years. It is not a personal opinion against Charles, but the loyalist basis for monarchy exists with generations that are now fading. Support for the younger generation of royalist is populist, sentimental and easily swayed with headlines. People are more fickle now and what is popular now - might not be in the future. People have realized that five minute celebrities can carry out engagements just as easily and cheaper and anyone who looks good in a dress will do. My editor noted that the other day that Britain is getting the royal family it deserves - he did not mean it as a compliment.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

As with all "offices of state" there is one person who represents it and a lot of others who actually do the work with the holder of the office. So even if Her Majesty is now an old lady, the people who work for her run her office like clockwork and she has family and others to represent her when necessary. And if she one day is incapable to actively wear the crown, a regent will be appointed to do it for her. Where is the problem?

There is no any problem. It just exposes the real content of the high office. A 90+ will be succeeded by a 70+ but that is no problem because it is no real work, as you stated, see quote.

I understand the position of a so-called "vow to God" (which did not witheld the Pope to abdicate) but it is also at the same time a signal that you do not need to be in your prime, full of energy, motivated or anything at all to fulfill the high office.

 

[alvinking]

There is no any problem. It just exposes the real content of the high office. A 90+ will be succeeded by a 70+ but that is no problem because it is no real work, as you stated, see quote.

Again, Ageism, off the top of my head, Donald Trump is 72, I guess the office of President of the US is not real work, but i digress

 

[Osipi]

HM, The Queen may be 92 years young but she is still active and puts in a full day still doing what is required of her. She, of course, is slowing down a bit physically as we all do as we grow older but she is still on top of things and I would think that after doing the job for 65+ years, has it pretty much down pat and could do it in her sleep if she had to.

She has a strong support system in her family and her trusted advisors. She *could* do the duty of a Queen from her bedroom should she choose in blue fuzzy slippers surrounded by her remaining dogs but this is a woman that keeps active and from sources that I've read, really enjoys the job. One just has to look at her face in recent photographs to see that she has a smile that just cannot be faked. She still gets up each morning with a zest for the day ahead of her. She still rides her Fell pony when she can. She also has a husband that doesn't let the flies land on him either. She is the epitome of what we all would hope to be like when we're in our 90s.

As I've said before, HM is pragmatic and a realist and she most likely realizes that the body does grow old and infirm and eventually dies. She's one that leaves no stone unturned of what could happen and has contingencies in place for any eventual situation. We're seeing a soft transference between monarch to monarch right now with more and more being handed over to Charles and Camilla and the younger royals. This is HM, The Queen at her best. Not only is she faultlessly doing her job but she's also faultlessly getting all her ducks in a row for a easy transition into the next reign.

This is what she will do to the best of her ability as long as she humanly can. When the time comes that she cannot, she can rest assured that things are as they're supposed to be and the monarchy continues without a hitch or a snag or a "what do we do now?" kind of a situation.

If the Boy Scouts ever need a prime example of their motto "Be Prepared" at work, they only have to look to the British monarch and her "Firm" for a good example. Elizabeth II may never abdicate but when we think about it, should she decide to tomorrow, the monarchy would run smooth and strong in continuity. As quickly as the change of monarch is in the simple expressing of "The Queen is dead. Long live the King!" so will it be an easy transition without snags in the running of the monarchy.

To be absolutely honest, at this point, I don't think that HM would have a clue how *not* to be Queen. Its such an essential part of who she is.

 

[rmay286]

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.

I agree, Australia would go before Canada. Charles isn't popular here, but neither do people have strong feelings about him in general. People might talk about revisiting the monarchy when he becomes king, but in reality the topic probably won't be broached.

I wonder if it has something to do with being next-door neighbours to the U.S. Canadians are happy to have the monarchy to distinguish ourselves from the U.S. and have our own identity.

 

[gagates]

a regency under QEII - yes. abdication? absolutely no. If she really would consider abdication as an reliable option - she would have long done so.
If the queen is dead, i think, for some time her legacy will help to keep the monarchy alive. but this will wear of after a year, two years and then it will show how much the public gives charles the credit of being a good king, how much they still want a monarchy at least in the UK. I think, over the commonwealth and the countries, where Charles will be HoS, we will see referendums, if they want to keep him as Head of State or not, if they still want to belong to the commonwealth.
But the truth is, this is speculation and nobody can forecast what incidents happen which will have positive influence onto the monarchy or a bad one. And how the circumstances are.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt that any country will have a referendum on leaving the Commonwealth.

Countries are free to leave any time they want at the desire of the government.

Some countries have left and then chosen to return as well.

Being a republic has nothing to do with being a monarchy with most of the countries of the Commonwealth already being republics.

Some countries have been suspended - when their government doesn't live up to the values of the Commonwealth (Fiji, Pakistan, South Africa and Zimbabwe are the most well known examples. Zimbabwe is the only one of these four currently suspended.)

 

[gagates]

yes, sorry, i forgot that. thank you for reminding me of the staying/leaving commonwealth business.

 

[Lunawalk]

Absolutely not. Considering the circumstances in which Her Majesty became Queen, and the seriousness with which Her Majesty has assumed the duties of Monarch, not to mention the very strick sense of service Her Majesty has displayed, there is no chance (or in my opinion) desire for Her Majesty to 'retire' (by which you mean abdicate).

Public out cry would be enourmous not just in Britain, but on the other Realms and Territories.

After faithful service to her nation, the Queen deserves to enjoy the last years of her life.As she getting older she handing more royal duties to her son. She should retire or declare him Prince regent.

 

[Osipi]

After faithful service to her nation, the Queen deserves to enjoy the last years of her life.As she getting older she handing more royal duties to her son. She should retire or declare him Prince regent.

In the book I'm reading right now "Our Queen" by Robert Hardman and in a few other sources, its been stated that HM actually enjoys being Queen. I seriously think that if she were to "retire", she wouldn't know what to do with herself and miss the daily routine she's had for 66 years on the throne. ?

 

[Mbruno]

After faithful service to her nation, the Queen deserves to enjoy the last years of her life.As she getting older she handing more royal duties to her son. She should retire or declare him Prince regent.

That topic has been already discussed extensively on TRF. Here is a brief summary:

1) If the Queen becomes incapacitated, a regency is automatically established in the United Kingdom under the Regency Acts. The Queen’s impairment, however, would have to be certified, based on medical evidence, by at least three of the following five persons: the Queen’s consort, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, or the Master of the Rolls.

2) The regency does not extend automatically though to the other Commonwealth realms, except New Zealand where the Constitution Act provides explicitly for that extension. In practice then, Prince Charles would not be regent for example in Australia or Canada . That is not a major problem, however, because all powers and prerogatives of the Queen are exercised in Australia and Canada by the Governor General , who would carry on with his/her duties if the Queen became incapacitated. The only scenario I could think of where a problem would arise would be when a new Governor General had to be appointed, as only the Queen herself could technically do it .

3) Abdication, on the other hand, would be a difficult process because it would involve changing the law that regulates the succession to the Crown. Although that can be done quickly in the UK by an ordinary act of Parliament, the law would also have to be changed, when required, in other Commonwealth realms. As you might recall, the last time the succession law was amended, namely in the UK by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, it took almost two years for all the realms to pass all necessary legislation so that the proposed changes could come into force.

 

[Lunawalk]

In the book I'm reading right now "Our Queen" by Robert Hardman and in a few other sources, its been stated that HM actually enjoys being Queen. I seriously think that if she were to "retire", she wouldn't know what to do with herself and miss the daily routine she's had for 66 years on the throne. ?

yes I sure she miss it. But now she handing royal duties to other royal family members. I sure she could do with out the stress of the job. As she served her nation faithfully now she deserves a rest. I bet she will find some purpose to her life.

The State Visit of King Willem-Alexander showed how frail the Queen was. It also showed that almost everything was taken over by other royals: the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall on day one, the Earl and Countess of Wessex on day two, plus the Duke of Kent during the naval demonstration on the Thames.

Essentially the Queen escorted the King during the short ride from Horse Guards' Parade. And the State Banquet, which showed the towering Dutch guests aside a shrinked and difficult walking Queen. One could see it was energy consuming for the tired lady. These two program points.

That was it. When I look to Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Japan or even the Vatican, all the Sovereigns consider a step back when they feel their physical or psychical wellbeing affects their high office. There is absolutely nothing dishonourable in handing the reins over into younger and stronger hands.

I totally agree in fact it show her love and devotion for the monarchy to hand it over to the next generation.

Again, Ageism, off the top of my head, Donald Trump is 72, I guess the office of President of the US is not real work, but i digress

He can be voted out in the next election.