The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[MissSaga]

No, no, no.

She will continue 'till the day she dies.

That's what she promised her people, the day she became queen.

 

[xurich]

the only one slight possibility to see her abdicate would be if she developed a serious illness that prevented her from carrying out her duties.

Even then I cannot see her as abdicating. Such as with George III when he became seriously ill (to the point of not being able to carry out any official duties), I would expect Charles to be apppointed regent, while Her Majesty would remain Queen until the day she dies.

 

[caterpillarandcat]

She is The Queen... I do not believe retirement or abdictation are in the protocol of such a title.

 

[caterpillarandcat]

What happened to her father forbids even the thought of abdication! Her character and the way she has been carrying out her duties for over half a century shows this will NEVER be an option. UNTHINKABLE !
Of course you never know as it's not our decision when we have to leave this planet but keeping in mind her genes - and she inherited the physical strength of her mother - she might be around for many more years.
Will be interesting though to see what happens if the Duke has to go before her, if she can keep up with the demands and is still strong enough to carry on. Just thinking of it makes me shiver - her death is something I simply cannot imagine as she's been around all my life and I am sure many people feel this way.
So I am afraid Charles has to do what he has been doing all his life - keep on waiting and preparing

Apologies to quote, however I wanted to have refrence to thought, nor am I accusing you of the following topic, I am only making a generalized statement. Yet, I agree, however that she will be around for many years to come. Also, I personally do not think Charles is "chomping at the bits" to become King, qualified and dignified as he is, if it means that the decline of The Queen gives him title, and because there is such a peaceful stability with Queen Elizabeth currently reigning. Even in and beyond her unforseen passing, she will still continue to reign, without fault, for many generations to come.

 

[Genia]

It is well known that Queen Elizabeth loves Windsor Castle, and as she is scaling back her exhausting work-load, she may be spending more time there.
With the reorganization, two of her closest aides have relocated from London to Windsor, which may be her residence during her semi-retirement.
Duke of Edinburgh has been urging the move
Two of Her Majesty's closest advisors have been granted grace-and-favour homes in Windsor.
Personal assistant Angela Kelly, 54, who brings the royal cup of tea each morning, has relocated from her apartment in Marlborough House on the Mall to a home in Windsor Great Park.
Also,relocating to Windsor is Paul Whybrew, the Queen's 49-year-old page.
The commentators agree that the monarchy is now in transition and the immediate future will see the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall playing an increasing active role carrying out official duties.

 

[Genia]

That's interesting, Prince Charles, trying the Royal Crown for size!!!
Now let's discuss the Royal Crown, the Royal Crown is a very holy object. It has been blessed by the Bishop before being placed on the royal head. What's more, the royal person has to be blessed with the holy ointment before the Royal Crown is even placed on their head.
To receive the Royal Crown, the person must be uncontaminated with sin; that is including marrying a woman who has a husband who is still living.
Prince Charles is unworthy of the Royal Crown.
When the Royal Crown is placed on the Royal head, it is blessed by God.
There is no way that God will bless someone like Prince Charles who does not even acknowledges his sins.

 

[Skydragon]

There is no way that God will bless someone ......

You speak for your god personally do you?

 

[Iluvbertie]

That's interesting, Prince Charles, trying the Royal Crown for size!!!
Now let's discuss the Royal Crown, the Royal Crown is a very holy object. It has been blessed by the Bishop before being placed on the royal head. What's more, the royal person has to be blessed with the holy ointment before the Royal Crown is even placed on their head.
To receive the Royal Crown, the person must be uncontaminated with sin; that is including marrying a woman who has a husband who is still living.
Prince Charles is unworthy of the Royal Crown.
When the Royal Crown is placed on the Royal head, it is blessed by God.
There is no way that God will bless someone like Prince Charles who does not even acknowledges his sins.

1. The Royal Crown isn't blessed by God but in the name of God by a human who is claiming to bless it in God's name. This Crown isn't holy but Royal. It was made by man for man and nothing else.

2. Charles has acknowledged his sins as recently as his wedding blessing service when he 'acknowledged his manifold sins and wickedness'. What acknowledgement he makes to God during his prayers is between God and Charles and we don't know and we don't have a right to know as that is an issue betwee God and the person concerned.

3. If a person 'must be uncontaminated with sin' then absolutely noone ever deserves it as no one has ever been uncontamintated by sin, with the exception of Christ, and that includes the present Queen. Her sins may be small in many ways but like all other people has committed them.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

If a person 'must be uncontaminated with sin' then absolutely noone ever deserves it as no one has ever been uncontamintated by sin, with the exception of Christ, and that includes the present Queen. Her sins may be small in many ways but like all other people has committed them.

Too true, Chrissy. Too true. Once again, you blow me away with your eloquence of expression and thoughtfulness. With the exception of Jesus Christ, indeed, and a few others, but very few, like Ghandi, no one is "uncontaminated" by something, even if that something is only minor. Man made organized religion is always too harsh, in my opinion. No person can measure up to the biblical standards! "Thou shall not lie!" For heavens sake!
If I am going to hell for lying (in my whole life) then I assure you, I am going there in a hand-made basket.

 

[Elspeth]

That's interesting, Prince Charles, trying the Royal Crown for size!!!
Now let's discuss the Royal Crown, the Royal Crown is a very holy object. It has been blessed by the Bishop before being placed on the royal head. What's more, the royal person has to be blessed with the holy ointment before the Royal Crown is even placed on their head.
To receive the Royal Crown, the person must be uncontaminated with sin; that is including marrying a woman who has a husband who is still living.

The requirement that a person be without sin in order to be crowned would have disqualified most of our monarchs in the past, some of whom turned out to be excellent kings and queens. I think the holiest king we've had, Henry VI, was an almost unmitigated disaster as a monarch, to be honest.

Prince Charles is unworthy of the Royal Crown.
When the Royal Crown is placed on the Royal head, it is blessed by God.
There is no way that God will bless someone like Prince Charles who does not even acknowledges his sins.

Matter of interest, how do you see the scenario playing out? Charles sits there in Westminster Abbey, the Archbishop puts the crown on his head, and he disappears in a pillar of fire or something?

 

[Picmajik]

Prince of Wales may surprise us all

This was exactly how people felt in the later years of Queen Victoria's reign. She was the only Monarch that most people knew, and her death marked the passing of an era. Nonetheless, despite the long shadow she had cast and his "racy" private life, to the surprise of many Edward VII soon emerged as an accomplished and popular King.

It is my understanding that we can credit King Edward VII for delaying WWI as he was best able to keep tensions to a minimum between the Kaiser and other cousins. I am hoping Charles has other qualities that have been downplayed and that he may end up being a better leader than I expect. Not that I expect him to be horrible, just that he may have qualities that haven't been played up to his advantage.

 

[rebbevb]

I Dont Think She Will Retirer Or Abducate I Bet U Nothing That They ( Her Staff ) Is Planning Her 60th Diamond Jubilee .

 

[Russophile]

HM is awfully sharp and really has taken good care of herself for her age. Longevity is in the family. It would be interesting to see just how long she lives!

 

[scooter]

She will never step down as long as breath is in her body. She regards her role as divine..literally called by God.

 

[Russophile]

She will never step down as long as breath is in her body. She regards her role as divine..literally called by God.

I would think one has to think/believe that when one has been born into that position.

 

[Al_bina]

Her Majesty will never abdicate. In this respect, Queens or Kings are akin to Pope, who retires to a better world.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Although Popes can of course abdicate. John Paul II apparantly considered it.

 

[Russophile]

I don't think HM would ever abdicate.

 

[Royal Fan]

Never! its difficult to think otherwise Really.

 

[KingCharles]

God Save The Queen

 

[ladyinwaiting]

No. I do not believe the Queen will abdicate.

 

[KingCharles]

Popes are not monarchs.

 

[wbenson]

Popes are not monarchs.

They are, they're just elected monarchs.

 

[Maricar]

I don't see the Queen retiring. She takes her vows very seriously, and considers her job to be a lifetime one. She could live to be 100, it's in her genes after all.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I know the Queen made a promise that she would devote her whole life to serving her people. But allow me to put forth a hypothetical situation, and tell me what you think would happen in such a case.

Strictly Hypothetical Scenario
Her Majesty, upon reaching perhaps late 90s age, finds herself barely able to carry out once-simple/routine tasks. Let's say she becomes incapacitated somehow. Could Parliament require her legally to either abdicate or create a Regency? After all, if a monarch becomes either incapacitated and hence unable to perform the Crown duties, would it then become a legal issue, or would it still be her personal choice? What would the legal requirement be? Abdication or Regency?

 

[RoyalProtocol]

Strictly Hypothetical Scenario
Her Majesty, upon reaching perhaps late 90s age, finds herself barely able to carry out once-simple/routine tasks. Let's say she becomes incapacitated somehow. Could Parliament require her legally to either abdicate or create a Regency? After all, if a monarch becomes either incapacitated and hence unable to perform the Crown duties, would it then become a legal issue, or would it still be her personal choice? What would the legal requirement be? Abdication or Regency?

In the event of The Sovereign becoming either mentally or physically incapacitated whereby they cannot carry the functions of state (remember that it is state function eg giving the royal assent or declaring war etc. not social finction) for there to be a regency declared and for members of the Royal Family to govern in Her place. I'll find out more and get back to you soon.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

Link to heraldica article on the regency acts

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/ukregency.htm

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Thanks, RP. So basically, in the event of The Queen being incapacitated to carry out her State functions, the Duke of Edinburgh, or if not living, their eldest child would be empowered to act as a kind of Power of Attorney (to put it in commoner terms)?

 

[Elspeth]

The Duke of Edinburgh would be Regent unless the Heir Apparent (or Heir Presumptive, but that isn't really relevant since we have an Heir Apparent) fulfills the criteria for regency. Since Prince Charles does so, he would be Regent.

The 1953 Regency Act was basically saying that if the Queen died while the Heir was still under age or otherwise incapacitated, the Duke of Edinburgh rather than Princess Margaret (who at the time was the next adult in line for the throne) would be Regent; that Act simply cut her out of the Regency, it didn't do anything to affect the conditions under which Prince Charles could become Regent for the Queen.

 

[Russophile]

Interesting situation. Interesting theory as well. HM is sharp as a tack, as was her mother before her. I do so hope that she won't "lose it"! at some time.