The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Iluvbertie]

This 'rumour' about the Queen asking for a Regency when she turns 95 has been doing the rounds since Philip retired if not earlier. It is just that a 'rumour'. I imagine what happened was someone asked her if she would like to 'retire' in the same way that Philip had and she replied something like 'if I reach his age it would be tempting' and away it goes to 'she is going to 'retire' when she turns 95.

It is the same sort of Chinese whispers that have been around for approaching 30 years now that Charles is going to have a smaller royal family and will simply cut off his siblings and mother's cousins.

 

[wbenson]

No regent in the UK has any constitutional role whatsoever in these realms.

New Zealand has actually explicitly dealt with this, unlike most (I guess it's easy for a unitary state with a supreme parliament). The UK's regent is automatically New Zealand's regent according to Section 4 of the Constitution Act.

 

[Durham]

New Zealand has actually explicitly dealt with this, unlike most (I guess it's easy for a unitary state with a supreme parliament). The UK's regent is automatically New Zealand's regent according to Section 4 of the Constitution Act.

Thank you informing me on this. I'm surprised though that the kiwis have this in their constitution. On the other hand I guess it makes for convenience if nothing else & any regent would be the next in line for the NZ throne anyway.

 

[Hallo girl]

I would say she would reduce her workload but I would be doubtful with regards abdication.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think she is even discussing 'abdication'. That wouldn't result in a Regency but in a full blown succession. What is being 'rumoured' is retirement. She would therefore not do the day to day job of being the monarch. Charles would. She would probably appear once or twice a year - Trooping the Colour and Remembrance Sunday for instance.

 

[rominet09]

I think anybody at her age should have the right to rest and live a tranquil life.

 

[Betsypaige]

The Queen will never abdicate - but the Regency is interesting. If she chooses to go that route, does that mean she'd be admitting she's not up to the job? Based on what I've read, I think it would be more along the lines of just wanting to spend however many years she has left with her husband. She became Queen at such a young age and has carried the burden of responsibility so magnificently. Maybe she just feels like taking it easy now - and IF she felt this way, I couldn't blame her, especially if she felt good about leaving the monarchy in Charles' hands.

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen will never abdicate - but the Regency is interesting. If she chooses to go that route, does that mean she'd be admitting she's not up to the job? Based on what I've read, I think it would be more along the lines of just wanting to spend however many years she has left with her husband. She became Queen at such a young age and has carried the burden of responsibility so magnificently. Maybe she just feels like taking it easy now - and IF she felt this way, I couldn't blame her, especially if she felt good about leaving the monarchy in Charles' hands.

Technically, other than in the situation where the King is a minor, a regency is only in place when the monarch has been declared incapable of reigning. That means the monarch is suspended from exercising all royal powers and prerogatives.

A regency therefore is not equivalent to retirement, much less partial retirement, and cannot be used for that purpose. In fact, the law says that a declaration of incapacity needs a specific cause and, in the case that cause is an infirmity of body or mind, it requires medical evidence.

 

[Pranter]

I just remember her speech to the country after her father died...she pledged her life to the country, be it long or short. Unless she has a serious health issue I think she will remain Queen until she passes.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

The law can always be changed or amended. I am sure if HM went to the PM and said 'I am tired and want to retire but not abdicate. Please amend the Regency Act to allow for this to happen as when the Act was passed it wasn't probably wasn't foreseen that a monarch would reign for 70 or so years' that the PM would very quickly introduce and pass the legislation to allow for that to happen.

 

[MARG]

While a law can be changed a vow cannot and she vowed to work for her whole life whether it be long or short on her 21st Birthday. A Regency can only go into effect if she is mentally impaired. I think we can look forward to seeing a whole lot more of Charles and Camilla, the Wessexes, perhaps Anne and Tim, the Cambridges, the Sussexes and perhaps even Beatrice and Eugenie filling out spaces at official events.

A State Dinner or something like the Diplomatic Dinner, etc. are not just about the meal. It is about the ability to make small talk, make the guests feel welcome and comfortable and while we have so many insisting Charles will pare things down to the bare bones, there are occasions that need actual people to represent the Country. It's called soft diplomacy and HM is the leading expert on just how to achieve what is needed.

At this point, HM calls on her cousins as well as her immediate family and some senior staff. And with Brexit, this has changed as we have seen the with the increased number of overseas visits, the networking, the soft diplomacy or we would see more clearly if the media wasn't trying to recycle old news.

I think we may possibly see HM retreating to just appear as hostess for State occasions and the trooping of the colour, opening of Parliament, etc. Apart from that, I think she is going to marshall her troops to best effect and limit her workload even if she takes to working with Charles on official business and Charles has William overseeing the Duchy of Cornwall.

 

[Osipi]

If anyone knows what is needed to be done in the role of a monarch, its the Queen. Every so often it crops up that she's going to "turn it all over to Charles" and ride her Fell pony off into the sunset. That will never happen. As you've stated, Marg, there are just some things that she will never refrain from doing as long as she physically and mentally can because of that vow she made. She takes that vow as seriously today as the day she made it so long ago.

The Queen doesn't have her head in the clouds but is a pragmatist when it comes to her monarchy and as time passes, I think she also realizes that at 93 years old, the spirit may be willing but the body is protesting more and more as time passes and, for the smooth running of her monarchy and all that it entails, she knows what she needs to do and what she doesn't. Turn a bulk of it over to the "younger" heir (who actually is going full speed ahead when most men his age are riding off in their golf carts into the sunset).

Queen Elizabeth II has never shirked her duty and I don't see her starting now. It just means too much to her.

 

[Mbruno]

If retirement is the goal, then I think abdication would be a more appropriate route than a regency , which, as Muriel said, only applies to situations where the monarch is incapacitated.

Unfortunately abdication would require new legislation not only in the UK , but also in several Commonwealth realms , which means it could be a long and complex process. Furthermore , Charles’ accession may be a turbulent time when there might be renewed calls for republican referenda in countries like Australia, Barbados, Jamaica, maybe even New Zealand . and, if one of those dominos fall, especially Australia, the shock waves may even reach Canada ( the oldest Dominion).

I believe HM takes all of the above into consideration..

 

[Roderick]

The Queen will not be abdicating and she has made that abundantly clear. It is tied up with her deep Christian faith and the vow she took at her coronation - to serve for the length of her life.

 

[Claire]

The Queen will never abdicate - however the regency will come into affect soon - I am guessing next year. If the Queen doesn't pass away before.
I also think that it has been agreed that Charles and William and later George will then follow the Dutch manner of abdication - so that we never get to the point where the monarchy is out of touch with their people and there is too many royals in duty. I also feel it it far to allow royals a change to retire.
Mind you , however, I do not think the monarchy will survive for this to happen. I expect the UK to be a republic before 2030.

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen will never abdicate - however the regency will come into affect soon - I am guessing next year. If the Queen doesn't pass away before.
I also think that it has been agreed that Charles and William and later George will then follow the Dutch manner of abdication - so that we never get to the point where the monarchy is out of touch with their people and there is too many royals in duty. I also feel it it far to allow royals a change to retire.
Mind you , however, I do not think the monarchy will survive for this to happen. I expect the UK to be a republic before 2030.

That topic should be discussed in the "Future of the Monarchy " forum, but I don't think the UK will be a republic before 2030. As I said , I do think however that the end of Queen Elizabeth II's reign might accelerate the transition to a republic in realms where the republican movement is backed by at least one of the mainsteam parties that alternate in government, e.g. Australia, Barbados, Jamaica, and maybe New Zealand.



Abdication or even a regency may anticipate that process, which, in any case, will happen eventually as the Queen is already 93 and, like all of us, she is not eternal.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Every so often these Media rumors driven circulate about an Abdication which I can't see happening under QEII , however a Regency under the Prince of Wales is not that far fetched given the queens age.

 

[Pranter]

I could see a regency as her health declines.


LaRae

 

[principessa]

I think she will never ever retire. She will fulfil her duties until she dies.

 

[Patra]

Certainly, the next 5-7 years will bring about enormous changes within the British Royal Family. (deaths/ births) Time marches on and waits for no one, royals included. While this sad fact makes me a little melancholy. However, it will be engaging to see the evolution these changes bring about. Specifically regarding QEII, God Save the Queen.

 

[Osipi]

Realistically, this all may be solved just in the natural scheme of things. HM may wish to go into a period of mourning if/when Philip passes. Up thread the subject was brought up stating it will happen iin 18 months or so. Its hit me that in 18 months, Philip will be turning 100.

I think it would be natural for the Queen to "retire" out of the public eye to Windsor Castle to mourn and continues to do what she needs to do from there, Charles takes over the day to day "top job" and it all fits into place. No regency, just the Queen out of the public eye.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Durham]

Significant difference is UK Sovereign, unlike European monarchs, was anointed #AbdicationNotAnOption. Shakespeare puts it best when Richard II says “Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm from an anointed King”

Via Alastair Bruce Twitter

I was watching an interview with the historian David Starkey recently in which he referred to the British monarchy as the last sacerdotal monarchy in Europe (the ancient French monarchy had the same status apparently). I have to confess I had never heard the word before so I had to look it up.

Since the sovereign is literally set aside & consecrated by priests I'm not sure how anyone can go through the anointing part of the coronation service & then contemplate abdicating.

If the future is to be abdication the modern European way I can't see how future British monarchs can be anointed. They don't have to be of course but it would break a tradition going back a thousand years (in England).

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Not only did HM make a vow to serve the country and the Commonwealth for her whole life; the BRF has had a bit of a rocky history with abdication which is another reason as to why HM most likely won't abdicate. I can understand the regency story though, especially now that HM is getting older - there'll be more of a need to watch her health - and Prince Philip has already retired from engagements.

 

[Alison H]

I don't think she'd ever abdicate, and I don't think we'll see a full-blown Regency unless it were to become necessary due to illness, but I think we'll see Prince Charles taking on a bigger role. Prince William too - we've already seen him go on tours of some quite politically sensitive areas, which is a huge responsibility.


The UK won't become a republic, but some of the other Commonwealth countries may have a rethink once the Queen's reign is over.


This is all unprecedented. Most of the Commonwealth countries, apart from the former Dominions, which have the Queen as head of state have only become independent during her reign, so there's never been a succession issue before. And no previous monarch has lived into their 90s. So there's not really any pattern to follow.

 

[Heavs]

I think there are very personal reasons why she won't officially abdicate one of which is her uncle and all that entailed and the other is her own personal oaths.

I don't think it's too likely we'll ever get a formal regency but probably/possibly a de facto one if for example she lives as long as her mother.

The last article I read about Charles's eventual coronation was that he wanted it to be religiously similar to his mother's but with other faith leaders also in attendance to give their blessings. I don't know how true that was but it's already been/being planned for whenever it takes place.

I suspect some of the 16 realms will probably use the natural break to become republics but not all of them. Commonwealth the same and who knows what might happen/have happened with Scotland.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/royals-release-rare-statement-addressing-191000029.html

No, Queen Elizabeth doesn't have any plans to retire.

"In response to renewed speculation that Her Majesty, 93, is planning on retiring in the next several years to make way for her son, Prince Charles, a spokesperson for the Prince of Wales' office released a rare statement shooting down the rumors.

"There are no plans for any change in arrangements at the age of 95 -- or any other age,” the spokesman declared in a statement released to People."

 

[Leopoldine]

Here's a concern of mine, as a fervent supporter of Her Majesty.

I've noticed two articles in British paywall papers the last few days where the columnist is calling for QEII to abdicate or let PoW be regent. The comments were related to the Sussex news. One of the writers opined that the fact Harry skipped over Charles to go straight to the top to get his issues resolved made it clear that HM had to go and let Charles be King now. This slant seems to indicate some influence from Clarence House.

Another writer wanted to shunt aside the Queen because "the monarchy is bloated" and HM stepping aside would help it be more streamlined. Again, just my opinion, but it seems like more Clarence House input.

I think that is practically traitorous if that talk is being promoted under the aegis of the BRF.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Here's a concern of mine, as a fervent supporter of Her Majesty.

I've noticed two articles in British paywall papers the last few days where the columnist is calling for QEII to abdicate or let PoW be regent. The comments were related to the Sussex news. One of the writers opined that the fact Harry skipped over Charles to go straight to the top to get his issues resolved made it clear that HM had to go and let Charles be King now. This slant seems to indicate some influence from Clarence House.

Another writer wanted to shunt aside the Queen because "the monarchy is bloated" and HM stepping aside would help it be more streamlined. Again, just my opinion, but it seems like more Clarence House input.

I think that is practically traitorous if that talk is being promoted under the aegis of the BRF.

Sounds like ageism to me.

 

[Countessmeout]

Here's a concern of mine, as a fervent supporter of Her Majesty.

I've noticed two articles in British paywall papers the last few days where the columnist is calling for QEII to abdicate or let PoW be regent. The comments were related to the Sussex news. One of the writers opined that the fact Harry skipped over Charles to go straight to the top to get his issues resolved made it clear that HM had to go and let Charles be King now. This slant seems to indicate some influence from Clarence House.

Another writer wanted to shunt aside the Queen because "the monarchy is bloated" and HM stepping aside would help it be more streamlined. Again, just my opinion, but it seems like more Clarence House input.

I think that is practically traitorous if that talk is being promoted under the aegis of the BRF.

Both seem ridiculous to me sorry.

Of course he skipped over his father. The queen is head of the family and the decision is hers. How is this a reason for her to abdicate??? They think the queen is usurping his place as dad??

Losing one person is not going to relieve so called bloating. Harry and Meghan have already lessened the bloat. If they were really desperate then the Gloucester’s and Kent’s could be retired off. Not the queen.

The queen abdicating wouldn’t save any money. Sovereigns grant stays the same and she would still need security.

Just when I think some articles can’t get more stupid.....

 

[Osipi]

Actually, the final decision in the Sussex matter would be made by the Queen. Its not because she's the head of the family but rather because she is "The Boss", "The CEO" "The Top Banana" of the family "Firm". Nothing happens in the "Firm" without the Queen's knowledge or the Queen's permission.

As the Veep and Harry's father and also the future "Boss", the Queen asked Charles to handle the situation. As it wasn't being handled (I presume) in a timely manner, Harry then decided to go to the top to sort things out.

I think all of us agree that there are times when, in trying to resolve things, we're going to be saying "let me talk to your manager" and go up the chain of command to get resolutions. Its happened many times here.

HM, The Queen is the master of diplomacy. I think she's handled this brilliantly. If being diplomatic and able to resolve an internal problem in the "Firm" doable for both sides is a call for abdication, then I think a lot of CEOs would be put out to pasture. She did what she felt was best for her monarchy and the integrity of the "Firm" with balancing the wants and needs of her grandson and his wife and came to a decision.

I'd really like to think I could be doing that at 93 years old.