The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Lilyflo]

Given that HMQ has such a strong faith and she holds fast to her sacred coronation vows, I presume she thinks that God will decide when her reign has ended. I honestly don't think it's a choice she's ever considered is hers to make.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Given that HMQ has such a strong faith and she holds fast to her sacred coronation vows, I presume she thinks that God will decide when her reign has ended. I honestly don't think it's a choice she's ever considered is hers to make.

No any of her "sacred coronation vows" is about to reign forver and ever.

1.
Will you govern all your people according to their respective laws and customs?

The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."

2.
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

The Queen: "I will."

3. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

The Queen: "All this I promise to do."

Nowhere she promised to remain Queen until her last breath.

Link: https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

 

[Denville]

She didn't have to promise, per se. Its implied that one is queen or king till one's last breath. Unless something intervenes and causes one to give up on the commitmennt.

 

[Mbruno]

No any of her "sacred coronation vows" is about to reign forver and ever.

1.
Will you govern all your people according to their respective laws and customs?

The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."

2.
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

The Queen: "I will."

3. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

The Queen: "All this I promise to do."

Nowhere she promised to remain Queen until her last breath.

Link: https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

Exactly. And a regency BTW would not prevent her from being the Queen until "her last breath". I don't see how it would be incompatible with any of the Queen's vows, Besides, if she truly holds on to her vows, I would argue it is her duty to call for a regency if she becomes incapacitated or unable to fulfill her royal duties.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

She didn't have to promise, per se. Its implied that one is queen or king till one's last breath. Unless something intervenes and causes one to give up on the commitmennt.

Archbishops of Canterbury make a similar vow, as a Coronation is very much a copy of the Intronisation Mass of Popes and (Arch-) bishops. All solemnly swear to be execute their high office with respect to laws, rights and traditions. Yet seldom an Archbishop or bishop dies in office, they all offer their resignation past a certain age.

This just to counter that the Queen can not abdicate because -A- as Princess she made a "vow" on her 21st birthday and -B- she made a "vow" during the Coronation.

Neither A nor B are true. Nothing stops the Queen to abdicate to her very own will and pleasure. That she does not, speaks volumes about her dedication and duty, but the point is that nowhere she is "bound" to stay or she would "break a sacred vow" or something like that.

 

[Durham]

She didn't have to promise, per se. Its implied that one is queen or king till one's last breath.

Yes I agree. That's always been the settled opinion in Britain.

In addition the Archbishop of Canterbury says :

"As kings, priests, and prophets were anointed, and as Solomon was anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet so be thou, anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen over the peoples whom the Lord thy God has given thee to rule and govern.”

The Queen no doubt believes literally that God chose her for this calling & she sees it as a Christian duty to live up to those words.

Besides I don’t see that there is any reason for a monarch to abdicate unless they really want to. Age is not important.

There are only a few (albeit important) specific duties that the sovereign has to undertake as a constitutional monarch - to give assent to parliamentary bills, to appoint the PM & to dissolve & prorogue parliament. That can all be done sat at home. Or a regent can be appointed by due process to do all this instead.

Everything else we’ve come to associate with what the monarch does day to day is just tradition & custom which can be done by others or not done at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She made the 'serve all my days' vow on her 21st birthday in South Africa.

 

[Osipi]

She made the 'serve all my days' vow on her 21st birthday in South Africa.

No matter how you slice it, one thing has stood fast throughout the Queen's reign and that is when she says something, it's said with conviction and sincerity. How often since that 21st birthday speech have her words come to mind in so many different ways? They've stood the test of time and reflective of the Queen's thoughts about her life in relation to her duties and her responsibilities to Crown and Country.

Her words at that time may not be termed a "sacred oath" or an unescapable promise but she meant what she said at that time and it's been reflected on still 74 years later. That, in and of itself, means something to me.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I remember it being discussed in 1977 during the Silver Jubilee.

It was certainly mentioned after Charles and Diana were married at some point, with Diana reportedly upset when she was told that the Queen had no intention of ever abdicating and that she would have to wait her turn to be Queen.

It has been raised regularly at major milestones ever since.

Iluvbertie, I like how you mentioned: "she (Princess Diana) would have to wait her turn to be Queen."
Obviously Princess Diana knew she would be Queen Consort. She would not be Queen Regnant like her mother-in-law.

 

[Sunnystar]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't The Independent a left-leaning publication that supports abolition of the monarchy/a republic? I know The Guardian does but I thought The Independent holds a similar position.

If so, why is anyone giving their call for a Regency a day's worth of air?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Because left-leaning or not a Regency will continue to be on the agenda as the Queen's health deteriorates. She already can't do all the job entails and that will only get worse over the next 5 - 10 years until she finally dies and we have an 80+ year old man become King, probably needing a Regency himself within before his reign ends.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

She made the 'serve all my days' vow on her 21st birthday in South Africa.

That "serve all my days" has nothing to do with the kingship as it was spoken by a Princess Elizabeth on her 21st birthday. We only need to look to her husband: no one can deny that the late Duke of Edinburgh was an epitome of duty and service. He litterally served all his days too.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't The Independent a left-leaning publication that supports abolition of the monarchy/a republic? I know The Guardian does but I thought The Independent holds a similar position.

If so, why is anyone giving their call for a Regency a day's worth of air?

Well, to be fair, with all love and admiration one can feel for Elizabeth, the objective question can be turned around: apparently the kingship is of such an unbearable lightness that even a someone, nearly rounding a century, can fulfill that office?


There is nothing dishonourable to review a regency giving the visible fragility of the head of state, even from The Guardian and The Independent, both no boulevard rags and indeed not the most royalist by nature.

 

[Alison H]

There hasn't really been any talk of a Regency, and I think the Queen would be very upset if there were. However, it's been pointed out that something really needs to be done about the counsellors of state. Harry and Andrew are both effectively out of the royal picture now, so, if either Charles or William should be away - which Charles soon will be, on the visit to the Middle East - that only leaves one person. Harry and Andrew really need to be replaced, maybe by Edward, maybe by Beatrice and or Eugenie, or Camilla's also been mentioned. It's supposed to be the 4 people, over 21, highest in the line of succession, but things are different now.

 

[winifred]

I remember it being discussed in 1977 during the Silver Jubilee.

It was certainly mentioned after Charles and Diana were married at some point, with Diana reportedly upset when she was told that the Queen had no intention of ever abdicating and that she would have to wait her turn to be Queen.

.

Re Diana, I think that's incredibly unlikely. Diana was an Earl's daughter and raised around royal circles. She'd have known that there's no tradition of abdication in the BRF.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There hasn't really been any talk of a Regency, and I think the Queen would be very upset if there were. However, it's been pointed out that something really needs to be done about the counsellors of state. Harry and Andrew are both effectively out of the royal picture now, so, if either Charles or William should be away - which Charles soon will be, on the visit to the Middle East - that only leaves one person. Harry and Andrew really need to be replaced, maybe by Edward, maybe by Beatrice and or Eugenie, or Camilla's also been mentioned. It's supposed to be the 4 people, over 21, highest in the line of succession, but things are different now.

It was announced, in 2019, when Andrew stepped down that he would continue to serve as a Counsellor of State.

It would take legislation to change the current set up - even adding Camilla before she is the consort of the monarch.

There is no reason to go back to Edward as there are two ahead of him in the line of succession who aren't Harry or Andrew.

Counsellors-of-State don't do much - they meet incoming or outgoing Ambassadors/High Commissioners as well as chair the monthly Privy Council meeting. They don't meet with the Prime Minister and they only get the summary of the red boxes that they get anyway.

On a very rare occasion they may be called upon to dissolve parliament and issue the writs for a new election.

 

[Mbruno]

Because left-leaning or not a Regency will continue to be on the agenda as the Queen's health deteriorates. She already can't do all the job entails and that will only get worse over the next 5 - 10 years until she finally dies and we have an 80+ year old man become King, probably needing a Regency himself within before his reign ends.

You summarized well the oddity of the circumstances, e.g. King Charles perhaps requiring a regency too before the end of his reign. Unlike his mother, I think he would abdicate in such scenario, but I can't tell the future.

Honestly, it is cruel and inhumane to submit a 95-year-old to the Queen's current workload. Even the Duke of Edinburgh retired when he turned 95. Besides, the possibility of setting up a regency exists in law for a specific reason: to guarantee that the duties of Head of State are fulfilled by a fully capable person. I am not saying that Queen Elizabeth is incapable now, but she has been missing important parts of her job (she doesn't travel overseas anymore for example) and it will most likely get worse in the coming years. That should at least start a conversation as Americans say, and not be a taboo based on religion or similar beliefs.

 

[Denville]

You summarized well the oddity of the circumstances, e.g. King Charles perhaps requiring a regency too before the end of his reign. Unlike his mother, I I think he would abdicate in such scenario, but I can't tell the future.

Honestly, it is cruel and inhumane to submit a 95-year-old to the Queen's current workload. Even the Duke of Edinburgh retired when he turned 95. Besides, the possibility of setting up a regency exists in law for a specific reason: to guarantee that the duties of Head of State are fullfilled by a fully capable person. I am not saying that Queen Elizabeth is incapable now, but she has been missing important parts of her job (she doesn't travel overseas anymore for example) and it will most likely get worse in coming years. That should at least start a conversation as Americans say, and not be a taboo based on religion or similar beliefs.

how is it cruel and inhumane for the queen to do what she wants to do? I think that its very obvious that she would hate to be retired, and even if she IS less strong than she used to be, she has the support of her family who can help with some of her duties.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

how is it cruel and inhumane for the queen to do what she wants to do? I think that its very obvious that she would hate to be retired, and even if she IS less strong than she used to be, she has the support of her family who can help with some of her duties.

Royalist Britons will see it through warmly rose-tinted Elizabethan glasses but for people more on a distance it shows that apparently being Sovereign of the United Kingdom and all those Realms seems to be the easiest job ever: even a frail 95-years old can do this Office-of-State.

While most of us will be sent to the exit door between 60 and 67 years of age. The Queen is already 30-35 years past general retirement age ...

( )


About "God-given-kingships" (which would possibly bar the Queen from stepping down): The Emperor of Japan even "concubines" with Amaterasu (the celestial Sun Goddess from whom the Japanese imperial family claims descent), closer to a deity seems impossible. Even the Emperor of Japan signals that it is time to make place for younger, stronger, hands to take over the imperial reins.

 

[Denville]

Royalist Britons will see it through warmly rose-tinted Elizabethan glasses but for people more on a distance it shows that apparently being Sovereign of the United Kingdom and all those Realms seems to be the easiest job ever: even a frail 95-years old can do this Office-of-State.

While most of us will be sent to the exit door between 60 and 67 years of age. The Queen is already 30-35 years past general retirement age ...

( )


About "God-given-kingships" (which would possibly bar the Queen from stepping down): The Emperor of Japan even "concubines" with Amaterasu (the celestial Sun Goddess from whom the Japanese imperial family claims descent), closer to a deity seems impossible. Even the Emperor of Japan signals that it is time to make place for younger, stronger, hands to take over the imperial reins.

I dont think that it matters what happensin Japan, if the British public wanted the queen to step down, it might be considered. Or if she felt it was the right thing to do, she would do it. but she does not wnat to give up, and the public dont want it

 

[Heavs]

Does it matter what other countries do? Other royal families are entitled to do what they feel is best but it has no bearing on what HM does or doesn't do. She's well aware that monarchs younger than she is have been handing the "reigns" over to their heirs for decades now but it hasn't seemed to change her mind of her job being until death.

It's clear the Queen doesn't wish to abdicate or otherwise retire and the British public don't want her to either, (among those that care what happens with the royals anyway). To that end her son and other family will take on more and more day to day jobs but she'll still do what she can when she can.

Just 6 weeks ago the palace was briefing that HM was desperate to get out and about - and that she had planned it to be her busiest autumn in a decade. Not that anyone was forcing her. That seems to have been too ambitious but I don't think calling it "cruel and unusual" is in correct when by all accounts it's her own wish to carry on. Even now all the emphasis is on her wanting to do Remembrance etc.

*If* she did say she wishes to abdicate or have a formal regency I think the public would understand and be supportive but that's not part of the discussion in the UK right now.

 

[Denville]

Im sure if the queen did feel that it was right to have a regency or to abidcate the British public would be Ok with it. They dont take nearly so much notice of the RF as a small handful of royal watchers do, but they would be fine if the queen wanted to step down and hand over to Charles... But she clearly doesn't.. and since there are still quite a few family members doing the supporting royals job, she can do what she can/wants to do, and have help from relatives.. which isn't so easy perhaps in more limited RFs. Possibly, in years to come William will step down when he is 65 or so, but he's from a very differrent generation and upbringing and when he is POW or King the number of working royals will have become more limited...

 

[Osipi]

Actually, I'm seeing that the way things are now is actually a perfect way to do it. Without abdication or a regency, what we're seeing is an united front put out by the entire family as "Team Windsor" in support of the monarch wherever they're needed. This also allows Charles to step in for his mother more and more and it's actively seen as a soft transition between monarch to monarch in a slow, progressive way. The more the family steps up, the easier the Queen can take things slower when she wants to.

I also believe that HM will is astute and intelligent enough to know when she can no longer do what is required of her and would actively ask for a regency to be formalized. She doesn't take her job lightly and if a regency, to her, would mean that the job is done the way it's supposed to be done, then she'll do what is best for the monarchy. She's definitely not there yet though by any means.

 

[Alison H]

No-one would dream of treating the Queen in a cruel or inhumane way. It has always been clear that she chooses to keep working. I can't imagine that anyone would object if, at her age, she chose not to do so. There's no constitutional requirement for a monarch to go on overseas tours, so the fact that she no longer undertakes those doesn't affect her position. What would be cruel would be if she thought everyone was trying to push her into abdicating when she didn't want to.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No-one would dream of treating the Queen in a cruel or inhumane way. It has always been clear that she chooses to keep working. I can't imagine that anyone would object if, at her age, she chose not to do so. There's no constitutional requirement for a monarch to go on overseas tours, so the fact that she no longer undertakes those doesn't affect her position. What would be cruel would be if she thought everyone was trying to push her into abdicating when she didn't want to.

I see. It is cruel to say to a 95 years old but not to the millions who have to leave at 65 because "that is the retirement age, period".

 

[Osipi]

I see. It is cruel to say to a 95 years old but not to the millions who have to leave at 65 because "that is the retirement age, period".

I think most people, by the time they've reached 65, are ready to ride off into the sunset and their retirement years. Here in the US, people mostly look at retirement at the age where they can reap the full benefits of Social Security, receive Medicare and just enjoy life. It's not a punishment to retire.

When Congress first passed the ADEA, it protected only workers between the ages of 40 and 65. Once an employee reached the age of 65, he or she could be forced to retire. ... As a result, today it is illegal for employers to adopt a mandatory retirement age.

 

[Durham]

What does a constitutional monarch actually have to do once you strip back everything superfluous? I'd say not a lot really. It's a position not a job. What did Victoria do during her years of withdrawal from public life?

A monarch can be as lazy or as industrious as they choose really.

Besides, the solemn dignity that accompanies the demise of the the crown through death is symbolic of the an end & a rebirth. Winter & spring. Without it I'd argue that monarchy doesn't make much sense.

 

[Alison H]

I see. It is cruel to say to a 95 years old but not to the millions who have to leave at 65 because "that is the retirement age, period".

No-one has to leave their job at 65 in the UK. It's illegal to try to make them do so. Under the Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations, if you really want the legal details. Nobody is being "cruel" to anyone. Not here, anyway: I don't know what the rules about mandatory retirement are everywhere else.


Anyway, she clearly doesn't want to retire. No-one would have thought anything negative if she hadn't recorded a video for the COP26 summit, when Charles, Camilla, William and Kate are all there, and everyone knows that she's not feeling 100%, but she chose to do so because she obviously wants to be involved. That's her choice.

 

[Mbruno]

No-one has to leave their job at 65 in the UK. It's illegal to try to make them do so. Under the Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations, if you really want the legal details. Nobody is being "cruel" to anyone. Not here, anyway: I don't know what the rules about mandatory retirement are everywhere else.


Anyway, she clearly doesn't want to retire. No-one would have thought anything negative if she hadn't recorded a video for the COP26 summit, when Charles, Camilla, William and Kate are all there, and everyone knows that she's not feeling 100%, but she chose to do so because she obviously wants to be involved. That's her choice.

In Australia and Canada, judges for example have a compulsory retirement age. Isn't that the case also in the UK?

In many countries also, public employees in general, including professors in public universities, have compulsory retirement ages, although that is not the case e.g. in US as Osipi said.

The question here is not compulsory retirement though, but plain common sense. A regency is not an offensive proposition and should not be a taboo when the Head of State is 95 and facing increasing limitations. The alternative of increasingly delegating royal functions to other family members while pretending that there is still a single functioning Head of State is unreasonable.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I dont think that it matters what happensin Japan, if the British public wanted the queen to step down, it might be considered. Or if she felt it was the right thing to do, she would do it. but she does not wnat to give up, and the public dont want it

Actually how much does the opinion of the British public get taken into account?