The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by SLV

Did she have a trauma from the abdication of her uncle? Her father perhaps, but not her, I think. I don't think that would be a reason for her not to do so. Besides, there would not be a recreating of such a trauma if she did abdicate. Her son is expected to succeed her and is more than ready for the job.

Whether or not Elizabeth personally had a traumatic reaction to the abdication, I think that her mother's fury over the whole business from the time David met Wallis through until the time King George VI died and beyond for the rest of her life would have generated strong enough shockwaves to have a traumatic effect on anyone in her vicinity, and QEII was in her vicinity for much of that time. So, yes, I think QEII would have been traumatised by the abdication for that reason alone. I am fairly sure that her parents' attitude to it was probably behind that declaration of hers on her 21st birthday. No way in the wide world will she abdicate.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

Whether or not Elizabeth personally had a traumatic reaction to the abdication, I think that her mother's fury over the whole business from the time David met Wallis through until the time King George VI died and beyond for the rest of her life would have generated strong enough shockwaves to have a traumatic effect on anyone in her vicinity, and QEII was in her vicinity for much of that time. So, yes, I think QEII would have been traumatised by the abdication for that reason alone. I am fairly sure that her parents' attitude to it was probably behind that declaration of hers on her 21st birthday. No way in the wide world will she abdicate.

At the same time that "traumatic event" made her husband King and made her daughter Queen. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was absolutely aware of ranks and precedence in the social pyramid, reached the summum of all possible positions, Queen of the United Kingdom, Empress of India even.... so we may take it with a little grain of salt that there was a "trauma" indeed. She was over it. In no time. She became the supreme top hen in da' hen house...

[crm2317]

I think the Queen's sense of duty would prevent her from abdicating. However if Prince Philip passes away first, I can see her declaring a regency. I don't think she would carry on the same without him beside her.

[Cris M]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

At the same time that "traumatic event" made her husband King and made her daughter Queen. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, was absolutely aware of ranks and precedence in the social pyramid, reached the summum of all possible positions, Queen of the United Kingdom, Empress of India even.... so we may take it with a little grain of salt that there was a "trauma" indeed. She was over it. In no time. She became the supreme top hen in da' hen house...

And soon after her husband became King the country entered a devastating war that lasted for six years. She saw her husband deteriorating in front of her, before he died at the age of 56, leaving her a widow at the age of 52. She also saw her daughter taking on the responsibility of be Queen of vast, albeit in decline, Empire, sacrificing her time with her two young children.

Let's look beyond all the perks, Duc. It's no wonder the abdication traumatized all the people involved, including the Queen Mother and the Queen.

[Duc_et_Pair]

You can not connect the abdication of Edward VIII, the outbreak of WWII three/four years later and the ailments of the King, mainly caused by his heavy smoking. Like A + B = C. The King developed lung cancer, suffered occlusion of the arteries and also trombosis. Even when he remained the Duke of York, living a life on England's pleasant pastures green, in all seclusion, it is most unlikely he would not have developed these diseases to the lungs, arteries and trombosis. It was death cause Number One amongst the British before junk food, fat and sugar entered society.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

You can not connect the abdication of Edward VIII, the outbreak of WWII three/four years later and the ailments of the King, mainly caused by his heavy smoking. Like A + B = C. The King developed lung cancer, suffered occlusion of the arteries and also trombosis. Even when he remained the Duke of York, living a life on England's pleasant pastures green, in all seclusion, it is most unlikely he would not have developed these diseases to the lungs, arteries and trombosis. It was death cause Number One amongst the British before junk food, fat and sugar entered society.

Whether "we" connect it or not, those near to him certainly did. It is quite likely that the stress and privations of war did indeed shorten his life by some considerable amount. His brother ( the DoW) lived to the age of 78, despite having been a heavy smoker and a likely alcoholic.

While George VI was 'fighting a war' and enduring the bombing of London, the former Edward VIII was giving and attending dinner parties, playing golf, visiting his tailor, playing bridge, and enjoying light work and recreation in Nassau, far away from war.

[Duc_et_Pair]

So you are connecting A + B = C because basically you say the Duke of York would not have sufferend lung cancer, occlusion of the arteries and trombosis when he was not the King. That is a conclusion you can make. I do not share that conclusion. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon lifed her life to the max, lived beyond a century and enjoyed every minute of it, we may assume.

[US Royal Watcher]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

So you are connecting A + B = C because basically you say the Duke of York would not have sufferend lung cancer, occlusion of the arteries and trombosis when he was not the King. That is a conclusion you can make. I do not share that conclusion. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon lifed her life to the max, lived beyond a century and enjoyed every minute of it, we may assume.

I tend to agree that Queen Elizabeth's father would have died young no matter what, but it is a matter of record that the Queen Mother blamed his ascension to the throne for his relatively young death. I don't know if it is certain that Queen Elizabeth shares that belief, but I think she does--and it is one of the reasons that she won't abdicate.

I don't think she aspired to Queen. She knew it was possible when she married Prince Albert, but it was assumed that Prince Edward would eventually marry and have a child of his own. Moreover, she never forgave Wallis Simpson for the abdication, which also indicates that she wasn't particularly happy to ascend the throne.

The Queen Mother certainly made the most of it and enjoyed being Queen. But I think she would have been just as happy married to a royal duke. If Edward VII had married someone else, the Queen Mother would have been forced to defer to his wife but she would have been fine with that. If she didn't like her sister-in-law, she would have just stayed clear and held her own court someplace else.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

So you are connecting A + B = C because basically you say the Duke of York would not have sufferend lung cancer, occlusion of the arteries and trombosis when he was not the King. That is a conclusion you can make. I do not share that conclusion. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon lifed her life to the max, lived beyond a century and enjoyed every minute of it, we may assume.

Here's what I said: It is quite likely that the stress and privations of war did indeed shorten his life by some considerable amount.

Do you think that having to be King, when his brother had refused to fulfil his role, helped his health? Certainly not. His wife saw the toll it took on him, and regardless of other factors, stress of that sort is not conducive to health or long life. Spending time in the country, or in a warm climate...that would have helped, but he had to be King, because his brother selfishly refused to.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by ladongas

[...] but he had to be King, because his brother selfishly refused to.

That is open for discussion. Had the Government allowed the King to marry the love of his life, then he would not have abdicated, of course.

In retrospect, with the flood of divorces and divorcees in the British royal family, the treatment of the Queen's uncle was remarkable.

[scooter]

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67

The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

[BritishRoyalist]

Originally Posted by scooter

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67

The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

I see what you saying but Edward VIII I do not consider having died young. 77 is the average lifespan for men today so in 1972 that would have been pretty good.

[AdmirerUS]

Originally Posted by scooter

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67
The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

Well, women do generally have longer life expectancies. The better questions, given the discussion might be:

1. How long did the last 10 monarchs remain in rule (and yes, the women dominate here) before the role took it's toll?
2. How much longer did the king live than general life expectancy for men in GB (which was, for example, 47 in 1900, 60 in the 1930s and 65 in the 1950s).

Compared to the general population, kings fared quite well.

[JessRulz]

Originally Posted by scooter

THe truth of the matter is of the last 6 men of the family to sit on the throne they all died relatively young.
George VI age 66
Edward VIII age 77
George V age 70
Edward VII age 68
William V age 71
Goege IV age 67

The women in the family tend to be much longer lived. This is borne out by how great QEII looks even at nearly 90. So it's possible that had he not been a smoker, or had to deal with WW2, he would still not have lived to be ancient.

George VI was actually 56, which is considerably younger than the other Kings. I'm sure another 10 years of his life, while not making him 'ancient', would have been warmly welcomed by his family.

[Iluvbertie]

Those kings, though, all lived unhealthy lifestyles as well.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by ladongas

Spending time in the country, or in a warm climate...that would have helped, but he had to be King, because his brother selfishly refused to.

So there's that tantalizing, very large, alternative time-line of history: had Edward VIII not abdicated, had Wallis Simpson been able to reach him and persuade him that, if he abdicated, she would not stay with him (which I understand she was trying to do but could not get through on the phone - can someone here either confirm or correct me on this impression?), had he, in short, reigned as king until his death in 1972 without issue, what a different life for Elizabeth, and possibly for Charles. Potentially there would have been a more 'normal' relationship with his mother, for example.

Here's a possibility: Edward VIII dies in 1972, and at the prospect of a woman on the throne, there are calls for Elizabeth to step aside for her son, Prince Charles. Imagine that! Plus Charles marries young and more quickly, Amanda Knatchbull, as Mountbattan planned.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by JessRulz

George VI was actually 56, which is considerably younger than the other Kings. I'm sure another 10 years of his life, while not making him 'ancient', would have been warmly welcomed by his family.

My typo, Jezz, thanks for correcting!

[ladongas]

And in the alternative time-line, just suppose that after Edward VIII abdicated, George VI also refused to serve, and so on down the line. Would the Monarchy have survived a surge of quitters? And how would a newly Republican Britain have withstood the horror of WWII without that golden thread of monarchy connecting them to their long and glorious past? One can't know, of course, but things could have gone badly wrong if Bertie and Elizabeth had been quitters.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by ladongas

And in the alternative time-line, just suppose that after Edward VIII abdicated, George VI also refused to serve, and so on down the line. Would the Monarchy have survived a surge of quitters? And how would a newly Republican Britain have withstood the horror of WWII without that golden thread of monarchy connecting them to their long and glorious past? One can't know, of course, but things could have gone badly wrong if Bertie and Elizabeth had been quitters.

If George VI refused to serve, who would have the crown passed to?

Do you think William will be a 'quitter'?

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

If George VI refused to serve, who would have the crown passed to?

Do you think William will be a 'quitter'?

The preteen Princess Elizabeth would have been next in line.

No.