The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Lee-Z

If the queen *would* hand over her role, iow abdicate, she *would* be around for the "Camilla situation"...

That said, i still believe she will not abdicate; if only because she is the head of state of several countries and it would be quite complicated overall (this is an aspect that is not comparable to other european monarchs).

Edward VIII abdicated. He ruled half the world. The precedent is there. When Queen Elizabeth informs the Government about her desire to lay down the kingship, I have no milli-second doubt that the wish of Her Majesty wil be arranged.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Edward VIII abdicated. He ruled half the world. The precedent is there. When Queen Elizabeth informs the Government about her desire to lay down the kingship, I have no milli-second doubt that the wish of Her Majesty wil be arranged.

That for me would be the nr 1 reason why the queen would not abdicate..

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Edward VIII abdicated. He ruled half the world. The precedent is there. When Queen Elizabeth informs the Government about her desire to lay down the kingship, I have no milli-second doubt that the wish of Her Majesty wil be arranged.

Actually, when Edward VIII abdicated, I believe the only countries besides the UK that had to pass special legislation were Canada, the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa, as Australia and New Zealand had not adopted the Statute of Westminster yet and all other territories and countries ruled by the King were still colonies. Nowadays, if the recent precedent of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 were followed, ispecial legislation would be required in Barbados, Canada, New Zealand, St Kittis and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and in all Australian states plus the federal Commonwealth of Australia itself (note: the other remaining realms asserted that changes in UK succession law were automatically incorporated into their domestic law, so no separate legislation was needed).

[wyevale]

There is no EARTHLY reason HMQ would abdicate, as [should 'it all become TOO much' for her], the Regency act exists to relieve her of the 'day to day' burden, whilst technically keeping her 'my WHOLE life' vow and her Coronation OATH to her peoples.
Such a deeply religious Woman will not break an oath made 'before God'.

[Skippyboo]

Abidication now only opens Pandora's box. There would have to be legislation passed in the various realms. That would then open the debates about the monarchy itself in those countries. Then Charles himself is not a young man. So pressure from some factions would be on him to abdicate immediately to William.

What sets Charles up the best, is for him to succeed to the throne after the death of his mother not by any legislation. The mourning for the Queen gives cover to Charles and Camilla. The new King then can be the new head of nation as he leads the country through the mourning of the previous Head of the nation. After the funeral, you have the excitement of a new monarch something that most people have never had before. The coronation becomes the big story not Camilla's title or Charles's failed marriage with Diana.

[wyevale]

^^^^

EXACTLY so..The time honoured panoply of Proclamation, Council of State, Lying in State of the late Queen and her State Funeral, will roll forward, be covered in ACRES of newsprint, all led by the new and grieving King leaving no time or room for pesky irrelevancies like Camilla's title.
The WORLD will mourn, then become swept up in the excitement of a Coronation..

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

Abidication now only opens Pandora's box. There would have to be legislation passed in the various realms. That would then open the debates about the monarchy itself in those countries. Then Charles himself is not a young man. So pressure from some factions would be on him to abdicate immediately to William.

What sets Charles up the best, is for him to succeed to the throne after the death of his mother not by any legislation. The mourning for the Queen gives cover to Charles and Camilla. The new King then can be the new head of nation as he leads the country through the mourning of the previous Head of the nation. After the funeral, you have the excitement of a new monarch something that most people have never had before. The coronation becomes the big story not Camilla's title or Charles's failed marriage with Diana.

Exactly! And what I've been saying more than once in several threads here over the years.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Edward VIII abdicated. He ruled half the world. The precedent is there. When Queen Elizabeth informs the Government about her desire to lay down the kingship, I have no milli-second doubt that the wish of Her Majesty wil be arranged.

Despite what would be vastly different circumstances, in no way would the Queen wish to emulate her uncle's abidication.
Nor do I think the government would jump at the chance to let her abdicate, even if she wished to--which I don't think she does.

[Winnie]

The good Queen would never honor what her uncle did, especially the grief it caused her father {who didn't want the job at all} and her mother who always claimed her brother-in-law's disgraceful selfish behavior brought an early demise to her husband. That alone will keep her on the throne until death. She will let others stand in for her at times, but she will remain queen. Believe me, when a relative or sibling hurts your parents greatly, that will stick with you forever.

[Dee Anna]

I don't believe she will, but no one can ever say never! However should the Queen make that decision it would be for a very well thought out reason, such as advanced infirmity or ill-health and even at that may very well choose a Regency over an absolute Abdication.

When she made that vow 70 odd years ago, I do think David's abdication was a factor and she wanted the people, her people, to know hers was going to be a steady reign.

Currently the Monarchy is set up for the same scenario for generations to come, albeit with much shorter reigns.

[Dee Anna]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Actually, when Edward VIII abdicated, I believe the only countries besides the UK that had to pass special legislation were Canada, the Irish Free State and the Union of South Africa, as Australia and New Zealand had not adopted the Statute of Westminster yet and all other territories and countries ruled by the King were still colonies.

Not the Irish Free State (26 Counties) , yes I expect, the Six Northern Counties (Northern Ireland) under English rule.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Dee Anna

[....]

When she made that vow 70 odd years ago, I do think David's abdication was a factor and she wanted the people, her people, to know hers was going to be a steady reign.

[....]

It was Princess Elizabeth in 1947 who made that promise. Effectively it is the sort of promise that all Heirs in all monarchies make when reaching adulthood: a public dedication to King and country.

Princess Elizabeth's promise had nothing to do with the kingship. She was the Heir at that moment and -had her father not died untimely- maybe she would have been heir for 20 more years.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Despite what would be vastly different circumstances, in no way would the Queen wish to emulate her uncle's abidication.
Nor do I think the government would jump at the chance to let her abdicate, even if she wished to--which I don't think she does.

It was unheard off that a Pope would ever, ever abdicate. And it happened. It was even the most traditional Pope in generations who took the decision to step down and the good man is still alive.

It was constutionally im-pos-si-ble that an Emperor of Japan would abdicate. Unheard of. Emperors die on the throne. Period. Enfin: the Japanese Government has changed the legislation so that the Emperor indeed will abdicate.

King Juan Carlos, the first King on the restored throne of Spain after dictator Franco, the man who saved Spain from a military coup, the man who led Spain into the EU and NATO, stepping down? Nada! Anyway: the King expressed his wish and the Cortes passed an organic law which allowed Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón to step down indeed.

Morale of the story: when Queen Elizabeth informs Ms May that she wants to lay down the kingship, the Prime Minister will assemble Cabinet and start all necessary proceedings to facilitate Her Majesty's wish. No doubt about that. I can even imagine that a cross-party parliamentary committee will be established in both Houses of Parliament to oversee a proper execution of Her Majesty's desire and do anything needed to effectuate it in legislation.

[Dee Anna]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

It was Princess Elizabeth in 1947 who made that promise. Effectively it is the sort of promise that all Heirs in all monarchies make when reaching adulthood: a public dedication to King and country.

Princess Elizabeth's promise had nothing to do with the kingship. She was the Heir at that moment and -had her father not died untimely- maybe she would have been heir for 20 more years.

Well, as I said, 70 odd years ago; and of course she wasn't Queen then, but in good faith expected to be in the future when she promised life long commitment to the role. She meant what she said and I expect she will remain true to her promise.

[Iluvbertie]

She promised 'to serve.'

The question has to be asked 'is she really serving the nation and its future by hanging on so long that Charles will be nearly or even into his 80s when he succeeds and the call is for him to abdicate immediately and thus creating a very real constitutional crisis?'

Maybe setting up a Regency when she turns 95 would be way to smooth that transition so that Charles is seen as the monarch by the time he reaches that role.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Dee Anna

Well, as I said, 70 odd years ago; and of course she wasn't Queen then, but in good faith expected to be in the future when she promised life long commitment to the role. She meant what she said and I expect she will remain true to her promise.

What she said, The Princess Elizabeth, was to serve. Not to be Queen. Otherwise this implicates the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales or the Princess Royal did no lifelong service and commitment, after all they are not a King or Queen?

Had King George VI died in 1972 or so (like his brother Edward), then the same promise of 1947 was executed for 25 years since then by Princess Elizabeth, so it had nothing to do with a promise to serve as Queen.

[Dalriada]

Originally Posted by Dee Anna

Not the Irish Free State (26 Counties) , yes I expect, the Six Northern Counties (Northern Ireland) under English rule.

...The government of the Irish Free State, taking the opportunity presented by the crisis and in a major step towards its eventual transition to a republic, passed an amendment to its constitution on 11 December to remove references to the Crown. The King's abdication was recognised a day later in the External Relations Act of the Irish Free State

[Lee-Z]

Imo she will do what is best for "The Firm", and apparently at this point she feels it's best for the firm that she doesn't abdicate but transfer various tasks to P.Charles (and maybe also other family members).

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

It was Princess Elizabeth in 1947 who made that promise. Effectively it is the sort of promise that all Heirs in all monarchies make when reaching adulthood: a public dedication to King and country.

Princess Elizabeth's promise had nothing to do with the kingship. She was the Heir at that moment and -had her father not died untimely- maybe she would have been heir for 20 more years.

Why is it so hard to believe that a woman of deep faith pledged her service to the UK and the Commonwealth and will never renege on the "whole life" pledge regardless of how long ago it was made? We live in a time of instant gratification, failing integrity and loss of faith. Such things are not in HM's nature.

Yes, a Pope abdicated but that means absolutely nothing to the British Monarchy. Popes are elected, Monarchs are not. Queen Elizabeth will continue to slowly hand off more and more of the "grunt work" as she has been doing for the last decade or more and, should her health fail, then and only then will Charles be appointed Regent.

We will bury QERII not a newly retitled Princess Elizabeth or some such. She will do what is right for her family, country and Commonwealth.

[Lisele]

Originally Posted by MARG

Why is it so hard to believe that a woman of deep faith pledged her service to the UK and the Commonwealth and will never renege on the "whole life" pledge regardless of how long ago it was made? We live in a time of instant gratification, failing integrity and loss of faith. Such things are not in HM's nature.

Yes, a Pope abdicated but that means absolutely nothing to the British Monarchy. Popes are elected, Monarchs are not. Queen Elizabeth will continue to slowly hand off more and more of the "grunt work" as she has been doing for the last decade or more and, should her health fail, then and only then will Charles be appointed Regent.

We will bury QERII not a newly retitled Princess Elizabeth or some such. She will do what is right for her family, country and Commonwealth.

Well said :)

It is my belief that no matter what happens, HM Queen Elizabeth II will continue her duty to the end. If she becomes unable to do so, there is a regency that can be put in place so that HRH The Prince of Wales can take over her duties. Otherwise, I do not see an abdication for the BRF in the future.

God Save The Queen