The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Denville]

Nonsense. If this is what the bio is saying its not particularly well done

[CyrilVladisla]

Hopefully Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will never abdicate. For her the word abdicate should be removed not only from the dictionary but also from the encyclopedia.

[jacqui24]

I don’t believe she’ll abdicate or even a regency. But handing some duties over to PoW as she gets older is only natural.

[Curryong]

Well, Robert Jobson is a journalist! No doubt a lot of this will be repeated in this new bio by him. He said he has spoken to Charles when writing it, but I doubt that the Prince of Wales imparted that little gem!

[Tatiana Maria]

As stated in the article, Mr. Jobson does not say that Queen Elizabeth will abdicate.

[Friedrich Karl II]

I don't believe that the queen will abdicate. She has stated that she is not going do that. And she remembers her uncle's shameful case which just makes abdication impossible thing. Probably the queen will give more duties to Charles but EII will abdicate only with her death.

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

As stated in the article, Mr. Jobson does not say that Queen Elizabeth will abdicate.

No he doesn't say that the Queen will abdicate. The inference is though that she will step aside for Charles when she is 95 and allow her son the main role. I don't believe she will abdicate or step aside (unless incapacitated) and my remarks in my former post still stand.

[Denville]

She may well be feeling the strain of her age, at 95, as it is, she's passing on more work to Charles and Philip has now retired...

[Osipi]

If the Queen is anything, she's pragmatic and a realist. I believe even William said something along the lines of that she doesn't like to leave things unfinished. With as much as the monarchy means to her, ensuring its continuity and its relevance is of utmost importance and she'll strive to always do what is best for the monarchy above putting herself first.

She's spent decades preparing Charles for his role and even William who says his grandmother was a huge influence. I believe that the more she hands over to her children and grandchildren, the more peace of mind she'll have because she'll actually be seeing them in their roles and rest assured that they're ready, willing and able.

[Somebody]

The queen has been very clear from the start that she is in it for life. I believe she sees it as a sacred duty that she is to serve as queen as long as she may live. Only if she would no longer be able to perform the most basic tasks of a monarch Charles will step in as regent.

Until that moment (if it ever comes) she will keep handing down more and more to him while the queen concentrates on the main/formal tasks of the sovereign.

[Denville]

She is in her 90s, and has a few health issues, and she can't go on forever.. She is doing ab it less, now has Charles takng on more of her work, and has the 4 younger ones on royal duties...

[Duc_et_Pair]

The State Visit of King Willem-Alexander showed how frail the Queen was. It also showed that almost everything was taken over by other royals: the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall on day one, the Earl and Countess of Wessex on day two, plus the Duke of Kent during the naval demonstration on the Thames.

Essentially the Queen escorted the King during the short ride from Horse Guards' Parade. And the State Banquet, which showed the towering Dutch guests aside a shrinked and difficult walking Queen. One could see it was energy consuming for the tired lady. These two program points.

That was it. When I look to Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Japan or even the Vatican, all the Sovereigns consider a step back when they feel their physical or psychical wellbeing affects their high office. There is absolutely nothing dishonourable in handing the reins over into younger and stronger hands.

[wyevale]

absolutely nothing dishonourable in handing the reins over

I completely agree.. but HMQ is an anointed Monarch, whose solemn vow before GOD was 'for life', whose religious beliefs make those promises unbreakable for her [personally]. This [I believe] is what prevents an actual abdication, far more than the behaviour [disgraceful as it was] of her worthless, wayward Uncle.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I completely agree.. but HMQ is an anointed Monarch, whose solemn vow before GOD was 'for life', whose religious beliefs make those promises unbreakable for her [personally]. This [I believe] is what prevents an actual abdication, far more than the behaviour [disgraceful as it was] of her worthless, wayward Uncle.

I agree with all of this. It is an essential and profound difference from some of those other monarchies mentioned. She views her role as a sacred duty. Like QMII of Denmark, she is Queen for life. She may continue to hand over engagements to younger representatives, but the actual role of sovereign is hers until she dies. At the most, Charles might serve as Regent, but he will not be King until she is gone.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I completely agree.. but HMQ is an anointed Monarch, whose solemn vow before GOD was 'for life', whose religious beliefs make those promises unbreakable for her [personally]. This [I believe] is what prevents an actual abdication, far more than the behaviour [disgraceful as it was] of her worthless, wayward Uncle.

But the underlying message is also: "the highest office of state actually means nothing, it is an empty shell, so empty that even a 90+ years old person in a frail state can easily fulfill it".

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

But the underlying message is also: "the highest office of state actually means nothing, it is an empty shell, so empty that even a 90+ years old person in a frail state can easily fulfill it".

The ageism transpiring in the post is ugly. As long as the person is not mentally incapacitated to the point where she is unable to assume her duties, that is all that matters

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

But the underlying message is also: "the highest office of state actually means nothing, it is an empty shell, so empty that even a 90+ years old person in a frail state can easily fulfill it".

As with all "offices of state" there is one person who represents it and a lot of others who actually do the work with the holder of the office. So even if Her Majesty is now an old lady, the people who work for her run her office like clockwork and she has family and others to represent her when necessary. And if she one day is incapable to actively wear the crown, a regent will be appointed to do it for her. Where is the problem?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by alvinking

The ageism transpiring in the post is ugly. As long as the person is not mentally incapacitated to the point where she is unable to assume her duties, that is all that matters

Ah, I see. I trust you will absolutely, without any doubt, hire a dishwasher or a secretary aged 90+. Good for you and your company.

[Claire]

I am not going to argue - but although the Queen may be physically and mentally able to do the job - is it fair to her. She is well over the age when people retire. She has done her duty, no one can dispute that - no one will criticize her for saying she would like some time for herself.
However I don't expect the monarchy in England to exist for another 100 years. It is not a personal opinion against Charles, but the loyalist basis for monarchy exists with generations that are now fading. Support for the younger generation of royalist is populist, sentimental and easily swayed with headlines. People are more fickle now and what is popular now - might not be in the future. People have realized that five minute celebrities can carry out engagements just as easily and cheaper and anyone who looks good in a dress will do. My editor noted that the other day that Britain is getting the royal family it deserves - he did not mean it as a compliment.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

As with all "offices of state" there is one person who represents it and a lot of others who actually do the work with the holder of the office. So even if Her Majesty is now an old lady, the people who work for her run her office like clockwork and she has family and others to represent her when necessary. And if she one day is incapable to actively wear the crown, a regent will be appointed to do it for her. Where is the problem?

There is no any problem. It just exposes the real content of the high office. A 90+ will be succeeded by a 70+ but that is no problem because it is no real work, as you stated, see quote.

I understand the position of a so-called "vow to God" (which did not witheld the Pope to abdicate) but it is also at the same time a signal that you do not need to be in your prime, full of energy, motivated or anything at all to fulfill the high office.