The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1141  
Old 10-27-2018, 03:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
Nonsense. If this is what the bio is saying its not particularly well done
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 10-27-2018, 06:53 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,624
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 10-27-2018, 06:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 10-27-2018, 07:29 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,396
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!
Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 10-27-2018, 07:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,954
As stated in the article, Mr. Jobson does not say that Queen Elizabeth will abdicate.
Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 10-28-2018, 01:16 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 157
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 10-28-2018, 01:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 10-28-2018, 02:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
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...
Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 10-28-2018, 03:06 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,756
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.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 10-28-2018, 03:58 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1151  
Old 10-28-2018, 04:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,476
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...
Reply With Quote
  #1152  
Old 10-28-2018, 04:47 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,190
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1153  
Old 10-28-2018, 05:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1154  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:38 PM
Ista's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: the West, United States
Posts: 3,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1155  
Old 10-29-2018, 04:03 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
  #1156  
Old 10-29-2018, 07:36 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #1157  
Old 10-29-2018, 07:50 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #1158  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:17 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1159  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:19 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,611
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1160  
Old 10-29-2018, 08:21 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, elizabeth ii, queen elizabeth ii, regency, retirement


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would They Have Married? auntie Royal Chit Chat 502 12-24-2017 03:38 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:52 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×