The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[ladongas]

She’s certainly capable of slowing down as needed. But she’s still capable of doing her duty and will no doubt continue. I don’t think there’s any popular sentiment in her country for her to retire, or abdicate, or step aside for Charles.

[tommy100]

well as only this weekend gone we saw her doing what she has done for nearly all her life, horse riding in Windsor, I don't think frail comes to mind. I don't know many 90+ year old who could do that.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Lunawalk

As an American citizen I wish our president had her devotion to duty. She did her duty but because of old age she slowing down. Prince Charles and other members of the royal family have take some of her duties. She deserves rest. The monarchy will.survive her loss.

Prince Charles and the rest of the senior royals are doing a lot more than they used to and HM is doing far less. However, that "less" does not include disappearing but rather being the "face" of the British Royal Family acting like a duck on a pond. She glides along and beneath the surface "her feet" AKA "The Firm", are going like the clappers.

[Blog Real]

The Queen will never abdicate but from now on she will pass on more and more duties to her children and grandchildren. Prince Charles and Prince William will play a decisive role from now on and more and more responsibilities.
The next few years will be very interesting for this monarchy.

I think the Queen will never abdicate. It would make no sense. I believe there may be a regency in a year or two.

I don't think the Queen's going to give up either.
I believe Prince Charles is in no hurry to be king, because he knows that means his mother had to die.
Nevertheless, I believe he wants to be king one day.

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

The Queen will never abdicate but from now on she will pass on more and more duties to her children and grandchildren. Prince Charles and Prince William will play a decisive role from now on and more and more responsibilities.
The next few years will be very interesting for this monarchy.

Interesting and bittersweet...Long live Her Majesty the Queen!

[SLV]

Originally Posted by MARG

Prince Charles and the rest of the senior royals are doing a lot more than they used to and HM is doing far less. However, that "less" does not include disappearing but rather being the "face" of the British Royal Family acting like a duck on a pond. She glides along and beneath the surface "her feet" AKA "The Firm", are going like the clappers.

That is a lovely and probably very accurate analogy.

[Elly C]

I am not sure if this is the correct place to post this so please move to correct thread if required...
I was wondering if Charles is now present when the Queen has her weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. There is no precedent for this, but given her great age and that Charles is gradually taking on more of the duties of the monarch, it seems a possibility. With the momentous events currently taking place which will shape the future of the UK under his monarchy, it makes sense that he is able to participate in the conversation.

[Lilyflo]

I think if it were the case, it would be made public as it's always been an activity exclusive to the Queen. It would be in the public interest to know that the POW was having regular private audiences with the PM.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Elly C

I am not sure if this is the correct place to post this so please move to correct thread if required...
I was wondering if Charles is now present when the Queen has her weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. There is no precedent for this, but given her great age and that Charles is gradually taking on more of the duties of the monarch, it seems a possibility. With the momentous events currently taking place which will shape the future of the UK under his monarchy, it makes sense that he is able to participate in the conversation.

No he doesn't attend the weekly audiences with the PM.

He does received the boxes each day and, like the Queen, is able to ask for more clarification of what is in them.

He also meets regularly with a range of MPs - from both the government and opposition as seen in the Court Circular.

He isn't part of the 'constitutional' set-up and so he really can't be part of the conversation. Only when he is actually the monarch can he have a say in any sort of official manner.

He will know what is going on but doesn't have a right to a say.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Elly C

I am not sure if this is the correct place to post this so please move to correct thread if required...
I was wondering if Charles is now present when the Queen has her weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. There is no precedent for this, but given her great age and that Charles is gradually taking on more of the duties of the monarch, it seems a possibility. With the momentous events currently taking place which will shape the future of the UK under his monarchy, it makes sense that he is able to participate in the conversation.

To emphasize what Iluvbertie has said, I would go as far as to say that Charles is not taking on more of the duties of the monarch but is representing the monarch more.

He represents her more now when it comes to long distance events. He represents her more as in laying the wreath at the Cenotaph for her. There are certain things only the monarch can do and as far as I know, the Queen still does all of them.

[Rudolph]

Walter Bagehot famously wrote in The English Constitution (1867) that the British monarch has three rights: the rights to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

Only HMQ has these rights, not The Prince of Wales.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

No he doesn't attend the weekly audiences with the PM.

He does received the boxes each day and, like the Queen, is able to ask for more clarification of what is in them.

He also meets regularly with a range of MPs - from both the government and opposition as seen in the Court Circular.

He isn't part of the 'constitutional' set-up and so he really can't be part of the conversation. Only when he is actually the monarch can he have a say in any sort of official manner.

The Prince of Wales is officially a member of the Privy Council. I wonder if he ever attends Privy Council meetings with the Queen and government ministers. Does anybody know ?

[Osipi]

The Duchess of Cornwall is also a member of the Privy Council as is the Duke of Edinburgh. As far as who attends the meetings, I have *no* idea. There's a lot of people listed as being on the Privy Council.

[Rudolph]

Significant difference is UK Sovereign, unlike European monarchs, was anointed #AbdicationNotAnOption. Shakespeare puts it best when Richard II says “Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm from an anointed King”

Via Alastair Bruce Twitter

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The Prince of Wales is officially a member of the Privy Council. I wonder if he ever attends Privy Council meetings with the Queen and government ministers. Does anybody know ?

The only time he is ever listed as attending the Privy Council (and all those who do attend are listed) is when he acts as a Counsellor of State and thus, along with the other CoS of the day, chairs the meeting. When CoSs operate they do so in pairs.

I have just finished my analysis of 1997, which I started in April so you can see it takes awhile. During that year Charles and Andrew attended one Privy Council meeting and otherwise their role was in receiving incoming or outgoing Ambassadors/High Commissioners. Charles did 3 events, Andrew 4 and Edward 1 making 8 in total. With two at a time there were actually four events during the month or so the Queen was absent (two weeks or so in Canada and again two weeks or so to Pakistan and India).

Originally Posted by Osipi

The Duchess of Cornwall is also a member of the Privy Council as is the Duke of Edinburgh. As far as who attends the meetings, I have *no* idea. There's a lot of people listed as being on the Privy Council.

There are over 700 members of the Privy Council but usually about 4 - 5 attend although it can be as few as 3. The CC lists all those who attend each meeting.

[Mbruno]

The Daily Mail is reporting that the Queen plans to step down for Prince Charles to take over as Regent within 18 months from now. No official confirmation yet.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art....html#comments


It is important to stress that, under the Regency Acts, in order for a regency to be put in place, a declaration has to be made to the Privy Council that the Queen is incapable of reigning. Such declaration needs a specific reason, which has to be backed by evidence, and must be signed by at least 3 of the following : Prince Philip, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, or the Master of the Rolls.


I also find it unlikely that a decision like that would be announced in the middle of a general election campaign and before a new PM takes over. That makes the DM report doubtiful in my opinion.

[Osipi]

I sincerely doubt this story too because of the reasons pointed out. It is possible though that the Queen could announce that she no longer will be doing the whole slew of public appearances that she has kept up with until the present day and that her family (especially Charles) will be stepping in for her. She may announce that she'll be in permanent residence at Windsor Castle from here and out and that the events at BP, such as investitures, will be carried out by Charles and other family members. Things like this are to be expected with a Queen that is approaching her 94th birthday in 2020.

However, I believe that she will continue to do everything that only the Queen, as monarch, can do until it becomes impossible for her to do so. The red boxes kind of things that require her attention. If anyone deserves to take things at a slower pace and delegate the majority of things, its Queen Elizabeth II. After almost 68 years on the throne with unwavering dedication and always mindful of duty, she deserves to smell the roses (or more appropriately for her, the smell of the stables) at this stage in her life.

IMO, Delegating, yes. Regency, no.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I sincerely doubt this story too because of the reasons pointed out. It is possible though that the Queen could announce that she no longer will be doing the whole slew of public appearances that she has kept up with until the present day and that her family (especially Charles) will be stepping in for her. She may announce that she'll be in permanent residence at Windsor Castle from here and out and that the events at BP, such as investitures, will be carried out by Charles and other family members. Things like this are to be expected with a Queen that is approaching her 94th birthday in 2020.

However, I believe that she will continue to do everything that only the Queen, as monarch, can do until it becomes impossible for her to do so. The red boxes kind of things that require her attention. If anyone deserves to take things at a slower pace and delegate the majority of things, its Queen Elizabeth II. After almost 68 years on the throne with unwavering dedication and always mindful of duty, she deserves to smell the roses (or more appropriately for her, the smell of the stables) at this stage in her life.

IMO, Delegating, yes. Regency, no.

I agree with all of this. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail if it said the sun will rise tomorrow morning

What would be an interesting issue arising from any hypothetical regency caused by health issues would be the impact on those realms with governors general.
No regent in the UK has any constitutional role whatsoever in these realms. I'm not sure how a governor general would be appointed in this scenario.

Maybe one our Canadian or Antipodean cousins knows the answer.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Durham

I agree with all of this. I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail if it said the sun will rise tomorrow morning

What would be an interesting issue arising from any hypothetical regency caused by health issues would be the impact on those realms with governors general.
No regent in the UK has any constitutional role whatsoever in these realms. I'm not sure how a governor general would be appointed in this scenario.

Maybe one our Canadian or Antipodean cousins knows the answer.

I am not from Canada, but the Canadian situation was discussed in this forum before.


1. The Regency Acts do not extend to Canada, so Prince Charles would not be Regent in or over Canada.



2. In the event of a regency, the Governor General would continue to exercise all of the Sovereign's powers and prerogatives in Canada in accordance with the Letters Patent, 1947 signed by King George VI.


3. If the Governor General became incapacitated or stepped down during the Regency, the Letter Patents apparently determine that he be replaced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, so there is no need to appoint a new Governor General.

. And We do hereby declare Our pleasure to be that, in the event of the death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Governor General out of Canada, all and every the powers and authorities herein granted to him shall, until Our further pleasure is signified therein, be vested in Our Chief Justice for the time being of Canada, (hereinafter called Our Chief Justice) or, in the case of the death, incapacity, removal, or absence of Our Chief Justice, then in the Senior Judge for the time being of the Supreme Court of Canada, then residing in Canada and not being under incapacity; such Chief Justice or Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, while the said powers and authorities are vested in him, to be known as Our Administrator.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I am not from Canada, but the Canadian situation was discussed in this forum before.


1. The Regency Acts do not extend to Canada, so Prince Charles would not be Regent in or over Canada.



2. In the event of a regency, the Governor General would continue to exercise all of the Sovereign's powers and prerogatives in Canada in accordance with the Letters Patent, 1947 signed by King George VI.


3. If the Governor General became incapacitated or stepped down during the Regency, the Letter Patents apparently determine that he be replaced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, so there is no need to appoint a new Governor General.

Thank you! That's very interesting.