The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1221  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:37 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,756
Realistically, this all may be solved just in the natural scheme of things. HM may wish to go into a period of mourning if/when Philip passes. Up thread the subject was brought up stating it will happen iin 18 months or so. Its hit me that in 18 months, Philip will be turning 100.

I think it would be natural for the Queen to "retire" out of the public eye to Windsor Castle to mourn and continues to do what she needs to do from there, Charles takes over the day to day "top job" and it all fits into place. No regency, just the Queen out of the public eye.

Makes sense to me.
__________________

__________________
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
  #1222  
Old 11-29-2019, 04:34 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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
I was watching an interview with the historian David Starkey recently in which he referred to the British monarchy as the last sacerdotal monarchy in Europe (the ancient French monarchy had the same status apparently). I have to confess I had never heard the word before so I had to look it up.

Since the sovereign is literally set aside & consecrated by priests I'm not sure how anyone can go through the anointing part of the coronation service & then contemplate abdicating.

If the future is to be abdication the modern European way I can't see how future British monarchs can be anointed. They don't have to be of course but it would break a tradition going back a thousand years (in England).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1223  
Old 11-29-2019, 06:02 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
Not only did HM make a vow to serve the country and the Commonwealth for her whole life; the BRF has had a bit of a rocky history with abdication which is another reason as to why HM most likely won't abdicate. I can understand the regency story though, especially now that HM is getting older - there'll be more of a need to watch her health - and Prince Philip has already retired from engagements.
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
Reply With Quote
  #1224  
Old 11-29-2019, 06:34 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,469
I don't think she'd ever abdicate, and I don't think we'll see a full-blown Regency unless it were to become necessary due to illness, but I think we'll see Prince Charles taking on a bigger role. Prince William too - we've already seen him go on tours of some quite politically sensitive areas, which is a huge responsibility.


The UK won't become a republic, but some of the other Commonwealth countries may have a rethink once the Queen's reign is over.


This is all unprecedented. Most of the Commonwealth countries, apart from the former Dominions, which have the Queen as head of state have only become independent during her reign, so there's never been a succession issue before. And no previous monarch has lived into their 90s. So there's not really any pattern to follow.
Reply With Quote
  #1225  
Old 11-29-2019, 06:50 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,816
I think there are very personal reasons why she won't officially abdicate one of which is her uncle and all that entailed and the other is her own personal oaths.

I don't think it's too likely we'll ever get a formal regency but probably/possibly a de facto one if for example she lives as long as her mother.

The last article I read about Charles's eventual coronation was that he wanted it to be religiously similar to his mother's but with other faith leaders also in attendance to give their blessings. I don't know how true that was but it's already been/being planned for whenever it takes place.

I suspect some of the 16 realms will probably use the natural break to become republics but not all of them. Commonwealth the same and who knows what might happen/have happened with Scotland.
Reply With Quote
  #1226  
Old 12-05-2019, 04:08 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
https://www.yahoo.com/news/royals-re...191000029.html

No, Queen Elizabeth doesn't have any plans to retire.

"In response to renewed speculation that Her Majesty, 93, is planning on retiring in the next several years to make way for her son, Prince Charles, a spokesperson for the Prince of Wales' office released a rare statement shooting down the rumors.

"There are no plans for any change in arrangements at the age of 95 -- or any other age,” the spokesman declared in a statement released to People."
Reply With Quote
  #1227  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:48 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 864
Here's a concern of mine, as a fervent supporter of Her Majesty.

I've noticed two articles in British paywall papers the last few days where the columnist is calling for QEII to abdicate or let PoW be regent. The comments were related to the Sussex news. One of the writers opined that the fact Harry skipped over Charles to go straight to the top to get his issues resolved made it clear that HM had to go and let Charles be King now. This slant seems to indicate some influence from Clarence House.

Another writer wanted to shunt aside the Queen because "the monarchy is bloated" and HM stepping aside would help it be more streamlined. Again, just my opinion, but it seems like more Clarence House input.

I think that is practically traitorous if that talk is being promoted under the aegis of the BRF.
Reply With Quote
  #1228  
Old 01-19-2020, 08:51 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Here's a concern of mine, as a fervent supporter of Her Majesty.

I've noticed two articles in British paywall papers the last few days where the columnist is calling for QEII to abdicate or let PoW be regent. The comments were related to the Sussex news. One of the writers opined that the fact Harry skipped over Charles to go straight to the top to get his issues resolved made it clear that HM had to go and let Charles be King now. This slant seems to indicate some influence from Clarence House.

Another writer wanted to shunt aside the Queen because "the monarchy is bloated" and HM stepping aside would help it be more streamlined. Again, just my opinion, but it seems like more Clarence House input.

I think that is practically traitorous if that talk is being promoted under the aegis of the BRF.
Sounds like ageism to me.
Reply With Quote
  #1229  
Old 01-19-2020, 09:52 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Here's a concern of mine, as a fervent supporter of Her Majesty.

I've noticed two articles in British paywall papers the last few days where the columnist is calling for QEII to abdicate or let PoW be regent. The comments were related to the Sussex news. One of the writers opined that the fact Harry skipped over Charles to go straight to the top to get his issues resolved made it clear that HM had to go and let Charles be King now. This slant seems to indicate some influence from Clarence House.

Another writer wanted to shunt aside the Queen because "the monarchy is bloated" and HM stepping aside would help it be more streamlined. Again, just my opinion, but it seems like more Clarence House input.

I think that is practically traitorous if that talk is being promoted under the aegis of the BRF.
Both seem ridiculous to me sorry.

Of course he skipped over his father. The queen is head of the family and the decision is hers. How is this a reason for her to abdicate??? They think the queen is usurping his place as dad??

Losing one person is not going to relieve so called bloating. Harry and Meghan have already lessened the bloat. If they were really desperate then the Gloucester’s and Kent’s could be retired off. Not the queen.

The queen abdicating wouldn’t save any money. Sovereigns grant stays the same and she would still need security.

Just when I think some articles can’t get more stupid.....
Reply With Quote
  #1230  
Old 01-19-2020, 11:16 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
Actually, the final decision in the Sussex matter would be made by the Queen. Its not because she's the head of the family but rather because she is "The Boss", "The CEO" "The Top Banana" of the family "Firm". Nothing happens in the "Firm" without the Queen's knowledge or the Queen's permission.

As the Veep and Harry's father and also the future "Boss", the Queen asked Charles to handle the situation. As it wasn't being handled (I presume) in a timely manner, Harry then decided to go to the top to sort things out.

I think all of us agree that there are times when, in trying to resolve things, we're going to be saying "let me talk to your manager" and go up the chain of command to get resolutions. Its happened many times here.

HM, The Queen is the master of diplomacy. I think she's handled this brilliantly. If being diplomatic and able to resolve an internal problem in the "Firm" doable for both sides is a call for abdication, then I think a lot of CEOs would be put out to pasture. She did what she felt was best for her monarchy and the integrity of the "Firm" with balancing the wants and needs of her grandson and his wife and came to a decision.

I'd really like to think I could be doing that at 93 years old.
__________________
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
  #1231  
Old 01-20-2020, 01:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Sounds like ageism to me.
It does. I read one of the articles and I actually do agree with the thrust of it (I may have read both, actually), because I do believe that Charles being as heavily involved as he is does complicate things. However, HM is hale and hearty, loves her job and is wonderful at it - there’s no reason at all for her to give up any of her powers.

Osipi:

Quote:
Actually, the final decision in the Sussex matter would be made by the Queen. Its not because she's the head of the family but rather because she is "The Boss", "The CEO" "The Top Banana" of the family "Firm". Nothing happens in the "Firm" without the Queen's knowledge or the Queen's permission.

As the Veep and Harry's father and also the future "Boss", the Queen asked Charles to handle the situation. As it wasn't being handled (I presume) in a timely manner, Harry then decided to go to the top to sort things out.
I think Harry ran to his grandmother because he was frustrated by his father not not giving him everything he wanted, or thinking he didn’t understand him, or what have you. It appears that the two have had serious disagreements, and probably he thought he could get farther with his grandmother. Of course ultimately the final decision would be hers, but it would be after serious discussions with Charles and William, who will be the ones primarily living with this arrangement. The end result was not made unilaterally, that was the point of the summit.
Reply With Quote
  #1232  
Old 01-20-2020, 02:39 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
It does. I read one of the articles and I actually do agree with the thrust of it (I may have read both, actually), because I do believe that Charles being as heavily involved as he is does complicate things. However, HM is hale and hearty, loves her job and is wonderful at it - there’s no reason at all for her to give up any of her powers.

Osipi:



I think Harry ran to his grandmother because he was frustrated by his father not not giving him everything he wanted, or thinking he didn’t understand him, or what have you. It appears that the two have had serious disagreements, and probably he thought he could get farther with his grandmother. Of course ultimately the final decision would be hers, but it would be after serious discussions with Charles and William, who will be the ones primarily living with this arrangement. The end result was not made unilaterally, that was the point of the summit.
If stories are true and Charles was an extremely indulgent father, I can see how Harry would be frustrated at all of a sudden being denied. I hope he approached his grandmother because he believes her to be his "boss" and not because of any untoward reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #1233  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:17 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
If stories are true and Charles was an extremely indulgent father, I can see how Harry would be frustrated at all of a sudden being denied. I hope he approached his grandmother because he believes her to be his "boss" and not because of any untoward reasons.
Charles was in such a terrible position. I think most parents who've lost their spouse are hesitant to be too harsh towards their children based on how they've lost one of the two most important people in their lives - and of course, as much as he loves his own father, he probably tried hard not to be as harsh as he saw Philip. Even if he was indulgent, though, it doesn't mean that he spoiled his kids rotten and certainly these recent instances can't be the only times Charles has said "no" to Harry.

It was probably for both reasons - almost like a kid running to his other parent because the one already said no, lol. For someone raised in the BRF, Harry doesn't seem to "get" how this works. Charles (and William for that matter) aren't saying "no" to punish Harry, they're not trying to make him unhappy - this is all about how Monarchy, how it runs, what's best for it, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #1234  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:34 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
We really must move on and back to the actual topic of the thread. Posts were moved over to this thread specifically because the main issue in the originating post No. 1228 related to whether the Queen should or would abdicate in light of recent events. Let's not start dragging other issues into the discussion, which we can talk about in the other thread.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1235  
Old 01-20-2020, 05:51 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 570
If you look for it on twitter and social media, it is mainly Harry and Meghan's fans that are calling for this. I believe this to be the case with the authors of the two articles as well. It seems like they are hurt that their "heroes" did not get everything they want and are lashing out at the Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #1236  
Old 01-20-2020, 06:13 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: The Secret Garden, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
I would say we are in a somewhat regency already. The Queen hardly does any events and seems to rely on Charles and William more and more to take over. I think this works out well for everyone: William starts learning how to cope on his own when he is King, Charles gets more responsibility and the Queen can oversee it whilst also enjoy her time with a more reduced role.
I don’t think she’ll ever abdicate, from everything I’ve read she still views that as a dirty word and the toll it took on her father. Even with the recent events.
Reply With Quote
  #1237  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,216
The Queen did around 300 engagements last year - the only ones who did more were her children.
Reply With Quote
  #1238  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:27 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: The Secret Garden, United Kingdom
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen did around 300 engagements last year - the only ones who did more were her children.
Gosh, really? I honestly feel like she’s becoming a bit less visible, but it could be that other members have gotten more press coverage for various reasons.
Thanks for the heads up!
Reply With Quote
  #1239  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:37 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
Indeed the Queen is still very active and capable in her advancing years. What we have seen though are very gradual and subtle changes where Charles and William have stepped in to do more official events, such as investitures at the Palace or the Remembrance Wreath being laid on the Queen's behalf. I can see this carrying on for a good few years yet, so a regency situation is currently just as unlikely as an abdication!
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #1240  
Old 01-20-2020, 07:39 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
Indeed the Queen is still very active and capable in her advancing years. What we have seen though are very gradual and subtle changes where Charles and William have stepped in to do more official events, such as investitures at the Palace or the Remembrance Wreath being laid on the Queen's behalf. I can see this carrying on for a good few years yet, so a regency situation is currently just as unlikely as an abdication!
Agreed. I think on Remembrance Day, it's physically too difficult for the Queen - I'm sure some other events it's the same thing. I think it's a good arrangement - it gives HM a bit of a break and it allows Charles and William to do the kinds of things they'll be expected to do.
__________________

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
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida taiwan tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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