The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Osipi]

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.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by 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

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).

[HereditaryPrincess]

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.

[Alison H]

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.

[Heavs]

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.

[O-H Anglophile]

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."

[Leopoldine]

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.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

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.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Leopoldine

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.....

[Osipi]

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.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

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:

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.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

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.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

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.

[Jacknch]

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.

[Eskimo]

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.

[Tsarinya]

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.

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen did around 300 engagements last year - the only ones who did more were her children.

[Tsarinya]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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!

[Jacknch]

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!

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Jacknch

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.