 |
|

11-01-2020, 01:01 PM
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara
Are you saying if the Duke of Windsor had been through his coronation he would have been stuck/the country would have been stuck with him?
|
Not at all. If he insisted on leaving, there would be nothing that could be done. ANd other anointed monarchs have abdicated....
|

11-01-2020, 01:04 PM
|
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham
But you can't unanoint them (if there is such a word). They can't be unhallowed. Or deconsecrated. Or can they? To me it seems that once done it can't be undone. There can only be one anointed monarch living at any one time.
I agree about the longevity issue. That's what I meant about the logical arguements in favour of abdication. What you say makes perfect sense.
|
Where does it sasy that you can't be an anointed former monarch?
|

11-01-2020, 01:06 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara
Are you saying if the Duke of Windsor had been through his coronation he would have been stuck/the country would have been stuck with him?
|
An interesting question but no I'm not.
He would still have gone of course. The fact that he had been crowned & anointed would have made no difference. It would have made a shocking event even more disturbing.
|

11-01-2020, 01:10 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville
Where does it sasy that you can't be an anointed former monarch?
|
By that token where does it say that we can have two or more? It's a solemn religious occasion after all. Is it not implicit that such an individual should be unique till they die?
|

11-01-2020, 01:28 PM
|
 |
Member - in Memoriam
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 17,267
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara
Are you saying if the Duke of Windsor had been through his coronation he would have been stuck/the country would have been stuck with him?
|
Not at all. The difference between the Duke of Windsor and the Queen when it comes to the coronation oath is that David probably would have been take the oath and mentally just giving lip service to the words. With the Queen, she took the oath because she really believed in what she was saying.
That is the difference between the two people. The monarch that now sits on the throne actually believes and lives by the words she says. That's a rare quality in a world leader these days.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
|

11-01-2020, 01:36 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 3,708
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham
By that token where does it say that we can have two or more? It's a solemn religious occasion after all. Is it not implicit that such an individual should be unique till they die?
|
If Edward VIII had made it to his coronation that's exactly what would have occurred — former and current anointed monarchs. As it stood, it was so difficult (and he was so difficult) that he was forced abroad permanently.
More than 80 years later things are different, but I think the Queen believes that watching anyone else do her work/sacred duty while she still can is probably anathema.
|

11-01-2020, 01:36 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,629
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl
I would agree, one of the reasons they didnt want the Windsors back was because you couldn't have 2 kings.
|
Not really the same thing. Edward would have been acting like a second king because that was his personality - he was deeply jealous of his brother, and he wanted to wield influence. That’s why he kept bugging Bertie until finally he’d had enough.
If a future monarch were to willingly abdicate (not like Edward, who did so because he saw he had no choice), I don’t believe there would be an issue of having 2 kings. There would just be the one - the former king would be in retirement.
That said, I don’t think this will be an issue because I don’t see any future monarchs abdicating.
|

11-01-2020, 01:47 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 12,389
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville
the queen hasn't done foreign travel for a long time now. I can't remember her going anywhere in recent years except the reconciliatory visit to Ireland in I think it was 2011 or so. Foreign tours have gone to Charles and William and Harry, in the past decade.
|
If I am not mistaken, the last foreign trip undertaken by the Queen was in 2015, which was the state visit to Germany.
|

11-01-2020, 02:09 PM
|
Heir Presumptive
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara
If Edward VIII had made it to his coronation that's exactly what would have occurred — former and current anointed monarchs. .
|
Yes indeed & that would have been a unique (abdicating freely) & difficult circumstance. I doubt many would have been happy with such an outcome. Least of all religious Anglicans & the clergy.
If the proposal going forward is for monarchs to abdicate once they reach a certain age or whatever then it would not make religious sense to anoint them. There's no requirement for that to happen. It's just tradition after all.
|

04-09-2021, 04:59 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 10,279
|
|
I think the Queen will never abdicate but she can leave her son, Prince Charles, as regent.
I think the Queen will have fewer official commitments in the future.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
|

04-09-2021, 05:21 PM
|
Commoner
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: München, Germany
Posts: 44
|
|
I think she stays queen but will install a regency. I can't think, that sge still has the same stamina after Philipp is now dead
|

04-09-2021, 06:24 PM
|
Royal Highness
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,648
|
|
I don’t think The Queen wants to abdicate as long as she feels she still has the energy... Working can also be a way to cope with your grief and i’m sure the Royal duties was a big comfort for both Queen Margrethe and Queen Beatrix when their husbands died....It gave them a purpose in life. A meaning to continue.
But ofcourse they wasn’t 95. By that age it can be a huge difference between Friday and Monday...
Though i do expect that we will see Prince Charles replacing her at even more occassions.
|

04-09-2021, 06:52 PM
|
 |
Heir Apparent
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,665
|
|
I don't think the Duke’s death changes anything. If anything we might see her more than we usually do.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
|

04-09-2021, 07:13 PM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,036
|
|
There has been a rumour for some time that she has thought about establishing a regency when she turns 95 - which I never believed but she may decide that would be a good idea as she continues to age. I don't a specific event would see that happen but more a realisation that she can't do the job the way she would like to do it.
|

04-09-2021, 08:06 PM
|
Courtier
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 674
|
|
I don't think she will step down or have a regency.
|

04-09-2021, 08:16 PM
|
Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 9,147
|
|
I can’t see anything happening in that direction until after the Platinum Jubilee celebrations (sadly now without Prince Philip’s presence.) After that she may continue on the path of Charles taking over more of her active duties.
However, I don’t believe there will be a formal regency short of physical and/or mental incapacity, and I do think the Queen will try to carry on (and that includes some engagements) until the very end.
|

04-09-2021, 08:17 PM
|
Nobility
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 321
|
|
I do not think the Queen would ever abdicate. Ever. I don't think the word is in her vocabulary.
I've had my doubts about a regency. Personally, if she were my mother or grandmother, I would want her to have a happy retirement. Obviously, if there was a physical or mental impediment to her work, a regency would occur. But I still think she intends to do her duty unless she physically cannot.
|

04-13-2021, 10:11 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wiltshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,491
|
|
The Queen will never abdicate and the only reason I see her using Charles as Regent were to be if her health declined so much she could not carry out the functions of head of state.
She has always insisted that she has dedicated her whole life to the service and duty of the UK and commonwealth and this won't change now Philip has died
__________________
This is the stuff of fairytales
|

04-18-2021, 07:25 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 10,303
|
|
Actually the Queen and Prince Philip had a sort of plan and by the time she turned 90 she had already firmly placed all overseas trips in Charles hands, and once Philip "retired" she was leaving more and more to him.
Charles I 'think' gets government boxes so she has someone to share the load. Charles traveled around the country and HM stayed closer to home. The advent of Covid 19 has forced her to 'physically' slow down and interestingly enough, she seems to keep up with her engagements via Zoom and is in better health for it. The only unknown is how she will function without Philip to share her life.
Regardless of any reasons we can think of for her to create a Regency it actually isn't possible. A Regency is created when the monarch is either too I'll to function or when they become unable to function due to dementia or Alzheimer's. As to the notion of her abdicating? Impossible! She took an oath for "all her life" and she meant it. She will never break faith with God, let alone her subjects.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
|

04-18-2021, 07:39 AM
|
 |
Imperial Majesty
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 10,279
|
|
The Queen is almost 95 years old, I think that at this point an abdication for all reasons no longer makes sense.
The Queen never contemplated this possibility and will fulfill what she swore at the time of the coronation.
I believe that the Prince of Wales, Prince William, Camilla and Catherine should increase the number of official acts from now on.
__________________
My blogs about monarchies
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
Similar Threads
|
Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
Would They Have Married?
|
auntie |
Royal Chit Chat |
502 |
12-24-2017 04:38 PM |
|
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|