The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Denville

There is nothing IMO in anointing to mean that when someone feels they can not longer do their duties properly as monarch from being released from the obligations. And as people get to live much longer, it might mean you have a 100 year old king and an 75 year old heir. Its not feasible to keep heirs waiting till they are grandparents and well past retirement age and for monarchs to keep on till they die at 95.

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.

[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?

[Denville]

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....

[Denville]

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?

[Durham]

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.

[Durham]

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?

[Osipi]

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.

[Prinsara]

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.

[Betsypaige]

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.

[muriel]

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.

[Durham]

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.