The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Denville]

Charles always saw the red boxes... as far as I know. He's been a working royal since he was 30 and hte queen alwasy kept him in the loop - and now of course as she is older, he has takne on more of her duties, just leaving her to do what she can do without getting too tired.

[rominet09]

I don't think she will ever abdicate but she will more and more rely on her family and especially Charles

[Mbruno]

I mantain my previous opinion: abdication is not a practical option due to the legal complexity to implement it (involving all the Commonwealth realms), but a regency looks increasingly likely as the Queen gets increasingly frail.

A regency in the United Kingdom, however, is not automatically extended to some Commonwealth realms like Australia or Canada. That is not a major problem because almost all of the royal powers and prerogatives pertaining to those realms can now be exercised by the respective Governor General alone, except, most notably, the power itself to appoint a new Governor General, which is done by royal commission, and the power to establish new national orders and decorations, which can be exercised exclusively by Letters Patent of the monarch as Fons Honorum. That may create some complications f the regency is prolonged.

[Blog Real]

The Queen needs to rest – there is a way she could retire without abdicating.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1944025.html

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Blog Real

The Queen needs to rest – there is a way she could retire without abdicating.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1944025.html

The Regency Act 1937 says that a regent should perform the royal functions if 'the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions or, for some definite cause, is not available for the performance of those functions. Such determinatiion has to be backed by evidence and must be made by at least three of the following five persons:

1. The wife or husband of the Sovereign (currently deceased, thus not applicable).
2. The Lord Chancellor
3. The Speaker of the House of Commons
4. The Lord Chief Justice of England
5. The Master of the Rolls[

I am comvinced that, at some point, a regency will be inevitable uness the succession is anticipated. I am not sure, however, that we have reached that point yet,

The possible constutional difficulties that a regency would pose for some of the Commonwealth realms lhave been extensiveky discussed in this forum ,and I won't go back to that topic .

Anywy, it seems to be plain comon sense to me that the Queen needs to rest as The Independent argued.

[Osipi]

One thing the Queen cannot do is attend the COP26 as she's been told to rest. She'll do the next best thing. She'll attend by video messaging. It's the next best thing to being there and she can do it from home. I don't see any cause for alarm or calls for retirement and the Regency Act can stay where it has been and continue to collect dust.

I think the worse thing that could happen to HM is that a demand is put out for the Regency Act to come into force. After almost 70 years on the throne and reigning in a near perfect way, to take that away from her and suggest "retirement" or "abdication" would be huge insult and slap to the face. If either of those beasties are to come about, I'd much prefer that it's because it's what she wants.

[Alison H]

Unless you're exceptionally lucky, everyone has to take some sick leave at some point. It's a long way from there to being unable to carry out the role of monarch due to bodily infirmity. I don't think there's any immediate need to start talking about a regency.

[Osipi]

Can you just imagine what goes through the Queen's mind should she happen to come across media or whatever discussing abdication and the Regency Act? To hear people talking about possibly disposing of you when all you have to do is rest a knee (perhaps) at 95 years old is, to me, not conductive to happy, joyful thoughts for her.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Can you just imagine what goes through the Queen's mind should she happen to come across media or whatever discussing abdication and the Regency Act? To hear people talking about possibly disposing of you when all you have to do is rest a knee (perhaps) at 95 years old is, to me, not conductive to happy, joyful thoughts for her.

I guess none of us knows what goes or is going through the Queen's mind. Personally I strongly disagree with the notion that abdication or a regency would mean "disposing" of the Queen and I think recent examples involving even the Emperor of Japan are evidence to the contrary.

In fact, if the Queen at some point comes to the conclusion that she is physically or mentally unable to perform her duties as monarch, she herself might call for a regency to be put in place.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Can you just imagine what goes through the Queen's mind should she happen to come across media or whatever discussing abdication and the Regency Act? To hear people talking about possibly disposing of you when all you have to do is rest a knee (perhaps) at 95 years old is, to me, not conductive to happy, joyful thoughts for her.

Perhaps she calls Cousin Harald in Norway and they laugh about it.

But much like she famously "doesn't notice what others wear", I think she only takes a limited and varied notion of what people say. Especially at this point.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Perhaps she calls Cousin Harald in Norway and they laugh about it.

But much like she famously "doesn't notice what others wear", I think she only takes a limited and varied notion of what people say. Especially at this point.

On the contrary, I think the Queen, like all contemporary European monarchs, pays a lot of attention to public opinion and the Royal Family's public image. After all, her family's future depends on it.

Monarchies, in the age of democracy, only survive as long as the people support them. It may not be trivial to abolish them by the normal constitutional route, but it is possible to do it if there is enough political and popular support to do so. Luckily, in Europe at least, abolishing the monarchy is not a priority for most mainstream political parties and many politicians even have a vested interest in keeping it as they hold more power under a ceremonial monarch than they would otherwise have in an uncertain future republic.

[Duc_et_Pair]

To answer the question of this thread: would the Queen consider an abdication?

An abdication makes no/little sense as we are in the extra time of the Queen's recordbreaking reign. Sooner or later Prince Charles will take over the reins, as Prince of Wales or as Prince Regent.

[King of the Jungle]

There are concrete plans and structures set in place should the Queen become cronically and very seriously ill.
The Monarchy is in good hands. One benefit of having a working British Royal Family is that many people are qualified to carry the burden of responsibility.

The Queen should rest up and take care. The dear lady is deserving of time off for illness like any other worker.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

On the contrary, I think the Queen, like all contemporary European monarchs, pays a lot of attention to public opinion and the Royal Family's public image. After all, her family's future depends on it.

Monarchies, in the age of democracy, only survive as long as the people support them. It may not be trivial to abolish them by the normal constitutional route, but it is possible to do it if there is enough political and popular support to do so. Luckily, in Europe at least, abolishing the monarchy is not a priority for most mainstream political parties and many politicians even have a vested interest in keeping it as they hold more power under a ceremonial monarch than they would otherwise have in an uncertain future republic.

I hardly said "she takes no notice whatsoever of public opinion", but I'm sure even you'd agree she doesn't run her life or make her plans by the vagaries of what people in the street, usually influenced by one form of media or another, say today. Because if it doesn't change tomorrow, it almost certainly will next month.

Living your life entirely according to the whims of the public is also a recipe for stupidity.

[Moonmaiden23]

HMQ vowed as a young woman succeeding her father George VI that she would serve Britain and the Commonwealth her entire life "whether it be long or short".

But I believe it feasible for Elizabeth II to continue to fulfill that vow under retirement or during a Regency of the Prince of Wales.

She is globally recognized and respected. No one is suggesting that she be put out to pasture as a condition of retirement. She could still be effective behind the scenes.

[Iluvbertie]

The question that I often ask is 'is she serving Britain and the Commonwealth' best by hanging on and setting up a series of 'old monarchs'? Would she have done better service by retiring and allowing Charles to take over and also to retire at a suitable age so that the monarchs are always able to carry on all the duties e.g. the Queen hasn't been able to go overseas for years and especially to the father realms.

I do think that having an old Charles succeed will see a number of realms become republics - simply because he is seen as 'old', 'out of date' 'too political' and 'he hurt Diana'. If he then reigns until his death and he lives as long as The Queen he will have a reign, as an old man, of 22 years meaning William will also be close to or past the British retirement age when he succeeds and George will already be in his mid-late 30s when he becomes heir apparent and probably also not succeed until his late 60s.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but I do wonder if she would have been a better servant of the country and Commonwealth by retiring at 75 and letting Charles have his 22/25 years before handing over to William?

[CyrilVladisla]

In which year was there a first mentioning of the abdication of Queen Elizabeth II?

[rominet09]

I really think she will continue till the end, if she had wanted to abdicate, she wouldn't have waited till 95 and now a widow.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

In which year was there a first mentioning of the abdication of Queen Elizabeth II?

I remember it being discussed in 1977 during the Silver Jubilee.

It was certainly mentioned after Charles and Diana were married at some point, with Diana reportedly upset when she was told that the Queen had no intention of ever abdicating and that she would have to wait her turn to be Queen.

It has been raised regularly at major milestones ever since.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

HMQ vowed as a young woman succeeding her father George VI that she would serve Britain and the Commonwealth her entire life "whether it be long or short".

But I believe it feasible for Elizabeth II to continue to fulfill that vow under retirement or during a Regency of the Prince of Wales.

She is globally recognized and respected. No one is suggesting that she be put out to pasture as a condition of retirement. She could still be effective behind the scenes.

That "vow" often is often misinterpreted as being Queen for all her life, unable to abdicate.

The young Princess Elizabeth said these words in a speech for her 21st birthday. She was still a Princess, she was not married to Philip, the kingship was years away, her two eldest children were not born even.

The Princess just worded a dedication of her service to the nation.