The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1321  
Old 10-31-2021, 08:21 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,578
Given that HMQ has such a strong faith and she holds fast to her sacred coronation vows, I presume she thinks that God will decide when her reign has ended. I honestly don't think it's a choice she's ever considered is hers to make.
  #1322  
Old 10-31-2021, 08:46 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Given that HMQ has such a strong faith and she holds fast to her sacred coronation vows, I presume she thinks that God will decide when her reign has ended. I honestly don't think it's a choice she's ever considered is hers to make.
No any of her "sacred coronation vows" is about to reign forver and ever.

1.
Will you govern all your people according to their respective laws and customs?

The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."

2.
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

The Queen: "I will."

3. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

The Queen: "All this I promise to do."

Nowhere she promised to remain Queen until her last breath.

Link: https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953
  #1323  
Old 10-31-2021, 10:57 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
She didn't have to promise, per se. Its implied that one is queen or king till one's last breath. Unless something intervenes and causes one to give up on the commitmennt.
  #1324  
Old 10-31-2021, 11:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
No any of her "sacred coronation vows" is about to reign forver and ever.

1.
Will you govern all your people according to their respective laws and customs?

The Queen: "I solemnly promise so to do."

2.
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

The Queen: "I will."

3. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?

The Queen: "All this I promise to do."

Nowhere she promised to remain Queen until her last breath.

Link: https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953
Exactly. And a regency BTW would not prevent her from being the Queen until "her last breath". I don't see how it would be incompatible with any of the Queen's vows, Besides, if she truly holds on to her vows, I would argue it is her duty to call for a regency if she becomes incapacitated or unable to fulfill her royal duties.
  #1325  
Old 10-31-2021, 11:33 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
She didn't have to promise, per se. Its implied that one is queen or king till one's last breath. Unless something intervenes and causes one to give up on the commitmennt.
Archbishops of Canterbury make a similar vow, as a Coronation is very much a copy of the Intronisation Mass of Popes and (Arch-) bishops. All solemnly swear to be execute their high office with respect to laws, rights and traditions. Yet seldom an Archbishop or bishop dies in office, they all offer their resignation past a certain age.

This just to counter that the Queen can not abdicate because -A- as Princess she made a "vow" on her 21st birthday and -B- she made a "vow" during the Coronation.

Neither A nor B are true. Nothing stops the Queen to abdicate to her very own will and pleasure. That she does not, speaks volumes about her dedication and duty, but the point is that nowhere she is "bound" to stay or she would "break a sacred vow" or something like that.
  #1326  
Old 10-31-2021, 02:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
She didn't have to promise, per se. Its implied that one is queen or king till one's last breath.
Yes I agree. That's always been the settled opinion in Britain.

In addition the Archbishop of Canterbury says :

"As kings, priests, and prophets were anointed, and as Solomon was anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet so be thou, anointed, blessed, and consecrated Queen over the peoples whom the Lord thy God has given thee to rule and govern.”

The Queen no doubt believes literally that God chose her for this calling & she sees it as a Christian duty to live up to those words.

Besides I don’t see that there is any reason for a monarch to abdicate unless they really want to. Age is not important.

There are only a few (albeit important) specific duties that the sovereign has to undertake as a constitutional monarch - to give assent to parliamentary bills, to appoint the PM & to dissolve & prorogue parliament. That can all be done sat at home. Or a regent can be appointed by due process to do all this instead.

Everything else we’ve come to associate with what the monarch does day to day is just tradition & custom which can be done by others or not done at all.
  #1327  
Old 10-31-2021, 07:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,036
She made the 'serve all my days' vow on her 21st birthday in South Africa.
  #1328  
Old 10-31-2021, 08:08 PM
Osipi's Avatar
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 Iluvbertie View Post
She made the 'serve all my days' vow on her 21st birthday in South Africa.
No matter how you slice it, one thing has stood fast throughout the Queen's reign and that is when she says something, it's said with conviction and sincerity. How often since that 21st birthday speech have her words come to mind in so many different ways? They've stood the test of time and reflective of the Queen's thoughts about her life in relation to her duties and her responsibilities to Crown and Country.

Her words at that time may not be termed a "sacred oath" or an unescapable promise but she meant what she said at that time and it's been reflected on still 74 years later. That, in and of itself, means something to me.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1329  
Old 10-31-2021, 08:47 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 10,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
Iluvbertie, I like how you mentioned: "she (Princess Diana) would have to wait her turn to be Queen."
Obviously Princess Diana knew she would be Queen Consort. She would not be Queen Regnant like her mother-in-law.
  #1330  
Old 11-01-2021, 02:05 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 871
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't The Independent a left-leaning publication that supports abolition of the monarchy/a republic? I know The Guardian does but I thought The Independent holds a similar position.

If so, why is anyone giving their call for a Regency a day's worth of air?
  #1331  
Old 11-01-2021, 02:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,036
Because left-leaning or not a Regency will continue to be on the agenda as the Queen's health deteriorates. She already can't do all the job entails and that will only get worse over the next 5 - 10 years until she finally dies and we have an 80+ year old man become King, probably needing a Regency himself within before his reign ends.
  #1332  
Old 11-01-2021, 05:48 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She made the 'serve all my days' vow on her 21st birthday in South Africa.

That "serve all my days" has nothing to do with the kingship as it was spoken by a Princess Elizabeth on her 21st birthday. We only need to look to her husband: no one can deny that the late Duke of Edinburgh was an epitome of duty and service. He litterally served all his days too.
  #1333  
Old 11-01-2021, 05:52 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't The Independent a left-leaning publication that supports abolition of the monarchy/a republic? I know The Guardian does but I thought The Independent holds a similar position.

If so, why is anyone giving their call for a Regency a day's worth of air?

Well, to be fair, with all love and admiration one can feel for Elizabeth, the objective question can be turned around: apparently the kingship is of such an unbearable lightness that even a someone, nearly rounding a century, can fulfill that office?


There is nothing dishonourable to review a regency giving the visible fragility of the head of state, even from The Guardian and The Independent, both no boulevard rags and indeed not the most royalist by nature.
  #1334  
Old 11-01-2021, 07:23 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,271
There hasn't really been any talk of a Regency, and I think the Queen would be very upset if there were. However, it's been pointed out that something really needs to be done about the counsellors of state. Harry and Andrew are both effectively out of the royal picture now, so, if either Charles or William should be away - which Charles soon will be, on the visit to the Middle East - that only leaves one person. Harry and Andrew really need to be replaced, maybe by Edward, maybe by Beatrice and or Eugenie, or Camilla's also been mentioned. It's supposed to be the 4 people, over 21, highest in the line of succession, but things are different now.
  #1335  
Old 11-01-2021, 08:35 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Posts: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.

.
Re Diana, I think that's incredibly unlikely. Diana was an Earl's daughter and raised around royal circles. She'd have known that there's no tradition of abdication in the BRF.
  #1336  
Old 11-01-2021, 08:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
There hasn't really been any talk of a Regency, and I think the Queen would be very upset if there were. However, it's been pointed out that something really needs to be done about the counsellors of state. Harry and Andrew are both effectively out of the royal picture now, so, if either Charles or William should be away - which Charles soon will be, on the visit to the Middle East - that only leaves one person. Harry and Andrew really need to be replaced, maybe by Edward, maybe by Beatrice and or Eugenie, or Camilla's also been mentioned. It's supposed to be the 4 people, over 21, highest in the line of succession, but things are different now.
It was announced, in 2019, when Andrew stepped down that he would continue to serve as a Counsellor of State.

It would take legislation to change the current set up - even adding Camilla before she is the consort of the monarch.

There is no reason to go back to Edward as there are two ahead of him in the line of succession who aren't Harry or Andrew.

Counsellors-of-State don't do much - they meet incoming or outgoing Ambassadors/High Commissioners as well as chair the monthly Privy Council meeting. They don't meet with the Prime Minister and they only get the summary of the red boxes that they get anyway.

On a very rare occasion they may be called upon to dissolve parliament and issue the writs for a new election.
  #1337  
Old 11-01-2021, 10:08 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Because left-leaning or not a Regency will continue to be on the agenda as the Queen's health deteriorates. She already can't do all the job entails and that will only get worse over the next 5 - 10 years until she finally dies and we have an 80+ year old man become King, probably needing a Regency himself within before his reign ends.
You summarized well the oddity of the circumstances, e.g. King Charles perhaps requiring a regency too before the end of his reign. Unlike his mother, I think he would abdicate in such scenario, but I can't tell the future.

Honestly, it is cruel and inhumane to submit a 95-year-old to the Queen's current workload. Even the Duke of Edinburgh retired when he turned 95. Besides, the possibility of setting up a regency exists in law for a specific reason: to guarantee that the duties of Head of State are fulfilled by a fully capable person. I am not saying that Queen Elizabeth is incapable now, but she has been missing important parts of her job (she doesn't travel overseas anymore for example) and it will most likely get worse in the coming years. That should at least start a conversation as Americans say, and not be a taboo based on religion or similar beliefs.
  #1338  
Old 11-01-2021, 10:36 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
You summarized well the oddity of the circumstances, e.g. King Charles perhaps requiring a regency too before the end of his reign. Unlike his mother, I I think he would abdicate in such scenario, but I can't tell the future.

Honestly, it is cruel and inhumane to submit a 95-year-old to the Queen's current workload. Even the Duke of Edinburgh retired when he turned 95. Besides, the possibility of setting up a regency exists in law for a specific reason: to guarantee that the duties of Head of State are fullfilled by a fully capable person. I am not saying that Queen Elizabeth is incapable now, but she has been missing important parts of her job (she doesn't travel overseas anymore for example) and it will most likely get worse in coming years. That should at least start a conversation as Americans say, and not be a taboo based on religion or similar beliefs.
how is it cruel and inhumane for the queen to do what she wants to do? I think that its very obvious that she would hate to be retired, and even if she IS less strong than she used to be, she has the support of her family who can help with some of her duties.
  #1339  
Old 11-01-2021, 11:05 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
how is it cruel and inhumane for the queen to do what she wants to do? I think that its very obvious that she would hate to be retired, and even if she IS less strong than she used to be, she has the support of her family who can help with some of her duties.

Royalist Britons will see it through warmly rose-tinted Elizabethan glasses but for people more on a distance it shows that apparently being Sovereign of the United Kingdom and all those Realms seems to be the easiest job ever: even a frail 95-years old can do this Office-of-State.

While most of us will be sent to the exit door between 60 and 67 years of age. The Queen is already 30-35 years past general retirement age ...

( )


About "God-given-kingships" (which would possibly bar the Queen from stepping down): The Emperor of Japan even "concubines" with Amaterasu (the celestial Sun Goddess from whom the Japanese imperial family claims descent), closer to a deity seems impossible. Even the Emperor of Japan signals that it is time to make place for younger, stronger, hands to take over the imperial reins.
  #1340  
Old 11-01-2021, 11:58 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Royalist Britons will see it through warmly rose-tinted Elizabethan glasses but for people more on a distance it shows that apparently being Sovereign of the United Kingdom and all those Realms seems to be the easiest job ever: even a frail 95-years old can do this Office-of-State.

While most of us will be sent to the exit door between 60 and 67 years of age. The Queen is already 30-35 years past general retirement age ...

( )


About "God-given-kingships" (which would possibly bar the Queen from stepping down): The Emperor of Japan even "concubines" with Amaterasu (the celestial Sun Goddess from whom the Japanese imperial family claims descent), closer to a deity seems impossible. Even the Emperor of Japan signals that it is time to make place for younger, stronger, hands to take over the imperial reins.
I dont think that it matters what happensin Japan, if the British public wanted the queen to step down, it might be considered. Or if she felt it was the right thing to do, she would do it. but she does not wnat to give up, and the public dont want it
Closed Thread

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 04:38 PM




Popular Tags
abdullah ii africa albert prince consort all tags america arcadie arcadie claret austria caribbean caroline charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako espana garsenda genealogy grace kelly grimaldi harry history identifying india introduction jewels jordan royal family king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco prince christian princess of orange queen queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth queen ena of spain queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials royal wedding silk spanish history state visit switzerland tiaras visit wine glass woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises