The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Heavs]

Does it matter what other countries do? Other royal families are entitled to do what they feel is best but it has no bearing on what HM does or doesn't do. She's well aware that monarchs younger than she is have been handing the "reigns" over to their heirs for decades now but it hasn't seemed to change her mind of her job being until death.

It's clear the Queen doesn't wish to abdicate or otherwise retire and the British public don't want her to either, (among those that care what happens with the royals anyway). To that end her son and other family will take on more and more day to day jobs but she'll still do what she can when she can.

Just 6 weeks ago the palace was briefing that HM was desperate to get out and about - and that she had planned it to be her busiest autumn in a decade. Not that anyone was forcing her. That seems to have been too ambitious but I don't think calling it "cruel and unusual" is in correct when by all accounts it's her own wish to carry on. Even now all the emphasis is on her wanting to do Remembrance etc.

*If* she did say she wishes to abdicate or have a formal regency I think the public would understand and be supportive but that's not part of the discussion in the UK right now.

[Denville]

Im sure if the queen did feel that it was right to have a regency or to abidcate the British public would be Ok with it. They dont take nearly so much notice of the RF as a small handful of royal watchers do, but they would be fine if the queen wanted to step down and hand over to Charles... But she clearly doesn't.. and since there are still quite a few family members doing the supporting royals job, she can do what she can/wants to do, and have help from relatives.. which isn't so easy perhaps in more limited RFs. Possibly, in years to come William will step down when he is 65 or so, but he's from a very differrent generation and upbringing and when he is POW or King the number of working royals will have become more limited...

[Osipi]

Actually, I'm seeing that the way things are now is actually a perfect way to do it. Without abdication or a regency, what we're seeing is an united front put out by the entire family as "Team Windsor" in support of the monarch wherever they're needed. This also allows Charles to step in for his mother more and more and it's actively seen as a soft transition between monarch to monarch in a slow, progressive way. The more the family steps up, the easier the Queen can take things slower when she wants to.

I also believe that HM will is astute and intelligent enough to know when she can no longer do what is required of her and would actively ask for a regency to be formalized. She doesn't take her job lightly and if a regency, to her, would mean that the job is done the way it's supposed to be done, then she'll do what is best for the monarchy. She's definitely not there yet though by any means.

[Alison H]

No-one would dream of treating the Queen in a cruel or inhumane way. It has always been clear that she chooses to keep working. I can't imagine that anyone would object if, at her age, she chose not to do so. There's no constitutional requirement for a monarch to go on overseas tours, so the fact that she no longer undertakes those doesn't affect her position. What would be cruel would be if she thought everyone was trying to push her into abdicating when she didn't want to.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Alison H

No-one would dream of treating the Queen in a cruel or inhumane way. It has always been clear that she chooses to keep working. I can't imagine that anyone would object if, at her age, she chose not to do so. There's no constitutional requirement for a monarch to go on overseas tours, so the fact that she no longer undertakes those doesn't affect her position. What would be cruel would be if she thought everyone was trying to push her into abdicating when she didn't want to.

I see. It is cruel to say to a 95 years old but not to the millions who have to leave at 65 because "that is the retirement age, period".

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I see. It is cruel to say to a 95 years old but not to the millions who have to leave at 65 because "that is the retirement age, period".

I think most people, by the time they've reached 65, are ready to ride off into the sunset and their retirement years. Here in the US, people mostly look at retirement at the age where they can reap the full benefits of Social Security, receive Medicare and just enjoy life. It's not a punishment to retire.

When Congress first passed the ADEA, it protected only workers between the ages of 40 and 65. Once an employee reached the age of 65, he or she could be forced to retire. ... As a result, today it is illegal for employers to adopt a mandatory retirement age.

[Durham]

What does a constitutional monarch actually have to do once you strip back everything superfluous? I'd say not a lot really. It's a position not a job. What did Victoria do during her years of withdrawal from public life?

A monarch can be as lazy or as industrious as they choose really.

Besides, the solemn dignity that accompanies the demise of the the crown through death is symbolic of the an end & a rebirth. Winter & spring. Without it I'd argue that monarchy doesn't make much sense.

[Alison H]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I see. It is cruel to say to a 95 years old but not to the millions who have to leave at 65 because "that is the retirement age, period".

No-one has to leave their job at 65 in the UK. It's illegal to try to make them do so. Under the Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations, if you really want the legal details. Nobody is being "cruel" to anyone. Not here, anyway: I don't know what the rules about mandatory retirement are everywhere else.


Anyway, she clearly doesn't want to retire. No-one would have thought anything negative if she hadn't recorded a video for the COP26 summit, when Charles, Camilla, William and Kate are all there, and everyone knows that she's not feeling 100%, but she chose to do so because she obviously wants to be involved. That's her choice.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Alison H

No-one has to leave their job at 65 in the UK. It's illegal to try to make them do so. Under the Employment Equality (Repeal of Retirement Age Provisions) Regulations, if you really want the legal details. Nobody is being "cruel" to anyone. Not here, anyway: I don't know what the rules about mandatory retirement are everywhere else.


Anyway, she clearly doesn't want to retire. No-one would have thought anything negative if she hadn't recorded a video for the COP26 summit, when Charles, Camilla, William and Kate are all there, and everyone knows that she's not feeling 100%, but she chose to do so because she obviously wants to be involved. That's her choice.

In Australia and Canada, judges for example have a compulsory retirement age. Isn't that the case also in the UK?

In many countries also, public employees in general, including professors in public universities, have compulsory retirement ages, although that is not the case e.g. in US as Osipi said.

The question here is not compulsory retirement though, but plain common sense. A regency is not an offensive proposition and should not be a taboo when the Head of State is 95 and facing increasing limitations. The alternative of increasingly delegating royal functions to other family members while pretending that there is still a single functioning Head of State is unreasonable.

[CyrilVladisla]

Originally Posted by Denville

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

Actually how much does the opinion of the British public get taken into account?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

In Australia and Canada, judges for example have a compulsory retirement age. Isn't that the case also in the UK?

In many countries also, public employees in general, including professors in public universities, have compulsory retirement ages, although that is not the case e.g. in US as Osipi said.

The question here is not compulsory retirement though, but plain common sense. A regency is not an offensive proposition and should not be a taboo when the Head of State is 95 and facing increasing limitations. The alternative of increasingly delegating royal functions to other family members while pretending that there is still a single functioning Head of State is unreasonable.

That is a true observation. The position of the head of state is not mandated by a democratic process but by birthright. But soit, so be it. But now duties of said head of state are even delegated to family.


Because we all love and admire Queen Elizabeth so much, it is okay. But looking at the topic with a little bit of distance show the anomalies in the situation.

[lucien]

As to the original question?NO,never!

[Durham]

If The Queen wants to have a regency in the UK then there wouldn't be any opposition. She will still remain the (grand)mother of the nation in the affections of her people & can appear as much or as little as she chooses.

In fact there doesn't even have to be a regency. Parliament can enact legislation giving a semi-regent certain limited powers only. The barest minimum. A kind of regency lite as it were.

[xenobia]

I have a few questions about how Counsellors of state are appointed. Is there a thread for that topic? (couldn't find one when I searched).

Can the queen appoint people not in line of succession as Counsellors of state? (Camilla and Cathrine comes to mind). And can she chose to include Anne and Edward as counsellors even if Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of them in the line of succession?

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by xenobia

I have a few questions about how Counsellors of state are appointed. Is there a thread for that topic? (couldn't find one when I searched).

Can the queen appoint people not in line of succession as Counsellors of state? (Camilla and Cathrine comes to mind). And can she chose to include Anne and Edward as counsellors even if Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of them in the line of succession?

That thread is here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...tate-7928.html

[Durham]

From The Guardian:

Nothing new really. Interesting all the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...arles-monarchy

He does talk about the abdication of Queen Beatrix as a positive event & explains his reasoning.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by lucien

As to the original question? NO ,never!

If you had asked me this question last year - even six months ago I would have agreed. Now I think we are heading for an abdication or regency.

I think the Queen is tired and I also think that she feels she is letting people down by not been able to do her duties. Between covid and her illness at the beginning of the year - I think she feels that she is physically no longer fit for the job. The Queen is a big believer in that you need to be seen to be believed.

[Denville]

She has managed to do the job for the past 2 years even when unalbe to go out and mingle.. and she has seemed (while frail) quite bright and chipper, in spite of losing Philip. Unless she really really got ill and bedridden, she's not going to give up.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Durham

From The Guardian:

Nothing new really. Interesting all the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...arles-monarchy

He does talk about the abdication of Queen Beatrix as a positive event & explains his reasoning.

I thought he laid out his case well.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Claire

If you had asked me this question last year - even six months ago I would have agreed. Now I think we are heading for an abdication or regency.

I think the Queen is tired and I also think that she feels she is letting people down by not been able to do her duties. Between covid and her illness at the beginning of the year - I think she feels that she is physically no longer fit for the job. The Queen is a big believer in that you need to be seen to be believed.

I still do not think the Queen will ever abdicate her responsibilities to the monarchy. As long as she can do her red boxes and hold meetings with her PM weekly, she'll continue on. However, I also believe that the Queen may feel that it's her responsibility as monarch to oversee and ensure that the transition between monarchs go as smoothly as possible and that will be her focus. We're already seeing this happen and it's been happening for quite a while now. She's quietly been handing more and more over to Charles and William and she's seeing they're more than ready to step in to continue the workings of the monarchy going forward. She's actively been putting her stamp of approval on Camilla not only being Queen Consort but has recognized her service to the crown over the years.

I can attest to the fact that as we grow older, we do get the sense of things drawing to a close and that we no longer can do what we used to do and start to get our affairs in order so there's no loose ends when our time comes to transition from this life. She's 95 and I'm as old as her reign is and all I can really think is that if I am fortunate to live as long as she has, the way things are going here, I'll most likely be, at 95, drooling in my pudding somewhere and talking to my imaginary dog.

She most likely feels that she will never abdicate her duties to crown and country and it's her role now to ensure that the transition goes smoothly into the next reign. Charles will do whatever is needed to take the load off his mother and allow her to rest and he'll take care of whatever is needed to take the load off of her. The entire "Team Windsor" is involved in this. Thankfully, though, the chaff has been separated from the wheat and what remains is a strong support system both in the workings of the monarchy and as a family.