The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1381  
Old 02-16-2022, 06:11 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,128
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1382  
Old 02-16-2022, 11:30 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.
HM takes very seriously that part of her Coronation in which she was anointed. Her interpretation and understanding of this sacrament is that she was set apart by God to serve as Queen. By virtue of her birth, and her father's death, God made her Queen, and God -- and only God -- can remove her as Queen.

She will serve -- as Queen -- until God says otherwise.
  #1383  
Old 02-17-2022, 12:50 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.
I imagine there have been discussions about what would happen if she really became infirm in mind or body but that doesn't seem to be the case yet. She's lived a long reign, it probably has crossed her mind to wonder what it would be like if she could retire to Balmoral or Sandringham like Philip but there are reasons she hasn't.

I can't see what the benefit for the people of the UK and other realms would be if she stepped down. She's not an absolute monarch and nothing essential *not* happening because she's getting older. Her children and grandchildren perform duties like Investitures and she's still meeting with the PM and ambassadors.

There's no appetite in the UK for her to abdicate and no personal need for her to....so she hasn't.

Nor am I sure it would do a potential King Charles a lot of good to come to the throne whilst his mother was still alive instead of in a wave of public sympathy.
  #1384  
Old 02-17-2022, 04:58 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.
im sure she has considered "AM I doing the right thing" But has concluded that she is. If she got very sick and wasn't able to do her boxes or meetings, she might re consider but even then, Charles could take over and leave her to remain as queen..
  #1385  
Old 02-17-2022, 09:26 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,661
I do a see a marked difference in her since Christmas.

When you compare Christmas message 2020, Philips funeral 2021, Christmas message 2021 then the picture in the newspapers today there is a marked change in her physical appearance. Unless her mental faculties start to leave her I do not think she will abdicate, slow down yes as she already has.
  #1386  
Old 02-17-2022, 04:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.
As one of her people, as long as she is capable, I am very happy for her to be my Queen. I don't really care if she can cut ribbons, meet ambassadors or perform investitures, other members of the family can do these things perfectly well on her behalf. If she wishes to be my Queen, and is able to perform only the most essential functions, I will be delighted.
  #1387  
Old 02-17-2022, 04:20 PM
ruaudladoube's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Collinsville, United States
Posts: 29
I'm not sure why this is still an ongoing topic of conversation, as HM as made it clear for 70 years that she will reign until death.
Charles may become regent if she becomes too ill to do the job, but that's it.
Rehashing it over and over seems redundant.

Not meaning to be rude, simply not understanding the point.
__________________
Ruaud L'Adoube

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."--attributed to Socrates
  #1388  
Old 02-17-2022, 05:42 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bordertown, Australia
Posts: 212
Plus Her Majesty re-dedicated herself in her Accession Day anniversary statement just a few days ago. She is not abdicating or retiring - ever.
  #1389  
Old 02-17-2022, 05:55 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruaudladoube View Post
I'm not sure why this is still an ongoing topic of conversation, as HM as made it clear for 70 years that she will reign until death.
Charles may become regent if she becomes too ill to do the job, but that's it.
Rehashing it over and over seems redundant.

Not meaning to be rude, simply not understanding the point.
If you are referring to my question, Elizabeth has said she will serve until death, not that she will reign until death. There is a distinction, though admittedly I am probably one of only a few who sees it and/or cares to draw it. And since the Queen recently restated that intention, she has raised the issue again and thus impliedly invited discussion about it.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #1390  
Old 02-17-2022, 06:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,271
If she can't do the job, which hopefully won't happen, then Prince Charles will become regent. No Act of Parliament can become law unless the monarch signs it - and that includes things like Budgets, which cannot wait unless taxation and public spending are to grind to a complete halt. No-one is going to put the country in a position where no laws can be enacted. Hopefully it won't happen, but, if it comes to that, Prince Charles will certainly become regent.
  #1391  
Old 02-17-2022, 06:19 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 10,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
No, I htink she means that the queen should abdicate nad let Willliam have the throne.
If Elizabeth II did abdicate, Prince Charles could not be bypassed. Prince Charles is her son. Prince William, the son of Prince Charles, is her grandson.
  #1392  
Old 02-17-2022, 07:14 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 8,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
If you are referring to my question, Elizabeth has said she will serve until death, not that she will reign until death. There is a distinction, though admittedly I am probably one of only a few who sees it and/or cares to draw it. And since the Queen recently restated that intention, she has raised the issue again and thus impliedly invited discussion about it.
To me and most others it is clear that queen Elizabeth's concept of 'serve' means to reign until death. Of course, she cannot guarantee that she will be able to do so (as at some point there might be the need for a regent; in that case she is no longer reigning in practice -as the conclusion has been drawn that she is no longer capable to do so- although she would still be the Sovereign). I don't think her 'restated intention' was supposed to invite discussion about it but to close that matter for once and for all by providing as much clarity as she possibly can.

While I personally think abdication would be a perfectly reasonable action (but better if done when in your 70s) and a great way of serving your country, it is clear that it doesn't fit in queen Elizabeth's way of thinking and most likely would go against her deepest convictions.

Whether staying on is helpful in the long run is also an important question imho because it mainly shows that the country can do without an active monarch doing the various activities that people have come to expect from monarchs and are considered among the advantages of a monarchy (including for example state visits - royals tend to open more doors than non-royals); if apparently, all these activities can be skipped and still be head of state; it stresses the practical irrelevance. So, if a monarchy is happy to have no influence but just function as a figure head with some old people that the citizens can rally around this system works fine (although those future monarchs need to be very careful throughout life to get the reverence in old age).
  #1393  
Old 02-17-2022, 07:37 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
On the other hand though, people are actively seeing and witnessing the "Firm" not only going strong and as a united front despite the recent losses of working royals along with witnessing and seeing the soft and ongoing transfer of power between monarchs. Elizabeth has been "training" Charles for over 70 years now and she's going to do her best to play an active role in the changes being made now to go into the future. That's how seriously she takes her role.

Remember back when the monarch's only worry was actively just having a male heir? The Queen may not be an absolute monarch but she's very actively involved in her "Firm" and it's way forward into the future.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1394  
Old 02-17-2022, 07:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by irish_royalist View Post
As one of her people, as long as she is capable, I am very happy for her to be my Queen. I don't really care if she can cut ribbons, meet ambassadors or perform investitures, other members of the family can do these things perfectly well on her behalf. If she wishes to be my Queen, and is able to perform only the most essential functions, I will be delighted.
There are no essential functions. All the duties she does have been done by others during her reign. She could literally do nothing and life could go on as she can delegate others to do everything.
  #1395  
Old 02-17-2022, 07:50 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
There are no essential functions. All the duties she does have been done by others during her reign. She could literally do nothing and life could go on as she can delegate others to do everything.
True and in my eyes a wonderful way to ensure the peaceful and soft transition of power when the time does come. She probably remembers all too well how it was when she unexpectedly had to step into the role as monarch and wants to spare her son from that as much as possible.

With this in mind, it makes me realize that she's not only remaining in service to her people but she's in service to make the transition, when it comes as easy as possible for her family.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1396  
Old 02-17-2022, 08:11 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 12,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
True and in my eyes a wonderful way to ensure the peaceful and soft transition of power when the time does come. She probably remembers all too well how it was when she unexpectedly had to step into the role as monarch and wants to spare her son from that as much as possible.

With this in mind, it makes me realize that she's not only remaining in service to her people but she's in service to make the transition, when it comes as easy as possible for her family.
Your post is confusing. You agree with the previous poster that there are no essential functions. Then you talk about "transition of power" and "remaining in service if the people" which seems to suggest there is something essential.

Of course, people are emotionally attached to a platinum monarch but seen from a distance: being head of state apparently is a role of such a lightness that a near centenary old lady can do it, and will be succeed by a then probably 75+ years old heir. It shows that the monarchy is purely ornamental and open for questions of (ir)relevance.
  #1397  
Old 02-17-2022, 08:15 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 Duc_et_Pair View Post
Your post is confusing. You agree with the previous poster that there are no essential functions. Then you talk about "transition of power" and "remaining in service if the people" which seems to suggest there is something essential.

Of course, people are emotionally attached to a platinum monarch but seen from a distance: being head of state apparently is a role of such a lightness that a near centenary old lady can do it, and will be succeed by a then probably 75+ years old heir. It shows that the monarchy is purely ornamental and open for questions of (ir)relevance.
Isn't that the point of a constitutional monarchy to begin with? A head of state that represents *all* the people and remains apolitical? To preserve and continue the history of the continuity of the monarchy from the mists of time until the present day? To represent national unity?

Dang... that sounds so appealing to me rather than the infighting and political mess we have here in the US.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #1398  
Old 02-17-2022, 09:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 14,036
Just because a job can be done by anyone doesn't mean it should be done by anyone e.g. Chairing the Privy Council is a role done by the monarch. It can be done by two CoS's but that doesn't mean it should be done that way on a regular basis.

The State Opening of Parliament can be done by others but again that doesn't mean that there isn't some significance in it being done by the monarch and all that the symbolism of that ceremony represents ... the supremacy of the House of Commons. Many countries don't have any such ceremony with every step having a significance that even tells the history of the nation.
  #1399  
Old 02-17-2022, 09:34 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Just because a job can be done by anyone doesn't mean it should be done by anyone e.g. Chairing the Privy Council is a role done by the monarch. It can be done by two CoS's but that doesn't mean it should be done that way on a regular basis.
The mere fact that the Queen still meets regularly with the Privy Council is in itself surprising. The Queen's Privy Council for Canada rarely meets, except on special occasions like a new monarch's accession for example. The Privy Council Office, which is a government department, oversees the preparation of Orders in Council which must be and still are signed by the Governor General, but the Governor General does not meet personally with the Privy Council as the Queen does in the UK to approve such orders.

I don't know the situation in Australia (maybe you can tell us), but my understanding is that, although the Federal Executive Council (Australia's equivalent to the Privy Council) does meet, the Governor-General personally does not normally attend such meetings either.

The Privy Council itself is a relic of a constitution that pre-dated parliamentary government. More modern constitutions, like the Spanish constitution of 1978, say simply that the King "issues the decrees approved in the Council of Ministers". In practice, that is also the case in the UK, where executive orders are de facto approved by the cabinet (the British equivalent to a Council of Ministers), but the ministers meet separately with the Queen in their separate capacity as "Privy Counsellors" to give legal effect to those orders. The fact that the ministers of the Crown for the time being are now the active arm of the Privy Council was a later development in the evolution of the parliamentary system.

Curiously, Denmark and, I think, Norway, also have that outdated constitutional format, with their "Council of State" playing the role of the Privy Council in the UK.
  #1400  
Old 04-08-2022, 04:18 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by angieuk View Post
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-service.html

The Queen is 96 on 21st April.
I think events such as the Royal Windsor Horse Show, Chelsea Flower Show.Trooping the Colour, The Garter Ceremony, The Derby, Royal Ascot, and State Opening of Parliament are things we will see Charles and Camilla more involved with officially. Time will tell. Don't know about the Garden Parties?
The Royal Windsor Horse Show or Royal Ascot are private, social events. Conversely, attending the Commonwealth Day Service or, even more so, the State Opening of Parliament are part of the constitutional duties of the Head of State.

I know that raising the prospect of the Queen retiring triggers considerable reaction in this forum, especially from the UK posters, but, being candid, if the Queen is no longer able to fulfill her obligations as Head of State such as attending the State Opening of Parliament or holding a state banquet for a visiting monarch or president, then it is time for Prince Charles to be officially recognized as regent rather than informally deputizing for his mother as if those were one-off events as opposed to something that is likely to become the norm from now on.

Accepting that it is time for a regency doesn't mean not appreciating the Queen's dedication to the United Kingdom, the Empire and the Commonwealth for the past 70 years, or saying she is no longer needed and should be discarded. I am just saying that the Queen can probably serve her people better in retirement than by insisting on carrying on a normal workload when she is struggling to do so.
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 arcadie arcadie claret austria caribbean caroline charles iii claret current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent edward vii emperor naruhito empress masako espana garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed harry history identifying india introduction king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier louis mountbatten matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten 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 spanish royal family state visit switzerland tiaras visit william wine glass woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 PM.

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