The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[MsJulie]

Mbruno, I agree with you, but I wonder if the Queen is worried about Charles making changes she does not agree with or want to see his changes while she is alive. Like removing the Duke of York from everything, making him leave his current home, then going after Prince Harry in what ever means he can. Charles and William have gotten the Queen to do alot of things lately that I dont think she wanted to do and she does not want to do anything else nor does she want Charles to do anything while she is alive.

I wonder why Prince Edward has not been given Prince Phillips Dukedom as he was promised? Has Charles forbidden it? What will happen to Edward and Sophie when the Queen passes? They are quiet hard working Royals that the Queen relies on. What about the Queens cousins? Will they be forced to move? I think Charles has stepped in and that is another reason the Queen will not step down while she is alive…she does not trust Charles. (I foresee the downfall of the British Royal Crown and Family during Charles reign and if it gets as far as Williams). JMOO

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

Attending the Commonwealth service or opening parliament in person are not constitutional duties.

There are no essential obligations for the British HofS other than giving assent to parliamentary bills & appointing the pm/ministers. And certain others such as the dissolution/prorogation of parliament. All of which can be done sat down at home. Everything else is just custom & can be done by others.

The Queen remains monarch until death. That's just the way it is. If there needs to be a regency then that's fine. And it will happen with the minimum of fuss. No doubt this has all been planned for.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

I think the Issue of Regency would be easier when Charles could be named Regent for a fe dayslike it is done in Norway and Denmark when the Moanrch there is ill like in Norway or absent like in Denmark.

Then Charles could be named Regent for replacing HM at for example the State Opening of Parliament and after it it is ended.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Durham

Attending the Commonwealth service or opening parliament in person are not constitutional duties.

There are no essential obligations for the British HofS other than giving assent to parliamentary bills & appointing the pm. Everything else is just custom & can be done by others.

The Queen remains monarch until death. That's just the way it is. If there needs to be a regency then that's fine. And it will happen with the minimum of fuss. No doubt this has all been planned for.

]

I definitely disagree on the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen's speech.The Prince of Wales is not a constituent part of Parliament. He is not the titular head of the government either. Technically, he could not even address a joint session of Parliament, much less announce the legislative program of the Queen's government (not his government) for the consideration of the parliamentarians. Only the Queen can deliver the Queen's speech unless she formally delegates that function under the law to someone else such as a Counselor of State or the Regent. In the Commonwealth realms, those roles are delegated to the Governor General.

As for state banquets or events like the Commonwealth Day service, they may not be constitutional per se, but they are part of the representation role that the Head of State is expected to perform. So there is a problem when the Head of State is physically unable to do so.

I am not calling on the Queen to abdicate; she will still be Queen until her last breath.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I think the Issue of Regency would be easier when Charles could be named Regent for a fe dayslike it is done in Norway and Denmark when the Moanrch there is ill like in Norway or absent like in Denmark.

Then Charles could be named Regent for replacing HM at for example the State Opening of Parliament and after it it is ended.

But The Prince of Wales can read the Queen's Speech without being appointed Regent.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

]

I definitely disagree on the State Opening of Parliament and the Queen's speech.The Prince of Wales is not a constituent part of Parliament. He is not the titular head of the government either. Technically, he could not even address a joint session of Parliament, much less announce the legislative program of the Queen's government (not his government) for the consideration of the parliamentarians. Only the Queen can deliver the Queen's speech unless she formally delegates that function under the law to someone else such as a Counselor of State or the Regent. In the Commonwealth realms, those roles are delegated to the Governor General.

As for state banquets or events like the Commonwealth Day service, they may not be constitutional per se, but they are part of the represenation role that the Head of State is expected to perform. So there is a problem when the Head of State is physically unable to do so.

I am not calling on the Queen to abdicate; she will still be Queen until her last breath.

We know that the monarch doesn't have to be present at the opening of parliament. As I said the monarch doesn't have to attend in person. The speech can be delivered by others as you say. Whether it's the PofW or someone else is up to the monarch. Their decision & constitutional right/duty to decide who represents them.

The heir to the throne has no constitutional status at all. That's well known.

I don't disagree about the presence of the monarch being desirable but I don't see it as as a problem. More a matter of sadness really.

Abdication is a non starter of course.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by MsJulie

I wonder why Prince Edward has not been given Prince Phillips Dukedom as he was promised? Has Charles forbidden it? What will happen to Edward and Sophie when the Queen passes? They are quiet hard working Royals that the Queen relies on. What about the Queens cousins? Will they be forced to move? I think Charles has stepped in and that is another reason the Queen will not step down while she is alive…she does not trust Charles. (I foresee the downfall of the British Royal Crown and Family during Charles reign and if it gets as far as Williams). JMOO

As has been discussed in the relevant threads: Charles is the current Duke of Edinburgh, so it is not available to being redistributed to someone else. While Spain knows that practice, it is not an option in the UK.

The current Duke of Edinburgh (currently Charles but it would also apply to William if the queen would survive her eldest son) has to become the monarch for the title to merge with the Crown - and only after that it is available for redistribution.

So, I am afraid that you are mainly subscribing your own malicious thoughts to Charles than Charles having any of those thoughts himself.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

Originally Posted by Durham

Attending the Commonwealth service or opening parliament in person are not constitutional duties.

There are no essential obligations for the British HofS other than giving assent to parliamentary bills & appointing the pm/ministers. And certain others such as the dissolution/prorogation of parliament. All of which can be done sat down at home. Everything else is just custom & can be done by others.

The Queen remains monarch until death. That's just the way it is. If there needs to be a regency then that's fine. And it will happen with the minimum of fuss. No doubt this has all been planned for.

Given how the queen is clearly struggling with her health since the death of her beloved husband, I fully agree with Mbruno that -unless a significant improvement in her health is expected (which seems unlikely at her age) the best way forward would be for Charles to be made Regent. I have no doubt the queen will remain the Sovereign until the end of her days but at this point in time a Regency would seem to be the best solution for everyone involved. So, I would hope that the queen feels free to have a regency instated some time after her Jubilee activities in June. She deserves the celebrations of the Jubilee but after that it seems time to accept that she's come at a point where the best way to serve her country is to have Charles installed as Regent.

[Durham]

At a guess (admittedly with no supporting evidence whatsoever) I suspect most British people don't want a regency unless :

a The Queen is unable to carry out her essential duties relating to constitutional issues - & as I've outlined up thread these are not onerous. As I understand the situation The Queen's issues relate to mobility not her mental competence.

or

b The Queen herself requests one. Which everyone would understand.

Maybe there's a poll somewhere I've missed that would prove/disprove this opinion.

[Saragli]

I agree with Durham. There really is no need, or indication, for a Regency. The only thing the Queen is required to do is her daily boxes and to communicate with her ministers. She is so far sound of mind and able to meet all her requirements. We like to believe the monarchy is so much more than that but, at the bare bones, that's really all to it. It's quite natural, and deserved, after all these years to take a "mini-retirement". HM deserves to end her time on this realm as the Queen. The Queen has a very capable heir and heirs' heir who are able to take on all the et cetera duties. It is my feeling that the British people will be happy with their Queen at this point doing the bare minimum involved with reigning.

[Lori138]

Yes I agree with this. Queen Victoria, as an example. 'retired' after prince Albert's death and a regency was not required. She maintained her boxes and met with her ministers. As stated, that is all that is required.

[Osipi]

There is only one reason where I think that the Regency Act would have to be enacted and it would mostly be because it's required. That would be if the Queen's health declined to the point where she was bedridden and no longer was cognizant of the world around her. Something like that happens, I think it would be required for the Regency Act to be put in force as a matter of law.

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Lori138

Yes I agree with this. Queen Victoria, as an example. 'retired' after prince Albert's death and a regency was not required. She maintained her boxes and met with her ministers. As stated, that is all that is required.

Though that was not without it’s problem... The Government(s) repeatedly tried to drag her out of her self imposed seclusion as the Monarch was not visible for and distant towards her people (mainly because of untreated depression after Alberts death) and the polls for QV was at record low for several years...

[Hans-Rickard]

I know this is a sensitive matter to lift, but we must face the truth... And that is that she won’t be getting younger and that her sunset has undeniably begun health wise, even though we all hope it will be a slow and dignified sunset...

It is not being negative at all - it is being realistic... She is very soon 96 years old and has done way more than what anyone could ask for...

The show must be able to go on with outgoing and incoming State Visits, physical audience’s and visit etc by the Chief of the House...
The current situation with digital audience’s was meant as a temporary solution during the pandemic but now it seems tp have become sort of permanent for health reasons...
As of now, it is highly doubtful that The Queen will be able to open the parliament or even participate that much in the Jubilée celebrations.. Even less likely attending a Garden Party or hosting a full State Visit... It can’t go on like that in all eternity without the whole point of Monarchy being seriously questioned...

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Stefan

I think the Issue of Regency would be easier when Charles could be named Regent for a fe dayslike it is done in Norway and Denmark when the Moanrch there is ill like in Norway or absent like in Denmark.

Then Charles could be named Regent for replacing HM at for example the State Opening of Parliament and after it it is ended.

There is no need to name anyone to be Regent for a single event.

Under the law of the UK a Regency can only be established for one of two reasons:

a) the monarch is under 18

b) the monarch is TOTALLY incapacitated.

There is NO duty that The Queen has to do. Even approving legislation can be done by Counsellors of State as has happened in the past.

What does she do constitutionally?

1. Reads the boxes - the same boxes that both Charles and William now receive and even then they only have in them what the government decides to let them have e.g. in 1936 the government deliberately left documents out due to not trusting Edward VIII - is that the case now? We of course won't know for decades, and possibly centuries, if that is the case.

2. Meet with the PM once a week when Parliament is sitting - not necessary at all as there have been many weeks during her reign when parliament is sitting and she hasn't met with the PM - more a tradition than a necessity

3. Chair the Privy Council about once a month - not necessary for her to do it as it has been done by Counsellors of State many times throughout her reign

4. Open parliament - not necessary - as she hasn't done it every year during her reign. In both 1959 and 1963 it was done by the Lord Chancellor (due to the fact that she was expecting and so it wasn't done for her to be seen in public in such a state)

5. Met with incoming and outgoing High Commissioners and Ambassadors - not necessary - can be done by anyone as seen by the number of times that she passes that to someone else even now ... especially the outgoing.

When you actually look at what people say she 'has to do' and by implication only she can do as monarch there is the grand total of NOTHING that she has to do. Everything that is supposed to be her job constitutionally can be done, and has been done, during her reign by others.

[Somebody]

Sounds like lots of arguments to abolish the monarchy to me. A head of state whose task is to do nothing substantial at all... Why continue with it?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Princejohnny25

I agree with Durham. There really is no need, or indication, for a Regency. The only thing the Queen is required to do is her daily boxes and to communicate with her ministers. She is so far sound of mind and able to meet all her requirements. We like to believe the monarchy is so much more than that but, at the bare bones, that's really all to it. It's quite natural, and deserved, after all these years to take a "mini-retirement". HM deserves to end her time on this realm as the Queen. The Queen has a very capable heir and heirs' heir who are able to take on all the et cetera duties. It is my feeling that the British people will be happy with their Queen at this point doing the bare minimum involved with reigning.

She will remain the queen unless she abdicates and I think everyone agrees that is not going to happen. The question is whether she should at some point delegate her duties to a regent (with her remaining queen!) who is capable of leaving his/her house and do the things that have traditionally become expected of the monarch and which adds to the value of having a monarchy.

So, in that we she can take her mini-retirement while officially remaining the head of state.

[Tatiana Maria]

Given the absence of reliable information about Queen Elizabeth's health, it seems premature to make the assumption that she is permanently impeded. Of course that is sadly a likely possibility given her age, but it also remains possible that the reductions over the last few months are related to ailments (e.g. the undisclosed issue for which she was hospitalized) which may improve with treatment and rest, and/or that mobility is currently the only issue affecting her ability to carry out public functions (in which case persuading her to accept the use of a wheelchair could solve the issue).

Originally Posted by Somebody

Sounds like lots of arguments to abolish the monarchy to me. A head of state whose task is to do nothing substantial at all... Why continue with it?

For centuries, monarchs and monarchists who covet a politically active or absolute monarchy have been making exactly that argument against restricting monarchies to a ceremonial and representative role. As an argument for the opposite position (abolishing the monarchy), I'm not sure it is equally effective - alternative forms of headship of state, such as a presidency, can be structured to be equally "ceremonial".

In any event, if you are responding to Iluvbertie's post, I don't think she was suggesting that the constitutional duties she listed were insubstantial (even if the monarchists who desire a monarchy with political authority would disagree), nor that they should not be done at all by any member of the royal family.

[Hans-Rickard]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

There is no need to name anyone to be Regent for a single event.

Under the law of the UK a Regency can only be established for one of two reasons:

a) the monarch is under 18

b) the monarch is TOTALLY incapacitated.

There is NO duty that The Queen has to do. Even approving legislation can be done by Counsellors of State as has happened in the past.

What does she do constitutionally?

1. Reads the boxes - the same boxes that both Charles and William now receive and even then they only have in them what the government decides to let them have e.g. in 1936 the government deliberately left documents out due to not trusting Edward VIII - is that the case now? We of course won't know for decades, and possibly centuries, if that is the case.

2. Meet with the PM once a week when Parliament is sitting - not necessary at all as there have been many weeks during her reign when parliament is sitting and she hasn't met with the PM - more a tradition than a necessity

3. Chair the Privy Council about once a month - not necessary for her to do it as it has been done by Counsellors of State many times throughout her reign

4. Open parliament - not necessary - as she hasn't done it every year during her reign. In both 1959 and 1963 it was done by the Lord Chancellor (due to the fact that she was expecting and so it wasn't done for her to be seen in public in such a state)

5. Met with incoming and outgoing High Commissioners and Ambassadors - not necessary - can be done by anyone as seen by the number of times that she passes that to someone else even now ... especially the outgoing.

When you actually look at what people say she 'has to do' and by implication only she can do as monarch there is the grand total of NOTHING that she has to do. Everything that is supposed to be her job constitutionally can be done, and has been done, during her reign by others.

Good - then we can scrap the Monarchy immedialtely and install Boris Johnson or Lindsey Hoyle as Head of State as there is so little that ”has” to be done that can’t be done by others..... Or ?

The point is that if the Monarch is unable to execute his or her main tasks in the long term, a solution must be made... The Queen is in her full right to remain as Sovereign until she takes her last breath. I don’t think anyone belives she will abdicate or would even want her to... But when someone is unable to do a lot of his or her main tasks for the long term, a replacement is usually put in place even if it’s time limited... That applies to the sovereign too as the regency act clearly states ”body or mind” and not ”body and mind”....

Had the wording been ”body and mind” a regency would have been impossible unless the monarch became senile, but it’s not. Every contingency is covered for.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Hans-Rickard

Good - then we can scrap the Monarchy immedialtely and install Boris Johnson or Lindsey Hoyle as Head of State as there is so little that ”has” to be done that can’t be done by others..... Or ?

If Queen Elizabeth II were to be removed and replaced with Boris Johnson or Lindsay Hoyle, that would not be the same as scrapping the monarchy. It would merely be deposing the Windsor dynasty and installing King Boris or King Lindsay.

And as I said, scrapping the monarchy would not automatically give Head of State Johnson or Head of State Hoyle "more to do". Many monarchs in the world are far more active than many heads of state of republics or other non-monarchies.