The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Osipi]

If I'm not mistaken, William started his royal prince training when he was at Eton. He'd walk over to Windsor castle every Sunday and have tea with Granny. I seriously doubt there was anyone better to instruct him.

I think Charles is very ready to become King. Other than those things that only the monarch can do, Charles has done them. I believe he also gets the boxes each day to go through IIRC.

If Charles were to get a formal education in being a monarch, wouldn't it make sense that the course would be taught by one that has experience as a monarch? Oh... waitaminute...that's what his mother has been doing. Nevermind.

 

[Lumutqueen]

To be a frank, as an outsider, I am surprised by how actually unprepared both Charles and William are to take the throne. Their formal education for example is modest compared to current/former crown princes/princesses in the continent (Felipe, Victoria, Frederick, Willem-Alexander, etc.), who usually speak four different languages and have multiple university degrees in addition to military training and/or diplomatic experience. In fact, it was painful to see William recently in Canada trying to babble a couple of words in French and sounding like a stereotyptical "ugly Anglo-Saxon tourist".

But, again, Queen Elizabeth II didn't even attend university herself.

Formal education has zilch to do with being prepared.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I agree with you that Queen Elizabeth II and Emperor Akihito will not abdicate. However, I am not so sure about Queen Margrethe II and King Harald.

Queen Margrethe II and King Harald V have both said that they will not abdicate, the only chance that we will see a abdication in the UK, Japan, Denmark and Norway must be because of a major scandal involving the monarchs themselves.

 

[Dman]

Robert Jobson: The Queen could well retire without abdicating-
Robert Jobson: The Queen could well retire without abdicating - Comment - Comment - London Evening Standard

No, The Queen won't go on forever and probably won't live to the age of her late mother. I'm glad that she's trying to get everyone used to Charles taking on more on her behalf. It's a gradual process though.

 

[Mbruno]

Her training experience is not as great as the Prince of Wales who holds an equivalent position as heir to the throne but the real training is not the meetings and events - its the confidence given to you by your parent who is monarch that you can do the job. So whether you have had 40 or 4 years training you have the confidence to get on with it should the unexpected happen

That's something formal education cannot give you.

I don't think it's fair to compare Victoria to Charles, who is 30 years or so older and had therefore a much longer time to prepare for the job. It makes more sense to compare her to William, who is in the same age range (only 5 years younger), and, although not the heir apparent yet, will probably ascend the throne not much later than when Victoria does (Carl XVI Gustaf is only 3 years older than Charles, is apparently healthy and is unlikely to abdicate).


On your second point, I'm pretty sure Queen Beatrix, King Juan Carlos, King Carl Gustaf, Queen Margrethe, and even King Albert II were/are all very experienced monarchs who, in some cases, went through much more serious domestic crises than the current British Royal Family ever has. Accordingly, I have no doubt that Willem-Alexander, Felipe, Victoria, Frederick or Philippe all became very confident crown princes by interacting with their respective parents, and I sincerely don't see any special advantage Charles or William would enjoy in that respect. In fact, William in particular seems to me to be not so sure of himself and his role yet.


In any case, I don't want to sound disrespectful to TRHs the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge and I certainly don't want to get on an endless discussion on these issues. Let's just say that people don't always agree on many topics and that seems to be one of those.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have mixed feelings about abdications. Somehow I think it is a good thing.

Imagine Queen Juliana had NOT abdicated in 1980 but remained Queen until her death in 2004. Then we would have seen an already widowed Princess Beatrix starting her Reign at the age of 67, which is above the general age of retirement in the Netherlands. It would also have meant the last 10-15 years of Juliana's Reign with an ailing Queen increasingly suffering dementia.

Imagine that Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg had NOT abdicated in 2000 but would still be the reigning Grand Duke. Then Prince Henri (almost 60 years) would still be the Heir, his son Prince Guillaume in the meantime married to Countess Stéphanie and probably another Heir under way...

Thanks to progress, nutrition and health care, thanks to the fact that Kings are no longer on the battlefield, beheaded, poisoned, etc. in all monarchies we see recordbreaking ages. So I understand that at a certain moment abdications can be considered as the best option.

 

[Al_bina]

Queen Margrethe II and King Harald V have both said that they will not abdicate, the only chance that we will see a abdication in the UK, Japan, Denmark and Norway must be because of a major scandal involving the monarchs themselves.

We shall see what happens in various European reigning royal houses. As stated above, an abdication of a European monarch will not be surprising. That is all.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The Queen is more fit than the Queen Mother was at the same age, she has more than 300 engagements a year and she is still out riding her horses. The Queen will not abdicate, if she became ill and only then a regency will be created.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Queen is more fit than the Queen Mother was at the same age, she has more than 300 engagements a year and she is still out riding her horses. The Queen will not abdicate, if she became ill and only then a regency will be created.

About the Pope and about the King of Spain anyone was 100% sure as well: impossible. Didn't the previous Pope remain on his throne until his very, very last breath, despite all his ailments? Wasn't Don Juan Carlos the one with whom the monarchy was restored, would the throne not become shaky without him? The Pope abdicating? Don Juan Carlos abdicating? Out of the question! But see..... things can change.....

Abdications must be seen wider than a health issue. Queen Beatrix was (and is) in excellent health and at the height of her approval. She did abdicate anyway and in her televized Address she stressed: "[....] not because the kingship would become a too heavy burden, but because I feel the responsibilities for the country should be in the hands of a new generation."

King Albert II gave the same reasons, but also his frail health: "[....] I have reached an age no one of my predecessors reached. I conclude that my age and my health no longer allow me to fulfill my duties as I would like to do. I would not respect my opnion about the royal function when I would, under all circumstances and at all cost, cling to my Office. That is a question of elementary respect for the institutions of state and to you, my fellow citizens."

Abdications can actually be very honourable acts to do, in favour of the kingship, the state and its citizens.

 

[Lee-Z]

Abdications can be a good thing, but it's slowly starting to turn into "Not abdicating is a bad thing" and I do disagree with that.
Kings and Queens (and Popes) are "jobs" you can you for life until you die, and someone who actually wants to fulfill their job that way should not be forced to abdicate because of age (very bad reason) or because others do it (even worse).

It's very good that the option exists, I'm very happy for pope Benedict that he could abdicate and even more happy about the new pope, but it should not be forced on anyone.

ETA:
What I also often read is "they have served for so long, they deserve their rest and so should abdicate"...if you think they have deserved something (which I do) you should wish them to "be able to finish the job the way they choose"
Okay, and now i'll shut up about it

 

[Skippyboo]

There isn't a tradition of abdication in UK unlike some other European countries. There have been 3 very long reigns in recent times - George III, Victoria and Elizabeth II. The Queen's reign has been the most active in the later part of the reign when compare to the other 2.

If Queen abdicates to let the next generation take over, Charles comes to the throne at a relatively old age. How soon is it until the people start calling for the next generation of William- 5 yrs, 10 yrs? The monarchy can't be a popularity contest.

Plus unlike some of the continental monarchies, there is a religious based crowning involved with the British monarchy. A vow to God to serve. Not a vow to put personal above the people which is what Edward VIII did and the Queen has full memory of it. There is a regency system in place to allow for mental and physical illness.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree with you that lack of university training did not prevent Queen Elizabeth II from being a good monarch. In fact, I think she excels in her job and is very knowledgeable of diplomatic and government affairs.

I do think, however, that William's education is lacking for someone of his generation and in the current times. Now that he is no longer in active duty in the Armed Forces, it would be advisable for him to pursue a master's degree and get more international and diplomatic experience.

1. William has a Master's Degree from St Andrew's university - that is what they get there for a 4 year degree.

2. He is getting international experience on his overseas tours where he meets the local Heads of Government and, if relevant, the Head of State

3. The government in the UK would have to approve him doing diplomatic experience and they maybe don't want to have a prince there - overlapping with politics. The sort of diplomacy that a monarch needs comes through meeting the diplomats etc, which he also does with events like the reception for the diplomatic corps - and as he gets older he will meet more and more with these people, just as his father does now.

The best training that William and Charles can have is done by The Queen and she has done so to the best of her ability.

 

[Mbruno]

There isn't a tradition of abdication in UK unlike some other European countries. There have been 3 very long reigns in recent times - George III, Victoria and Elizabeth II. The Queen's reign has been the most active in the later part of the reign when compare to the other 2.

If Queen abdicates to let the next generation take over, Charles comes to the throne at a relatively old age. How soon is it until the people start calling for the next generation of William- 5 yrs, 10 yrs? The monarchy can't be a popularity contest.

Plus unlike some of the continental monarchies, there is a religious based crowning involved with the British monarchy. A vow to God to serve. Not a vow to put personal above the people which is what Edward VIII did and the Queen has full memory of it. There is a regency system in place to allow for mental and physical illness.

I guess there is no stronger claim to a "vow to God" than that of the Pope (at least, not in the Christian world as far as I can tell). Yet, Benedict XVI abdicated.

As far as George III is concerned, please recall that, towards the end of his reign, when he became incapacitated, a regency was set up. As I argued before, that is the most likely scenario if Queen Elizabeth II is unable to discharge her royal duties, not least because the legal framework to appoint a regent is already in place and there is no need to pass enabling legislation in the other Commonwealth realms as well.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Queen: would she consider abdication or retirement?

I guess there is no stronger claim to a "vow to God" than that of the Pope (at least, not in the Christian world as far as I can tell). Yet, Benedict XVI abdicated.

As far as George III is concerned, please recall that, towards the end of his reign, when he became incapacitated, a regency was set up. As I argued before, that is the most likely scenario if Queen Elizabeth II is unable to discharge her royal duties, not least because the legal framework to appoint a regent is already in place and there is no need to pass enabling legislation in the other Commonwealth realms as well.

Pope Benedict is an outlier. He isn't of the norm. First in 600 years to give up the papal throne. I am aware of what happened at the end of George III's reign. I was just comparing the Queen who is still very active to her ancestors who were not in the later years of their reign whether from ill health or perpetual morning.

 

[democratnmonocole]

Defintely

I was reading some online news articles from Philip's 90th birthday which said he would retire from public life at 90 but he is still going strong nearly 3 years on

He certainly is. If I recall the interview correctly, he said he'd "done his bit" and reduce his duties, but not necessarily 'retire'. Of course fifteen or twenty years ago he would do 600-700 engagements a year. So for him to cut down to 150 a year is reducing by 3/4s. And we should remember that many of these 'duties' are not really as onerous as the press may portray. Greeting pensioners at a rest home in leafy Hampshire, or walking through a Garden Party, shaking hands and engaging in light small talk while eating finger sandwiches and buns isn't most people's idea of taxing duties. Which is not to say the Duke hasn't worked VERY hard over the years, much, much harder than his position ever required, simply b/c that's who he is.

 

[texankitcat]

Queen Margrethe II and Queen Beatrix attended university and they are not that much younger than Queen Elizabeth II.

It is not educational snobbery, but a requirement for many jobs nowadays. Why shouldn't we expect Heads of State to be well-educated when we expect that from corporate CEO's and political leaders ?

As for William, I don't mind his accent, but I honestly think it was foolish of him to try to give a speech in French when he obviously can't do it. President Obama can't either, but he knows better and doesn't embarass himself.

The Queen could give any well educated snob a run for their money on any number of topics based on her intimate knowledge of foreign and domestic policies, politics, history, art, culture, geography and even horse breeding. She has travelled the world and met with dignitaries, heads of state, Presidents, etc... She is much more than just a glittery figure head or granny with a tiara. Prime Ministers have stated that they have to be on their toes and that she puts them through their paces in their weekly meetings. She receives weekly intelligence summaries, daily accounts of proceedings in the House of Commons and immediate copies of all important overseas reports from the Foreign Office. She is extremely well informed.

There isn't a University in the world that can give a better education than The Queen to her successors.

 

[Skippyboo]

When was the Queen suppose to go University? WW2 ends when she is a young women. She marries Philip shortly afterwards, has 2 children and is on the throne by age 25 with the premature death of her father.

Her Danish and Dutch counterparts are around around 10 years younger than the Queen and come to their thrones at a older age.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

As remarked, had Queen Juliana not abdicated in 1980, her daughter Princess Beatrix would have become Queen in 2004, as a widowed lady, aged 67 which is above the general age of retirement. Then she had to start her Reign. Had Grand Duke Jean not abdicated in 2000, the present Grand Duke still would be the Heir, also already 60 years old and waiting to start his Reign. Had King Albert II not abdicated in 2013, then today his Heir would have been 54 years old and still waiting to start his Reign.

In all these monarchies not only the Sovereigns have reached recordbreaking ages, at the same time there were never so old Heirs, even Prince Willem-Alexander, only 46 last year, was the oldest Heir ever to succeed the throne in themore than 600 years of Orange-Nassau rule.

Now in the UK we face a Heir who is already past the general age of retirement and still waiting. So apart from the very own individual choice, I think that the three beforementioned Sovereigns also took into consideration what was the best option for the dynasty and the country. I think Don Juan Carlos, for a long time suffering a decline in his health and abilities, made the same consideration. As did Pope Benedict XVI. "Not looking to my very own interest, what is the best option for the dynasty and for the country?" and apparently they thought an abdication was the best.

Queen Elizabeth II has a total different opinion. We are lucky that we can tell our children and grandchildren that we have witnessed one of the longest Reigns ever. I only want to get rid from the hidden undertone that an abdication would be something dishonourful.

 

[Skippyboo]

In those countries, it is okay. But in the UK, does the Queen look as abdication as a positive thing? Probably not. It forced her beloved papa on to the throne at a very difficult time and the stress of it helps to put him in his grave early. At age 21 in South Africa, she vows my whole life whether it is long or short will be in your service.

Britain has a tradition of The King is Dead, Long Live The King.

 

[padams2359]

QEII will draw her last breath as the monarch. JMO

 

[Al_bina]

The royal 'I quit!': Retirements of monarchs (and a pope) - CNN.com

Could a British royal be next?
The news of King Juan Carlos' abdication didn't shock British author and historian Kate Williams.
"We've seen this in Belgium and the Netherlands," she said. "I think it's often thought that rule should go to someone who is young and vibrant and fun. But you will never see it in the United Kingdom. Never."
Queen Elizabeth II has said that she believes the job of ruling Britain was given to her by God, and only God can take it away, Williams said.
The queen staying in her job is critical to a cohesive sense of culture in Britain, she said.

But it's happened before in the U.K.
There's no way Queen Elizabeth doesn't consider the shock waves sent through British society when King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936.
That "haunts" the palace still, Fitzwilliams said.
King Edward caused a huge stir when he declared that he wanted to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson, an act that broke the rules of the Church of England. He gave up the throne and became the Duke of Windsor.
Together, the couple toured Germany. It was reported that the former king had Nazi sympathies. He lived out the rest of his life in France.
The episode is considered, Fitzwilliams said, a shame on the legacy of the British monarchy.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

As remarked, had Queen Juliana not abdicated in 1980, her daughter Princess Beatrix would have become Queen in 2004, as a widowed lady, aged 67 which is above the general age of retirement. Then she had to start her Reign. Had Grand Duke Jean not abdicated in 2000, the present Grand Duke still would be the Heir, also already 60 years old and waiting to start his Reign. Had King Albert II not abdicated in 2013, then today his Heir would have been 54 years old and still waiting to start his Reign.

In all these monarchies not only the Sovereigns have reached recordbreaking ages, at the same time there were never so old Heirs, even Prince Willem-Alexander, only 46 last year, was the oldest Heir ever to succeed the throne in themore than 600 years of Orange-Nassau rule.

Now in the UK we face a Heir who is already past the general age of retirement and still waiting. So apart from the very own individual choice, I think that the three beforementioned Sovereigns also took into consideration what was the best option for the dynasty and the country. I think Don Juan Carlos, for a long time suffering a decline in his health and abilities, made the same consideration. As did Pope Benedict XVI. "Not looking to my very own interest, what is the best option for the dynasty and for the country?" and apparently they thought an abdication was the best.

Queen Elizabeth II has a total different opinion. We are lucky that we can tell our children and grandchildren that we have witnessed one of the longest Reigns ever. I only want to get rid from the hidden undertone that an abdication would be something dishonourful.

Interesting Post. You bring up a Good Point, Peoples are living longer now then 200 Years or even 100 Years ago and that Include Monarchs, Heirs,etc. Queen Victoria lived to ripe old age of 81 and that was considered unusual even for her times (1901) as she had outlived the life expectancy for that times. Same with King George III living to 81 which was rare at that times as well However now 82 is the average life expectancy (at least in the U.K for women's. For mens it 79) so it not rare anymore and peoples are living beyond that. How many monarchs in 1914 (the ones who didn't loose their thrones) lived beyond 70 or eve 80? There were some but not many.

Queen Wilhelmina abdicated at age 68 and lived another 13 years. If she had reined until death she would have been 82. Queen Juliana would have been 53. As you said if se had reigned until 2004 Beatrix would have been 66

 

[timtonruben359]

Besides the Queen's view on the coronation oath and her vow that her whole life would be devoted to service, there is a very easy reason why the Queen wouldn't abdicate. The Queen is head of state of over a dozen country, if she decided to abdicate each country would have to pass a bill approving the abdication as the demise of the crown legislation only accounts for a monarch's death not abdication. When Edward VIII abdicated, Britain could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy.

 

[scooter]

^ and the commonwealth.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That "haunts" the palace still, Fitzwilliams said.
King Edward caused a huge stir when he declared that he wanted to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson, an act that broke the rules of the Church of England.

The present future King, himself a divorcee, married another divorcee and still is very much in line if succession. This added to the divorces of the Duke of York, the Princess Royal, the Princess Margaret, etc. This added to the swift and easy change of the succession into a gender neutral one, all this shows that the British monarchy is not as paralysed, immobile and stuck in traditions as many tend to believe. When Her Majesty informs Mr Cameron she intends to lay down her royal prerogatives, the Government will make this possible.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The present future King, himself a divorcee, married another divorcee and still is very much in line if succession. This added to the divorces of the Duke of York, the Princess Royal, the Princess Margaret, etc. This added to the swift and easy change of the succession into a gender neutral one, all this shows that the British monarchy is not as paralysed, immobile and stuck in traditions as many tend to believe. When Her Majesty informs Mr Cameron she intends to lay down her royal prerogatives, the Government will make this possible.

However she has to notify more than one Prime Minister and see legislation passed in 16 other countries - not as simple as it sounds - remember that not all those countries have yet bothered with the Succession to the Crown Act.

 

[Iluvbertie]

^ and the commonwealth.

The Commonwealth doesn't pass legislation or make binding decisions for anyone - just recommendations for the nations many of which are ignored.

The Commonwealth would have to accept the fact with no say in the matter - other than the 16 nations of the Commonwealth that have HM as their Head of State.

The other 38 nations won't be affected at all as she isn't their Head of State.

The CHOGs would then have a meeting to decide who would replace her - although the view that has been expressed by the HOGs (those that have actually expressed a view publicly) is that the next head will be Charles but that will be determined in the future and it won't matter whether it is a day or 10 years after the end of the present reign as the Commonwealth will continue anyway.

The Queen attends the opening dinner at the meetings and then leaves - she isn't there for the actual decision making meetings. Charles followed her lead last year in Sri Lanka - opened the meeting, went to the opening dinner and the next day left and the HOGs then had the meetings that resulted in the final decisions that were announced but by that time Charles was back in the UK. In other words their role is purely symbolic and they have even less influence there than they do on political affairs in the UK.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Besides the Queen's view on the coronation oath and her vow that her whole life would be devoted to service, there is a very easy reason why the Queen wouldn't abdicate. The Queen is head of state of over a dozen country, if she decided to abdicate each country would have to pass a bill approving the abdication as the demise of the crown legislation only accounts for a monarch's death not abdication. When Edward VIII abdicated, Britain could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy.

You're absolutely right, the only chance that we will see a abdication in the UK must be because of a major scandal involving The Queen herself.

 

[kbk]

When Edward VIII abdicated, Britain could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy.

When Edward VIII abdicated, Ireland had to pass special law separately of the UK and they did it a liittle bit late, so technically David was King of Ireland a day longer than in the UK and his other dominions. Today, all of HM's realms would have to pass their own laws separately and there would be chaos. An abdication of EII would totally damage or at least shake the institution of monarchy there.

 

[MARG]

The present future King, himself a divorcee, married another divorcee and still is very much in line if succession. This added to the divorces of the Duke of York, the Princess Royal, the Princess Margaret, etc. This added to the swift and easy change of the succession into a gender neutral one, all this shows that the British monarchy is not as paralysed, immobile and stuck in traditions as many tend to believe. When Her Majesty informs Mr Cameron she intends to lay down her royal prerogatives, the Government will make this possible.

Firstly, While I agree that the British Monarch is neither paralysed nor immobile and stuck in traditions, you are letting yourself be influenced by an erroneous assumption that Divorce was the primary moving power in the abdication. It was not.

Secondly, you believe that HM's veiw of life, divorce and monarchy has changed so much that she will not only abdicate, but by naming the PM, sooner rather than later.

You are wrong on both counts. Simply stated, QEII will not abdicate because she gave her word and bond before and to both God and her subjects. She pledged to serve for the whole of her life, and that is why she will not abdicate.

. . . . . To accomplish that we must give nothing less than the whole of ourselves. There is a motto which has been borne by many of my ancestors - a noble motto, "I serve". Those words were an inspiration to many bygone heirs to the Throne when they made their knightly dedication as they came to manhood. I cannot do quite as they did.

But through the inventions of science I can do what was not possible for any of them. I can make my solemn act of dedication with a whole Empire listening. I should like to make that dedication now. It is very simple.

I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.

But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me, as I now invite you to do: I know that your support will be unfailingly given. God help me to make good my vow, and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it.

She is both a woman of faith and and a woman of integrity. It is also worth noting that she made this vow on her 21st Birthday and not on her accession to the throne.

You're absolutely right, the only chance that we will see a abdication in the UK must be because of a major scandal involving The Queen herself.

I think the last of her corgis and dorgies are on their toothless last legs, so possession of a vicious attack dog is not a goer.