The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[LauraS3514]

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.

Exactly: The Queen was anointed with holy oil and consecrated in a religious service. That is for life. No other European monarch is enthroned in this way.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Exactly: The Queen was anointed with holy oil and consecrated in a religious service. That is for life. No other European monarch is enthroned in this way.

The Pope was anointed, consrated, blessed and what-not-al. This was no hindrance for him (and other Popes in history) to abdicate. What about Archbishops of Canterbury who step down as well? These examples are also "for life". So the argument is somewhat on shaky grounds.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

In essence you say: when her Most Gracious Majesty annouces to Mr Cameron and informs all Her Realms that she wants to abdicate the kingship, Governments in -for an example- Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.- would block this for some reason?

My guess is that when the Queen wants to step down, which is unlikely but we are often surprised by new realities, all her Governments will facilitate this, to the left or to the right. It will be made possible. No problem.

 

[muriel]

The Pope was anointed, consrated, blessed and what-not-al. This was no hindrance for him (and other Popes in history) to abdicate. What about Archbishops of Canterbury who step down as well? These examples are also "for life". So the argument is somewhat on shaky grounds.

Each monarchy and each monarch sets their own standards, and have their own traditions to follow. What the Pope does or does not do has absolutely no bearing on how our monarch may choose to spend the autumn of her life.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Each monarchy and each monarch sets their own standards, and have their own traditions to follow. What the Pope does or does not do has absolutely no bearing on how our monarch may choose to spend the autumn of her life.

I guess the actions of the Pope would not bother the Queen at all indeed. It is just the argument that the Queen apparently could not step down because she has been anointed, blessed and consecrated. That argument has been countered with the examples of the Pope or -better- the supreme leader of Her Majesty's very own Anglican Community which is The Most Reverend and The Right Honourable The Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England.

Recently we saw the enthronement of Justin Welby, very much alike a coronation service. Engaging into clegry, all Archbishops of Canterbury have been anointed, blessed, consecrated. All Archbishops have been enthroned in a lavish ceremony. All of them made vows before the Lord Almighty. Usually all Archbishops of Canterbury died as Archbishop indeed. But the last 8 Archbishops all retired from their High Office, with this breaking centuries of tradition. So even the Church of England is able to cope with changes...

 

[Roslyn]

I guess the actions of the Pope would not bother the Queen at all indeed. It is just the argument that the Queen apparently could not step down because she has been anointed, blessed and consecrated. That argument has been countered with the examples of the Pope or -better- the supreme leader of Her Majesty's very own Anglican Community which is The Most Reverend and The Right Honourable The Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England.

Recently we saw the enthronement of Justin Welby, very much alike a coronation service. Engaging into clegry, all Archbishops of Canterbury have been anointed, blessed, consecrated. All Archbishops have been enthroned in a lavish ceremony. All of them made vows before the Lord Almighty. Usually all Archbishops of Canterbury died as Archbishop indeed. But the last 8 Archbishops all retired from their High Office, with this breaking centuries of tradition. So even the Church of England is able to cope with changes...

I find your argument compelling, Duc et Pair. If the Pope and the Anglican Archbishops can retire, so can the Queen. Traditions change, and sometimes I think that sort of change is a very good thing.

 

[Skippyboo]

Pope Benedict was the first to resign since 1415-not a trend. Several previous AoC have given up their post. When was the last not to?

It been over a yr since the new law for the succession passed in the UK but it still hasn't passed in all of the realms and there are challenging court proceedings in Canada. It can't be assumed that any abdication bill will sail thru.

If the Queen doesn't want to retire, she doesn't have too. It's her decision. If she did want to, the regency act is probably vague enough to set Charles up as a regent without abidication.

 

[MARG]

I guess the actions of the Pope would not bother the Queen at all indeed. It is just the argument that the Queen apparently could not step down because she has been anointed, blessed and consecrated. That argument has been countered with the examples of the Pope or -better- the supreme leader of Her Majesty's very own Anglican Community which is The Most Reverend and The Right Honourable The Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England.

Recently we saw the enthronement of Justin Welby, very much alike a coronation service. Engaging into clegry, all Archbishops of Canterbury have been anointed, blessed, consecrated. All Archbishops have been enthroned in a lavish ceremony. All of them made vows before the Lord Almighty. Usually all Archbishops of Canterbury died as Archbishop indeed. But the last 8 Archbishops all retired from their High Office, with this breaking centuries of tradition. So even the Church of England is able to cope with changes...

I have to admit, I do not understand your reasoning. I am not aware of the exact vows a Pope takes but I am sure they are not unto death. They may have stayed until death but I don't think it was written.

The Archbishop of Canterbury likewise, does not take vows unto death.

Somehow the connection between the Queen abdicating and the last Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the last 8 Archbishop's of Canterbury just does not make sense. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[cepe]

I have to admit, I do not understand your reasoning. I am not aware of the exact vows a Pope takes but I am sure they are not unto death. They may have stayed until death but I don't think it was written.

The Archbishop of Canterbury likewise, does not take vows unto death.

Somehow the connection between the Queen abdicating and the last Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the last 8 Archbishop's of Canterbury just does not make sense. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

I agree. the vows that the pope and AoC made were as priests and that vow still holds. they have given up a role and not their vows.

HMQ will never want to abdicate, but I hope that with her sense of duty, if she couldnt do the job that is necessary, she would do so for the sake of her realms but part. UK

 

[Roslyn]

HMQ will never want to abdicate, but I hope that with her sense of duty, if she couldnt do the job that is necessary, she would do so for the sake of her realms but part. UK

This is what it boils down to for me. She vowed to serve for life, and if she can no longer do the job she can best serve those she vowed to serve by passing the baton to the next player. No-one could seriously argue he hasn't been sufficiently trained and prepared for the task.

 

[Skippyboo]

There is already a mechanism in place to handle if the Queen can't her duties - a regency.

 

[kbk]

If she can't perform her duties, why not pass the torch?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

If she can't perform her duties, why not pass the torch?

You have a good explanation for why she can't, in one of your previous posts.

 

[kbk]

You have a good explanation for why she can't, in one of your previous posts.

I'm just trying to stay open-minded and see the problem in a wider perspective. I consider things carefully and share with you my thoughts and my recent post, a question really, and all previous ones were just my views on the matter of EII's potential abdication.
Some of the fellow board members have some point in calling the case of Benedict XVI... Anyway, although the question is open to us for discussion, I think the Queen will never abdicate. So it's pure theory .

 

[Iluvbertie]

Pope Benedict was the first to resign since 1415-not a trend. Several previous AoC have given up their post. When was the last not to?

It been over a yr since the new law for the succession passed in the UK but it still hasn't passed in all of the realms and there are challenging court proceedings in Canada. It can't be assumed that any abdication bill will sail thru.

If the Queen doesn't want to retire, she doesn't have too. It's her decision. If she did want to, the regency act is probably vague enough to set Charles up as a regent without abidication.

The Regency Act is very clear about when and how a Regent would be appointed - due to the incapacity of the monarch to carry out his/her duties - needs to be signed off by 3/5 leading officials including the spouse of the monarch and the PM and the AoC and two others I am two lazy to look up at the moment - on medical advice.

An abdication wouldn't bring in a Regent but a new monarch - as happened in 1936 when Edward VIII abdicated and George VI was proclaimed King.

A Regency would be declared if the necessary paperwork was signed off and Charles would be Regent until either The Queen died or recovered from whatever it was that made her incapable of carrying out her duties.

 

[GracieGiraffe]

I really don't like the idea of a regency - I like all or nothing.

Why should someone do all the work of a monarch and really get none of the credit?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The do get the credit though e.g. The Prince Regent is a specific title that George IV used when he served as Regent for his father for the final time but... he also served in that capacity earlier in George III's reign and George III recovered. W

How would it work though if George III had been declared as no longer King and then he had recovered - as he did the first time - what then? Did George IV have to abdicate and go through the process again of a ascension and a coronation and then another regency was necessary so through the process again.

What about when the monarch is under age - shouldn't that child have the right to inherit or does something like this happen: The Queen, Charles and William all die and because George is too young to be king and needs a regency does Harry become King and then have to abdicate when George is 18?

I think a Regency does make sense if the monarch is incapacitated as they also can't abdicate voluntarily so for the government to declare the reign at an end would be coup d'état effectively and would the heir won't to take over in those circumstances.

 

[Ish]

The credit does kind of depend on what you consider credit and when you're looking at things.

All regents have received credit in their day. They received titles held power, got rich, etc. The problem with "credit" is that unless you're really historically inclined they kind of fade into the background with time. So, people know that George III went mad and might know that his son became Prince Regent during the madness before becoming king himself, but they aren't likely to know who served as regent during the minorities of Richard II or Henry VI. I'm historically inclined, and I couldn't tell you off the top of my head who Henry VI's regent(s) were.

 

[angieuk]

King Juan Carlos of Spain reveals why he decided to abdicate | Mail Online

Spain - didn't want his son to end up like Prince Charles!

Prince Philip is now 93, the Queen is 88, Charles at 66 this year, knows he will only ever be a caretaker King now, a bit late to take over the top job. The Queen will stay on.

 

[Dman]

John Prescott: Why handover could be a step up, not down, for our remarkable Queen-
John Prescott: Why handover could be a step up, not down, for our remarkable Queen - John Prescott - Mirror Online

 

[wyevale]

Fortunately NO-ONE Has ever taken any notice of Prescott [a noted hypocrite, who spent years undermining the House of Lords, before accepting a peerage from Tony Blair, enabling him to sit there, and make MORE money]

He is [of course] entitled to express his opinion, but it is pretty much worthless...

 

[Queen Camilla]

Why would the Queen abdicate?

Her workload of the past week put the younger generation to shame.

She just showed the world that she could do the job and then she went to the races without a trace of fatigue.

Prince Charles looked like he wilted.

The Queen a quitter? Never.

Did the British military quit when bombed by the Germans? No.
Expecting the Queen to step aside when her father's troops didn't would be desertion and a dereliction of duty.

 

[cepe]

Why would the Queen abdicate?

Her workload of the past week put the younger generation to shame.

She just showed the world that she could do the job and then she went to the races without a trace of fatigue.

Prince Charles looked like he wilted.

The Queen a quitter? Never.

Did the British military quit when bombed by the Germans? No.
Expecting the Queen to step aside when her father's troops didn't would be desertion and a dereliction of duty.

No he didn't - he did a further 3 engagements before he left France. Just give up on the anti-Charles stuff - its a losing battle.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I am not anti-Charles.

His salute at the cemetery was weak.
His face was very red thoughout the trip.
Prince Philip's salute was a proper salute.
PC looked like he couldn't lift his arm. His hand & arm were curved and not straight.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles always has a red face because he has rosacea which has been said many times but people simply refuse to understand that - Harry has the same thing which is why he often has a red face.

The salute looked a bit off but so what - he has had injuries in that arm which will permanently affect that ability to raise the arm - it isn't a sign that there is anything inherently wrong.

Charles looked fine to me and has had a very busy schedule over the last couple of weeks - trip to Canada with 7 - 8 engagements a DAY and then back to the UK with more engagements and then again overseas before back to Europe and then to France. Between the 19th May and the 2nd June (I haven't updated since then yet) he did 36 engagements in 15 days with two overseas trips in that time as well - and like all of us in a 15 day span surely entitled to two weekends so in 11 working days he did 36 engagements - day in day out he is now the busiest member of the BRF and as his parents continue to age he will have to continue to pick up the pace.

It isn't the slowing down of the Queen and Philip that should be a concern but the overworking of Charles himself trying to do all that he was expected to do as heir and then add on a lot of his parents' workload as well and he is already past retirement age but it having to do more each year now.

 

[MARG]

King Juan Carlos of Spain reveals why he decided to abdicate | Mail Online

Spain - didn't want his son to end up like Prince Charles!

Prince Philip is now 93, the Queen is 88, Charles at 66 this year, knows he will only ever be a caretaker King now, a bit late to take over the top job. The Queen will stay on.

What a crock! Does King Juan Carlos really believe that the public will actually buy that as a reason? How about scandal, and lots of it, how about being out of touch with his subjects (Safari anyone?) with almost 25% unemployment. How about lovers and alledged paternity tests . . . the new King's half siblings? How about financial misconduct by his daughter and son-in-law?

All in all, it's a pretty ugly picture of a very "entitled" person. That type of person does not abdicate power to his son out of the generosity of his own heart. I think it is worth noting that it was stated that he will not retain his immuniy. Hmm, why would a JC be in need of immunity. Did he jump or was he pushed. Whichever way, I doubt he gave the BRF a single thought.

How about QEII is both loved and beloved of her people (and I understand the French are pretty partial too) and Charles is happy to pick up as much as his mother wishes to give him because, as things stand, his succeeding the throne is totally dependent on his mother's death. Judging from what we see and hear, not surprisingly he, Ann, Andrew and Edward love their parents and are not in any hurry to see either of them gone.

The Queen and her Consort are the last of their generation. People forget that Prince Philip is a veteran of WWII, seeing action in both the Mediterranean and the Pacific and that at 21 years old one of the youngest first lieutenants in the Royal Navy. The Queen's service in the WATS is not to be sniffed at either. She still knows her way around an engine.

I think it appalling that people seem to think it's OK to tell her that basically she's past her use-by date. The very least she deserves is to end her role as Queen in the manner which she and she alone chooses. She's earned that right.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Very well said, MARG, and I totally agree in all that you've stated.

 

[Calenei]

Great post MARG!!!

 

[Dman]

I'm not sure she will abdicate but I do think the workload do get to her at times. She's been doing this job for a very long time and she's a pro. The problems that she may have at this age is pretty much masked by her since of duty and determination to keep on keeping on.

She is approaching 90 though and I think we have to prepare ourselves for when we really see the evidence of her stepping back.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Dear Marg... it is the Daily Fail... "sources in the palace have heard that...", "according insiders the King would have said...", etc. etc. We all can fabricate the same stuff. No one has heard King Juan Carlos saying these words and most likely the Prince of Wales came not into his mind at all, like he came not in the mind of King Albert II or Queen Beatrix when they decided on their abdications.

Yesterday the King, the Queen, the Prince and Doña Letizia did attend a ceremony for the Fallen on the Plaza de Lealtad in Madrid. It was broadcast live by TVE. A beautiful ceremony, an enthusiast public shouting 'Viva El Rey! Viva España!'. However the King looked very, very frail. And he is very frail for years, since he has had a many operations. The King could barely walk and needed his stick to walk step-by-step, the pain was visible on his face. So the Daily Fail with all these fabricated stories: it is just the King feeling that he can no longer fulfill his duties to the standards he expects from himself and from others. No more, no less.