The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Jacknch]

Indeed, any decision of this kind will be one that the Queen will make herself - of-course, other people will be involved in the mechanism and details of it. But it will be a very personal choice in the same way that Queen Beatrix, through her professionalism and dedication to what she felt was right for her country, made the choice to abdicate - it was "the right time" so to speak.

The Queen is utterly dedicated to her role as monarch and always has been. My feeling is that invoking a regency will be an absolute last resort for her rather than something she will do at a given time - such as after her 95th Birthday as has been muted.

It is also something I think she would do more so with the start in a decline of mental health rather than physical health.

As for abdication, there is unlikely ever to be a need for her to abdicate when regency is an available option.

 

[Gregbee]

She will never abdicate. She clearly stated in her Accession speech that her life "be it long or short" would be devoted to serving her Empire. But this gracious lady has done a superb job for many decades, and who could blame her for wanting to take things a bit easier, whilst still remaining the Monarch? God save the Queen!

 

[Muhler]

Looking at this pretty detached, the question I ask myself is: Why should QEII abdicate now?

Health problems? No.
Problems with her mobility? Hardly.
Political problems? No, no call for her to abdicate.
She not unpopular either to put it mildly!
Scandal? No.
Feeling old? - Perhaps, but that's not my impression.
Family issues? - Nah.
Feeling she can't perform her duties as she should anymore? - Even if that was the case, that's hardly the biggest problem she has.

So the only thing I can think of is to allow Prince Charles to get on the throne before he get too old.
Is that, considering the circumstances, likely? - Don't really think so.

 

[Winnie]

Agree with you post Muhler. I don't see her abdicating in near future unless something really drastic happens to her health. No reason

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

She will never abdicate. She clearly stated in her Accession speech that her life "be it long or short" would be devoted to serving her Empire. [...]

These words were not in her "accession speech" but in a speech for her 21st birthday. She would -suddenly- become Queen five years later. It has nothing to do with the kingship. Had her father King George VI lived for 20 more years, then her "devotion to the Empire" would be the same, as The Princess Elizabeth.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Nobody talks about an abdication, just a few foreign newspapers who misunderstood what Robert Jobson said/wrote.

Why are the papers and posters here talking about this again? This:

Robert Jobson (royal editor at Evening Standard and now royal commentator for the Fail on Sunday) said for years that the Queen was going to abdicate. When that didn't happen and other more trusted commentators/experts (and former royal staffers) disagreed with him, he changed his mind and then said she was going to reign for life.

But last year he came up with something new to write/talk about.

When Her Majesty turned 90 last year, he said on British/Australian TV that his sources told him she was considering a regency at the age of 95. Other more trusted commentators/experts (and former royal staffers) disagreed with him and there was no more talk about it.

But when we got the news about Philip retiring from solo engagements on may 4th, Robert Jobson started to talk (on British/Australian TV) about the regency stuff again. He said (again) that she was considering doing it at the age of 95.

Then the palace went out in the evening on May 4th and said (to Royal Correspondents) that the Queen was as committed as ever to her public life. Royal Correspondent Rhiannon Mills said this on Sky News: ''Also within that statement that was relised this morning there is that very clear message of reassurance when it comes to the Queen's role going forward. Today I'm being told very clearly that she will carry on with those engagements and that it will be business as usual, she will continue to be busy and she is as dedicated as ewer to her own public life.''

But Robert Jobson wouldn't give up.

And on July 28th, he wrote this article, where he mentions the regency stuff again:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...ung-royals-step-up-to-the-plate-a3598631.html

And on July 29th, he wrote this article, where he mentions the regency stuff again:
Queen's top aide quits in dramatic shake up of Royal staff | Daily Mail Online

Then the palace went out again on July 31th when we got the news that the Queen's Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt was to stand down. He said this: “It has been my very great privilege to serve the Queen since the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and, especially, as her private secretary for the past decade.

“In that time, as throughout her reign, her majesty’s authority has brought stability, purpose and colour to country and Commonwealth alike.

“With the Duke of Edinburgh’s recent decision to draw back from public life, the Queen’s own unwavering commitment as sovereign has the full and active support of the entire Royal family.

“It is therefore with every confidence, and with Her Majesty’s agreement, that I now hand over the responsibilities of the Queen’s private secretary to my successor, Edward Young.”

But Robert Jobson continued to talk about it, and Dickie Arbiter and other former royal staffers went out and said that as long the Queen is mentally capable, she will remain the acting monarch and we will not se a regency.

And Royal Central Editor-in-Chief Charlie Proctor wrote this article on August 4th where he spoke to Phil Dampier, who has been writing about The Royal Family for 30 years:
Will The Queen make Prince Charles Prince Regent when she turns 95? – Royal Central

Phil Dampier said this: At the moment she is in excellent health and so she won’t be giving this serious thought right now. In fact, I know she has told friends that she wants to live to 100 like her mother.

“The only reason a regency would ever be contemplated if is she became seriously ill, either mentally or physically. But I don’t believe she would consider an artificial cut off time such as reaching 95. She will consider the situation as each year passes.”

But Robert Jobson still wouldn't give up. And on Agust 5th, he wrote this:
Palace shake-up has turned into 'royal shambles' | Daily Mail Online

And on August 12th, he wrote the same again: (If you click on this DF article, you will se that the headline is this: Charles the Prince Regent? Amid major palace shake-up, is the Queen preparing to 'abdicate' and make Charles the king in all but name?)
Is the Queen preparing abdicate? | Daily Mail Online

The difference now is that other news/gossip sites have seen the last article and is making a lot of noise about it. Charlie Proctor said this on Twitter:

Charlie Proctor @MonarchyUK
Strange how all of the nationals have only just picked up on this story we reported over a week ago.

Wgat do I think:

About Robert Jobson: He is known as very unreliable and one of the few times he has been right was in 2005 when he was the recipient of the London Press Club "Scoop of the Year" award for his world exclusive that Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles were to Wed in 2005. He is rude/sexist and bullies people who don't agree with him. And he have defended all of Philip's so-called jokes.

The Queen's health: She has some problems with her knees and is a bit bent over, but she still walks wery well and quite fast when she has to, as we have seen on several occasions lately.

The Queen Mother did about 50 engagements in 2001 at the age of 100/101, and that despite the fact that she fell and injured herself more than once and was therefore very frail from 93 to 101. She also had two hip replacements, one in 1995 and one in 1998.

If the Queen manages to keep herself on her feet and avoids falling, then I think she can keep going and do what she's doing now for at least 5 years.

If she is still well after the Platinum Jubilee, then I think she can keep going with around 100-150 engagements a year until she is weakened and eventually dies after a short illness. That's what the palace (according to the The Guardian) sees as most likely.

So yes, I expect HM to be with us for years to come. But she's 91 and things can happen very fast at that age.

Philip: He is 96 years old (almost 100) and has had some health problems and 6 hospital stays since 2008. So things can happen at any time now.

So will the Queen opt for a regency at the age of 95 (the year before her Jubilee) or when Philip dies (if he passes before her) while she is healthy and mentally capable? No way. And if she does, then I will eat both my shoes and call myself stupid for the rest of my life.

And considering that I'm a pretty healthy 29-year-old with good genes, that will probably mean for a long time to come.

 

[Osipi]

A truly wonderful post that puts things very nicely into perspective. HM is in great form for her age and to be honest, I think she's in better physical condition that a lot of people 20 years her junior. She has the aches and pains that we all associate with getting older but she's not giving into them and that's what I think keeps her fit.

She still rides when she can and has never been a person to sit in front of the TV ala couch potato mode. I remember one thing that was stated in her cousin, Margaret Rhodes' book "The Final Curtsy: A Royal Memoir" that said it was almost considered a sin growing up to stay indoors all day. The cure all for just about anything is getting out and doing in the fresh air.

This is a woman that defines her life not by who she is but by what she is here to do and would no more shirk her duty than she would wearing blue jeans to a state dinner. She keeps totally on top of things, does not unnecessarily pass on what she is supposed to do to others but has made concessions to growing older. She knows her monarchy and the people she has under her wing that will be the future of the monarchy and that monarchy is at the front of her mind with all the decisions she makes. It always comes first.

People and reporters and royal experts can only scratch the surface of what they see as the close of the Second Elizabethan Age and how it will be. Although I'm sure that considering and possibly making plans for a regency for Charles should something unexpected happen, such as a stroke, is something HM may have felt she needed to do but it is not an indication of anything other than being prepared.

All of us as we grow older think of things that didn't figure in when we were younger such as a good life insurance policy or setting things up as far as our final wishes and spending our children's inheritances. We face our own mortality more and plan accordingly.

One thing for sure with Queen Elizabeth II is that she's not a person consigning herself to expect a visit from the Grim Reaper but a person with a lot of living still to do and still relishes doing it.

 

[Mbruno]

The rumor was not that a regency was imminent, but rather that the Queen was considering a regency at the age of 95, which sounds totally plausible to me. At 95, even if she is still of sound mind, the Queen might feel she is no longer able to discharge the duties of a full-time monarch as her various realms deserve.

 

[Andy T]

Her Majesty will not abdicate. Everything she has said/done in her life thus far, and the example she follows, which was set by her parents, indicates that she will remain Queen until her passing, at whatever age that may be.

Inevitably, she will do less and less with the advancing years and we can expect the same sort of brief, cameo appearances that characterised her Mother's final years. Inevitably also, Charles will do more; he is becoming her main representative on the world stage and, increasingly, will be so on the domestic one as well.

Unless she is deemed to be temporarily or permanently incapacitated (and that decision would not be hers alone to take - if at all), there will be no formal regency.

It's August, news is slow, and disreputable journalists from the scandal rags of the gutter, such as the "Daily Mail", are just making money by amusing their ignorant and gullible readership.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have seen too many abdications (the Pope even, the Emperor of Japan, the King of Spain, etc.) to rule out any possibility. More "unthinkable" things have passed. For an example the second marriage of the future King with Camilla. " Unthinkable" that this would ever happen. Anyway: it happened.

 

[tommy100]

Having thought long and hard about it I really don't think the Queen will ever abdicate - the only abdication in the RF is that of King Edward VIII and IMO her views on that are shaped by her mother (and to a lesser extent her father). I also think the Queen believes strongly in the idea of monarchy being a life long thing and that if she abdicated it could set a precedence. I suspect she feels to take away the life long service takes away apart of the purpose of monarchy - if a monarch has the option to go at sometime before their death would they not just be pressured into abdicating when they become unpopular? Remember how unpopular the Queen was for a few days in 1997 - if abdication was the norm would she have felt pressured to go because the public had 'fallen out' with her?

The Queen is, I think, a very practical woman. To her abdication is simply not on the cards. I can imagine she is more likely to entertain the thought of a Regency, for the purely practical reason that she knows she is getting old and at an age where loosing ones faculties are more likely. The more and more I have thought about it the more and more I have come to see that much of what the Queen does is "extra" to her constitutional duties, and certainly the constitutional duties are much less onerous, physically, than her "extras". There are still a lot of "extra" things the Queen is doing that she could yet handover and so while she does those there is no chance of a Regency. IMO before a regency (unless the Queen suddenly suffers a quick decent mentally) we will see the Queen withdraw much much more than now, with her still acting as Head of State as constitutional required - signing necessary documents, meeting ambassadors etc the very bare minimum with Charles doing more of the big events on her behalf.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The suggestion being made is NOT about her abdicating at all. It is about the possibility of her asking for a Regency.

She would remain HM The Queen.

Charles would remain HRH The Prince of Wales with the added title of The Prince Regent.

That is not an abdication.

When she was 21 she promised to serve for her entire life (not at her accession as someone in an earlier post said but on her 21st birthday in South Africa). How she decides she is best able to serve is a valid question.

If she believes that the best way to serve her people is for Charles to do the actual graft of the monarch then that is how she will serve. She will never abdicate but this suggestion is away of her stepping down without abdicating - in other words having her cake and eating it at the same time - still being The Queen and not having to do the work.

The suggestion is also that she MAY make that decision in around 4 years time. Who knows what the situation will be then?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Indeed. The possibility of a Regent lies more at hand than an abdication, but I rule nothing out, seeing the many once "unthinkable" things which turned out to become reality anyway.

At this moment there is a regency in Liechtenstein. While Hans Adam remains Fürst, his son Aloïs executes all the prerogatives. This becomes visible in the princely assent to laws:

In stellvertretung des Landesfürsten:

A l o ï s
Erbprinz

(Representing the Sovereign Prince:

A l o ï s
Hereditary Prince)

------------------------

During a regency in the Netherlands, always and ever the factual Sovereign is named, even when it is only "just" the offering of a Bill:

http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=sgd:mpeg21:18901891:0000975

My Lords!

In the name of Her Majesty WILHELMINA, by the grace of God, Queen of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Etc., Etc., Etc.;
We, Emma, Queen-Dowager, Regentess of the Kingdom;

Hereby offer into Your consideration two drafts of Bills:

[....]

And herewith We command You in the Lord's holy protection.

[signed] E m m a

----------------------

I can see Queen Elizabeth II indeed doing so, handing over the execution of the royal prerogatives into the hands of the Prince of Wales, the Regent, but remaining The Queen nevertheless.

 

[MARG]

Strangely, I believe her 21st Birthday vow is the most important. She was only a princess then as Duc said but she's a darned sight older and I know she hoped she would have years before ascending the throne. She didn't but that changes not her vow one whit. She knew she would be the next Monarch.

Some obnoxious journalist once said to Prince Charles that surely he must feel the passing of wasted years as Prince of Wales. He fixed his steely gaze on the idiot and replied 'as my ascension to the throne is dependent upon the death of my mother, I'm in no hurry to attend her funeral' (or words to that effect). And who said Charles didn't get some of the sarcastic wit of his dad.

I am prepared to wait for what will be.

 

[wbenson]

Regency is permanent thing in UK.

Obviously every regency lasts till death of monarch or monarch's adulthood.

A regency for an adult monarch only lasts "until it is declared...that [Her] Majesty has so far recovered [Her] health as to warrant [Her] resumption of the royal functions or has become available for the performance thereof."

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Nobody talks about an abdication, just a few foreign newspapers who misunderstood what Robert Jobson said/wrote.

Why are the papers and posters here talking about this again? This:

Robert Jobson (royal editor at Evening Standard and now royal commentator for the Fail on Sunday) said for years that the Queen was going to abdicate. When that didn't happen and other more trusted commentators/experts (and former royal staffers) disagreed with him, he changed his mind and then said she was going to reign for life.

But last year he came up with something new to write/talk about.

When Her Majesty turned 90 last year, he said on British/Australian TV that his sources told him she was considering a regency at the age of 95. Other more trusted commentators/experts (and former royal staffers) disagreed with him and there was no more talk about it.

But when we got the news about Philip retiring from solo engagements on may 4th, Robert Jobson started to talk (on British/Australian TV) about the regency stuff again. He said (again) that she was considering doing it at the age of 95.

Then the palace went out in the evening on May 4th and said (to Royal Correspondents) that the Queen was as committed as ever to her public life. Royal Correspondent Rhiannon Mills said this on Sky News: ''Also within that statement that was relised this morning there is that very clear message of reassurance when it comes to the Queen's role going forward. Today I'm being told very clearly that she will carry on with those engagements and that it will be business as usual, she will continue to be busy and she is as dedicated as ewer to her own public life.''

But Robert Jobson wouldn't give up.

And on July 28th, he wrote this article, where he mentions the regency stuff again:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...ung-royals-step-up-to-the-plate-a3598631.html

And on July 29th, he wrote this article, where he mentions the regency stuff again:
Queen's top aide quits in dramatic shake up of Royal staff | Daily Mail Online

Then the palace went out again on July 31th when we got the news that the Queen's Private Secretary Sir Christopher Geidt was to stand down. He said this: “It has been my very great privilege to serve the Queen since the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and, especially, as her private secretary for the past decade.

“In that time, as throughout her reign, her majesty’s authority has brought stability, purpose and colour to country and Commonwealth alike.

“With the Duke of Edinburgh’s recent decision to draw back from public life, the Queen’s own unwavering commitment as sovereign has the full and active support of the entire Royal family.

“It is therefore with every confidence, and with Her Majesty’s agreement, that I now hand over the responsibilities of the Queen’s private secretary to my successor, Edward Young.”

But Robert Jobson continued to talk about it, and Dickie Arbiter and other former royal staffers went out and said that as long the Queen is mentally capable, she will remain the acting monarch and we will not se a regency.

And Royal Central Editor-in-Chief Charlie Proctor wrote this article on August 4th where he spoke to Phil Dampier, who has been writing about The Royal Family for 30 years:
Will The Queen make Prince Charles Prince Regent when she turns 95? – Royal Central

Phil Dampier said this: At the moment she is in excellent health and so she won’t be giving this serious thought right now. In fact, I know she has told friends that she wants to live to 100 like her mother.

“The only reason a regency would ever be contemplated if is she became seriously ill, either mentally or physically. But I don’t believe she would consider an artificial cut off time such as reaching 95. She will consider the situation as each year passes.”

But Robert Jobson still wouldn't give up. And on Agust 5th, he wrote this:
Palace shake-up has turned into 'royal shambles' | Daily Mail Online

And on August 12th, he wrote the same again: (If you click on this DF article, you will se that the headline is this: Charles the Prince Regent? Amid major palace shake-up, is the Queen preparing to 'abdicate' and make Charles the king in all but name?)
Is the Queen preparing abdicate? | Daily Mail Online

The difference now is that other news/gossip sites have seen the last article and is making a lot of noise about it. Charlie Proctor said this on Twitter:

Charlie Proctor @MonarchyUK
Strange how all of the nationals have only just picked up on this story we reported over a week ago.

Wgat do I think:

About Robert Jobson: He is known as very unreliable and one of the few times he has been right was in 2005 when he was the recipient of the London Press Club "Scoop of the Year" award for his world exclusive that Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles were to Wed in 2005. He is rude/sexist and bullies people who don't agree with him. And he have defended all of Philip's so-called jokes.

The Queen's health: She has some problems with her knees and is a bit bent over, but she still walks wery well and quite fast when she has to, as we have seen on several occasions lately.

The Queen Mother did about 50 engagements in 2001 at the age of 100/101, and that despite the fact that she fell and injured herself more than once and was therefore very frail from 93 to 101. She also had two hip replacements, one in 1995 and one in 1998.

If the Queen manages to keep herself on her feet and avoids falling, then I think she can keep going and do what she's doing now for at least 5 years.

If she is still well after the Platinum Jubilee, then I think she can keep going with around 100-150 engagements a year until she is weakened and eventually dies after a short illness. That's what the palace (according to the The Guardian) sees as most likely.

So yes, I expect HM to be with us for years to come. But she's 91 and things can happen very fast at that age.

Philip: He is 96 years old (almost 100) and has had some health problems and 6 hospital stays since 2008. So things can happen at any time now.

So will the Queen opt for a regency at the age of 95 (the year before her Jubilee) or when Philip dies (if he passes before her) while she is healthy and mentally capable? No way. And if she does, then I will eat both my shoes and call myself stupid for the rest of my life.

And considering that I'm a pretty healthy 29-year-old with good genes, that will probably mean for a long time to come.

By Roya Nikkhah, Royal Correspondent and Caroline Wheeler, Deputy Political Editor:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/queen-will-not-stand-down-for-prince-charles-xzlt6dqmc

The Queen has no intention of stepping aside for Prince Charles and insists it is “duty first, nation first, I’m going to be there”, according to sources close to the monarch.

Royal insiders said the Queen, the world’s longest-reigning living monarch, remained as committed as ever to her duty. They dismiss claims that she will request that the Regency Act come into force in the foreseeable future.

Neither Buckingham Palace nor Clarence House is planning for a regency, three separate senior sources told The Sunday Times.

One source said: “The Queen has always been so vehement that there will never be a regency unless she was sick to the point of being unable to perform her duties. As long as she’s healthy, regardless of her age, I don’t see a regency. Other members of the royal family can just do more.” Upon the announcement in May of Prince Philip’s retirement from official duties, the Queen signalled via a speech from her private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, to 500 royal staff that her family should place more emphasis on state business in support of the monarchy, rather than what royal sources describe as “individual activity”.

From the Times (above) and the Daily Stupid Express article, which I don't bother to post her:
Under the 1937 Regency Act, the monarch can cede power to the heir apparent ''in the event of incapacity of the sovereign through illness, and for the performance of certain royal functions in the name and on behalf of the sovereign in certain other events''.

It states that the monarch’s duties can be performed by a regent if the monarch is declared in writing to be incapable of performing royal functions by three or more of the sovereign’s consort, the lord chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the master of the rolls.

From the articles, but written differently by me - so not a quote:
Andrew Rosindell, chairman of the flags and heraldry all-party parliamentary group, has said that it is ''more important than eve'' that the Queen remains head of state as the UK prepares to leave the EU.

''To lose her as a head of state at this point would not benefit the country or be popular,'' he said.

From me: As I, the palace and reliable commentators have said several times now: We will not see a Regency when HM (if mentally capable) turns 95. So both people/politicians can calm themself down and most importantly (as I wrote in my above post) don't listen to Robert Jobson.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

" Andrew Rosindell, chairman of the flags and heraldry all-party parliamentary group, has said that it is ''more important than ever'' that the Queen remains head of state as the UK prepares to leave the EU. "

What has the person of the head of state, be it King Charles, King William or King George, to do with Brexit?

The nail-clipping of Mr David Davis (the British chief negotiator) is of far more importance for the Brexit process than the person who bears the Crown, I am afraid to say. The monarchy is better off without figures as Mr Rosindell who is known for blocking a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses with as argument that the cirucs needed to be defended against propaganda [of animal welfare groups]. He also is not too afraid to use "alternative facts" when he claimed: “The humiliation of having a pink European Union passport" (the EU does not issue passports at all, and the uniform colour is not pink but dark burgundy-red).

 

[Dman]

I think some members of the media patience are wearing thin on Charles's future. It's the ages that's getting to them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The media know that only young and very old sell. Middle aged to elderly don't sell. All the media cares about is the bottom line - not the truth or people's feelings.

Unfortunately for the BRF they are set up for a succession of aging monarchs and so the media will bay for one or more of them to be passed over - that sells as well - controversy.

 

[MARG]

I have great faith in "the silent majority" when it comes to HM. She is not ill or infirm and she most definitely has all her marbles so, if it aint broke don't fix it. Without a Regency, HM has already let it be known that almost all of the donkey work is passing to Charles, Camilla, William and Harry.

When I see HM I see a very elegant and well groomed old lady. But I do not see haggard, worn, elderly woman shuffling around with her zimmer frame. And the use of a Zimmer frames does not denote the loss of mental acuity.

I think we will see less and less of HM until we only really see her on important occasions. And why not? At her age, she has earned the right to delegate and I believe her people will endorse her decision to cut back and spend a lot of time with her husband.

 

[cepe]

A couple of thoughts:

People talk about the 21st birthday speech and the vows made at the Coronation but I recently found the text from her first Christmas broadcast (so between these two events) which shows that her thoughts had not wavered

"I want to ask you all, whatever your religion may be, to pray for me on that day [coronation] - to pray that God may give me wisdom and strength to carry out the solemn promises I shall be making, and that I may faithfully serve Him and you, all the days of my life."


as for the Charles v William debate (slightly off topic but this quote is worth it); old vs new is a repetitive strain in all royal families. Quote from Nancy Mitford - "How much nicer to have a young queen than that very dull man."
Not everyone appreciated his (GVI) commitment either.

 

[Dee Anna]

I can see the Queen handing duties over but not the role. Why would she? She saw her father die at a relatively young age and her mother carry on for decades. She is - as far as we can see - in good health. I also don't think she would want to be around for the Camilla situation.

 

[Denville]

What Camilla situation?

 

[Dee Anna]

The official title Camilla will be known by when/if Charles becomes King. There has been quite a bit of speculation on it since the Princess Consort title was put out there when they got married. Will or will she not be Queen Camilla.

 

[Denville]

well kind of moot, since Charles will not be king until the queen dies.

 

[Lee-Z]

If the queen *would* hand over her role, iow abdicate, she *would* be around for the "Camilla situation"...

That said, i still believe she will not abdicate; if only because she is the head of state of several countries and it would be quite complicated overall (this is an aspect that is not comparable to other european monarchs).

 

[Denville]

She would not abdicate. So it is completely "moot".

 

[Dee Anna]

well kind of moot, since Charles will not be king until the queen dies.

Not if she were to abdicate which was the point I was making!

 

[Osipi]

HM, The Queen will abdicate the throne when she decides to wear blue jeans and a hoodie to the state opening of parliament.

Its occurred to me that it really doesn't matter what Camilla's title is going to be when Charles becomes King. What is important is her role in the scheme of things. Whether it be Queen or Princess Consort or General Gladys, she'll be right there by Charles side doing what she does best. Supporting and loving him and bringing out the best in him.

 

[padams2359]

Her life, her whole life.