The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Somebody]

Neither Charles nor William ever has made a similar vow, though. Elizabeth only did because she was turning 21 and there was no new position for her or title to mark the occasion.

Charles became Prince of Wales instead. William is still down the line. So apart from being a different person, different time, and different mindset, it was literally a unique occasion for the Queen. There's no need, let alone reason, for any of her current descendants to do anything similar.

Thanks for the clarification. What is the literal text of her vow at the coronation? Because I was thinking about that part but clearly was mistaken ?

 

[Prinsara]

Thanks for the clarification. What is the literal text of her vow at the coronation? Because I was thinking about the part but clearly was mistaken ?

https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

Of course Charles and William (and George) will be expected to take some version of this, eventually, presumably.

If you are thinking of the "my whole life, long or short" one, that was her (unique) 21st birthday speech, containing this "declaration".

 

[Somebody]

https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

Of course Charles and William (and George) will be expected to take some version of this, eventually, presumably.

If you are thinking of the "my whole life, long or short" one, that was her (unique) 21st birthday speech, containing this "declaration".

I was thinking about the Coronation Oath but you referenced her 21st birthday speech as a vow

Now having read the Coronation Oath, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with abdication. I wouldn't be surprised if the part about maintaining the protestant religion and the Church of England will one day be changed.

Currently, the queen would have no option than to abdicate if the law makers decide to change the law on this specific issue and if she isn't able to change their opinions as if she remains while allowing that to happen she would break her oath.

But thanks for pointing me to look up and read her speech and declaration on her 21st birthday from South Africa; stating: "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."

 

[Prinsara]

Now having read the Coronation Oath, I don't see anything that would be incompatible with abdication. I wouldn't be surprised if the part about maintaining the protestant religion and the Church of England will one day be changed.

Currently, the queen would have no option than to abdicate if the law makers decide to change the law on this specific issue and if she isn't able to change their opinions as if she remains while allowing that to happen she would break her oath.

Well, she did also promise to uphold the laws of all her realms. And she is almost completely subject to Parliament. Should they decide to change any of it, I think Her Majesty goes with the change, presumably, rather than abdicates.

Her 21st birthday speech/vow/declaration is part and/or entirely representative of why she is still going. Her descendants may not make the same choice.

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

This oath means she will be at service of the people until her death. That is who she is and what she represents. Duty first and always ,then self and family. Actually sad, she earned to rest.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

As it's from The Sun I took the article with a grain of salt. HM made a pledge to be queen for all her life and I doubt she will go back on her word now in her 90s.

 

[Roslyn]

I do not believe that abdication at the age of 95 would be inconsistent with the declaration made as a 21 year old princess so many years ago. She can serve her people in more ways than one, and maybe stepping down and giving a younger person the job is the best way to serve them. As I see it, the only similarity between abdication in these circumstances and her uncle's abdication is that Elizabeth would be ending her reign during her own lifetime. Her father was not expected to become king whereas Charles has been expected to succeed his mother since the date of his birth, and has been trained for it his whole life and is ready to discharge the monarch's duties. I also think he might rather like to have a go at the job while his mother is still alive, for her death is the one thing that has always been between him and the top job so it has never been something he could look forward to.

However, I can't help thinking that the religious element, and particularly the anointing business, is the great stumbling block. If Elizabeth believes that the anointing at the coronation literally transformed her into something more than an ordinary human, or even if it just gave her divine imprimatur, and if she has lived all her life since then believing that to be the case and that it is a lifetime appointment, I don't think there is any way she will abdicate. Her perception of the religious significance of the coronation, coupled with her own voluntary declaration so many years ago, will make it impossible for her to abdicate.

 

[Jacknch]

I don't think speech that the Queen made on her 21st Birthday technically or legally binds her until death, although most likely what she herself believes:

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.
https://www.royal.uk/21st-birthday-...declare before you all,to which we all belong.

So in that respect, HM could abdicate, yet continue in the life-long service that she promised.

The Coronation Oath is something different and binds her to the constitutional and legal aspects contained in that oath:

Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern [...] according to their respective laws and customs?
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Will you [...] maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Will you [...] maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve [...] the settlement of the Church of England [...] as by law established in England?

After promising each of the above, the Queen took the Oath by stating:
"The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."

Whilst there is no wording such as "for the rest of your life", the lack of them presumes these promises must be upheld for an indefinite period and perhaps the words "perform and keep" that underline this.
https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

The anointing was simply just that, a sacred act elevating the Queen in a spiritual way, with the Archbishop stating: "Be thy head anointed with holy oil: as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed. And as Solomon was anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet, so be you anointed, blessed and consecrated Queen over the Peoples, whom the Lord thy God hath given thee to rule and govern".

A BBC article about he anointing states:

In that instant, the viewing public were meant to believe that their Queen was transformed. As a newsreel commentator put it: "the hallowing - a moment so old history can barely go deep enough to contain it."

When the golden pall was removed and the cameras rolled on the monarch once more [...] Elizabeth had become associated with the divine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22764987.

 

[An Ard Ri]

As it's from The Sun I took the article with a grain of salt. HM made a pledge to be queen for all her life and I doubt she will go back on her word now in her 90s.

I agree there may be a handing over of duties but I firmly believe Elizabeth II will die as Sovereign.

In 2022 Her Majesty will have reigned for 70 years as Monarch ,please God we will see that milestone reached.

 

[Durham]

However, I can't help thinking that the religious element, and particularly the anointing business, is the great stumbling block. If Elizabeth believes that the anointing at the coronation literally transformed her into something more than an ordinary human, or even if it just gave her divine imprimatur, and if she has lived all her life since then believing that to be the case and that it is a lifetime appointment, I don't think there is any way she will abdicate. Her perception of the religious significance of the coronation, coupled with her own voluntary declaration so many years ago, will make it impossible for her to abdicate.

I agree with this. She was anointed, blessed & consecrated. She was literally set apart from others. It doesn't matter if few now believe this. It's a religious service so it's about faith not reason. It's goes deep into history.

I hope British monarchs never do abdicate but I suspect they'll start to do so in the future. Something will be lost when they do. The anointing of course will have to go otherwise it would make no sense.

 

[Durham]

In my opinion the most intimidating obstacle to a hypothetical abdication by a British monarch is the fact that as demonstrated by the two-year process to ratify the Succession to the Crown Act in the Commonwealth Realms after it was passed by the British Parliament, a number of foreign countries would need to pass legislation to give their consent.

Hypothetically could the British sovereign abdicate but then continue as monarch elsewhere? I'm not aware of any reason why not since the crowns are separate.

 

[Denville]

I agree with this. She was anointed, blessed & consecrated. She was literally set apart from others. It doesn't matter if few now believe this. It's a religious service so it's about faith not reason. It's goes deep into history.

I hope British monarchs never do abdicate but I suspect they'll start to do so in the future. Something will be lost when they do. The anointing of course will have to go otherwise it would make no sense.

ther'es nothing to stop the queen abdicating, if she really wanted to.. but its not likely she will..And Im sure that in the future British kings will abdicate when they get to a certain age. The queen doesn't want to, and Charles has had to wait for so long I dont think he'll do it but Im sure William will and IMO he should.

 

[Hallo girl]

ther'es nothing to stop the queen abdicating, if she really wanted to.. but its not likely she will..And Im sure that in the future British kings will abdicate when they get to a certain age. The queen doesn't want to, and Charles has had to wait for so long I dont think he'll do it but Im sure William will and IMO he should.

I personally do not think she would abdicate but I can see her taking more of a back seat just as she has been e.g. no foreign tours, then of course due to covid.

 

[Durham]

ther'es nothing to stop the queen abdicating, if she really wanted to.. but its not likely she will..And Im sure that in the future British kings will abdicate when they get to a certain age. The queen doesn't want to, and Charles has had to wait for so long I dont think he'll do it but Im sure William will and IMO he should.

The question was raised about whether the anointing & consecrating of the monarch was an impediment to abdication. That may well be an issue for The Queen. So there probably is something stopping her from abdicating.

As to whether future monarchs should abdicate the arguements in favour make perfect sense in a logical way. But the monarchy isn't logical. To treat it the same as any other civic office would diminish it.

I accept that mine is probably a minority view.

 

[Denville]

There is nothing IMO in anointing to mean that when someone feels they can not longer do their duties properly as monarch from being released from the obligations. And as people get to live much longer, it might mean you have a 100 year old king and an 75 year old heir. Its not feasible to keep heirs waiting till they are grandparents and well past retirement age and for monarchs to keep on till they die at 95.

 

[Hallo girl]

The question was raised about whether the anointing & consecrating of the monarch was an impediment to abdication. That may well be an issue for The Queen. So there probably is something stopping her from abdicating.

As to whether future monarchs should abdicate the arguements in favour make perfect sense in a logical way. But the monarchy isn't logical. To treat it the same as any other civic office would diminish it.

I accept that mine is probably a minority view.

I would agree, one of the reasons they didnt want the Windsors back was because you couldn't have 2 kings.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I think too that she will die as sovereign but hand over the bulk of duties to Charles. Corona will be a major factor, I doubt QEII will ever be back to duty the way she was before. Time is against her, she will always be a high risk patient and not travel the country with a mask on her face. I think she'll pull back slowly from now on, if the Duke should pass what is likely in the not too distant future she'll be seen less and less anyway.

 

[Denville]

I personally do not think she would abdicate but I can see her taking more of a back seat just as she has been e.g. no foreign tours, then of course due to covid.

the queen hasn't done foreign travel for a long time now. I can't remember her going anywhere in recent years except the reconciliatory visit to Ireland in I think it was 2011 or so. Foreign tours have gone to Charles and William and Harry, in the past decade.

 

[Durham]

There is nothing IMO in anointing to mean that when someone feels they can not longer do their duties properly as monarch from being released from the obligations. And as people get to live much longer, it might mean you have a 100 year old king and an 75 year old heir. Its not feasible to keep heirs waiting till they are grandparents and well past retirement age and for monarchs to keep on till they die at 95.

But you can't unanoint them (if there is such a word). They can't be unhallowed. Or deconsecrated. Or can they? To me it seems that once done it can't be undone. There can only be one anointed monarch living at any one time.

I agree about the longevity issue. That's what I meant about the logical arguements in favour of abdication. What you say makes perfect sense.

 

[Prinsara]

Are you saying if the Duke of Windsor had been through his coronation he would have been stuck/the country would have been stuck with him?

 

[Denville]

Are you saying if the Duke of Windsor had been through his coronation he would have been stuck/the country would have been stuck with him?

Not at all. If he insisted on leaving, there would be nothing that could be done. ANd other anointed monarchs have abdicated....

 

[Denville]

But you can't unanoint them (if there is such a word). They can't be unhallowed. Or deconsecrated. Or can they? To me it seems that once done it can't be undone. There can only be one anointed monarch living at any one time.

I agree about the longevity issue. That's what I meant about the logical arguements in favour of abdication. What you say makes perfect sense.

Where does it sasy that you can't be an anointed former monarch?

 

[Durham]

Are you saying if the Duke of Windsor had been through his coronation he would have been stuck/the country would have been stuck with him?

An interesting question but no I'm not.

He would still have gone of course. The fact that he had been crowned & anointed would have made no difference. It would have made a shocking event even more disturbing.

 

[Durham]

Where does it sasy that you can't be an anointed former monarch?

By that token where does it say that we can have two or more? It's a solemn religious occasion after all. Is it not implicit that such an individual should be unique till they die?

 

[Osipi]

Are you saying if the Duke of Windsor had been through his coronation he would have been stuck/the country would have been stuck with him?

Not at all. The difference between the Duke of Windsor and the Queen when it comes to the coronation oath is that David probably would have been take the oath and mentally just giving lip service to the words. With the Queen, she took the oath because she really believed in what she was saying.

That is the difference between the two people. The monarch that now sits on the throne actually believes and lives by the words she says. That's a rare quality in a world leader these days.

 

[Prinsara]

By that token where does it say that we can have two or more? It's a solemn religious occasion after all. Is it not implicit that such an individual should be unique till they die?

If Edward VIII had made it to his coronation that's exactly what would have occurred — former and current anointed monarchs. As it stood, it was so difficult (and he was so difficult) that he was forced abroad permanently.

More than 80 years later things are different, but I think the Queen believes that watching anyone else do her work/sacred duty while she still can is probably anathema.

 

[Betsypaige]

I would agree, one of the reasons they didnt want the Windsors back was because you couldn't have 2 kings.

Not really the same thing. Edward would have been acting like a second king because that was his personality - he was deeply jealous of his brother, and he wanted to wield influence. That’s why he kept bugging Bertie until finally he’d had enough.

If a future monarch were to willingly abdicate (not like Edward, who did so because he saw he had no choice), I don’t believe there would be an issue of having 2 kings. There would just be the one - the former king would be in retirement.

That said, I don’t think this will be an issue because I don’t see any future monarchs abdicating.

 

[muriel]

the queen hasn't done foreign travel for a long time now. I can't remember her going anywhere in recent years except the reconciliatory visit to Ireland in I think it was 2011 or so. Foreign tours have gone to Charles and William and Harry, in the past decade.

If I am not mistaken, the last foreign trip undertaken by the Queen was in 2015, which was the state visit to Germany.

 

[Durham]

If Edward VIII had made it to his coronation that's exactly what would have occurred — former and current anointed monarchs. .

Yes indeed & that would have been a unique (abdicating freely) & difficult circumstance. I doubt many would have been happy with such an outcome. Least of all religious Anglicans & the clergy.

If the proposal going forward is for monarchs to abdicate once they reach a certain age or whatever then it would not make religious sense to anoint them. There's no requirement for that to happen. It's just tradition after all.

 

[Blog Real]

I think the Queen will never abdicate but she can leave her son, Prince Charles, as regent.
I think the Queen will have fewer official commitments in the future.