The Queen: Would She Consider Abdication or Retirement?

[Roslyn]

I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.

 

[Excalibur]

I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.

HM takes very seriously that part of her Coronation in which she was anointed. Her interpretation and understanding of this sacrament is that she was set apart by God to serve as Queen. By virtue of her birth, and her father's death, God made her Queen, and God -- and only God -- can remove her as Queen.

She will serve -- as Queen -- until God says otherwise.

 

[Heavs]

I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.

I imagine there have been discussions about what would happen if she really became infirm in mind or body but that doesn't seem to be the case yet. She's lived a long reign, it probably has crossed her mind to wonder what it would be like if she could retire to Balmoral or Sandringham like Philip but there are reasons she hasn't.

I can't see what the benefit for the people of the UK and other realms would be if she stepped down. She's not an absolute monarch and nothing essential *not* happening because she's getting older. Her children and grandchildren perform duties like Investitures and she's still meeting with the PM and ambassadors.

There's no appetite in the UK for her to abdicate and no personal need for her to....so she hasn't.

Nor am I sure it would do a potential King Charles a lot of good to come to the throne whilst his mother was still alive instead of in a wave of public sympathy.

 

[Denville]

I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.

im sure she has considered "AM I doing the right thing" But has concluded that she is. If she got very sick and wasn't able to do her boxes or meetings, she might re consider but even then, Charles could take over and leave her to remain as queen..

 

[Hallo girl]

I do a see a marked difference in her since Christmas.

When you compare Christmas message 2020, Philips funeral 2021, Christmas message 2021 then the picture in the newspapers today there is a marked change in her physical appearance. Unless her mental faculties start to leave her I do not think she will abdicate, slow down yes as she already has.

 

[irish_royalist]

I wonder whether it has ever occurred to Elizabeth that she could perhaps best serve her people by stepping down? I don't think that thought will ever have crossed her mind, partly because that family is not known for being big on lateral thinking but mainly because The Queen believes she has the approval of her God to hang in there till the end, and that it is her duty to do so. She thought that way at 21 and still thinks the same way at 95. She is not going to change her mind.

As one of her people, as long as she is capable, I am very happy for her to be my Queen. I don't really care if she can cut ribbons, meet ambassadors or perform investitures, other members of the family can do these things perfectly well on her behalf. If she wishes to be my Queen, and is able to perform only the most essential functions, I will be delighted.

 

[ruaudladoube]

I'm not sure why this is still an ongoing topic of conversation, as HM as made it clear for 70 years that she will reign until death.
Charles may become regent if she becomes too ill to do the job, but that's it.
Rehashing it over and over seems redundant.

Not meaning to be rude, simply not understanding the point.

 

[Roderick]

Plus Her Majesty re-dedicated herself in her Accession Day anniversary statement just a few days ago. She is not abdicating or retiring - ever.

 

[Roslyn]

I'm not sure why this is still an ongoing topic of conversation, as HM as made it clear for 70 years that she will reign until death.
Charles may become regent if she becomes too ill to do the job, but that's it.
Rehashing it over and over seems redundant.

Not meaning to be rude, simply not understanding the point.

If you are referring to my question, Elizabeth has said she will serve until death, not that she will reign until death. There is a distinction, though admittedly I am probably one of only a few who sees it and/or cares to draw it. And since the Queen recently restated that intention, she has raised the issue again and thus impliedly invited discussion about it.

 

[Alison H]

If she can't do the job, which hopefully won't happen, then Prince Charles will become regent. No Act of Parliament can become law unless the monarch signs it - and that includes things like Budgets, which cannot wait unless taxation and public spending are to grind to a complete halt. No-one is going to put the country in a position where no laws can be enacted. Hopefully it won't happen, but, if it comes to that, Prince Charles will certainly become regent.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

No, I htink she means that the queen should abdicate nad let Willliam have the throne.

If Elizabeth II did abdicate, Prince Charles could not be bypassed. Prince Charles is her son. Prince William, the son of Prince Charles, is her grandson.

 

[Somebody]

If you are referring to my question, Elizabeth has said she will serve until death, not that she will reign until death. There is a distinction, though admittedly I am probably one of only a few who sees it and/or cares to draw it. And since the Queen recently restated that intention, she has raised the issue again and thus impliedly invited discussion about it.

To me and most others it is clear that queen Elizabeth's concept of 'serve' means to reign until death. Of course, she cannot guarantee that she will be able to do so (as at some point there might be the need for a regent; in that case she is no longer reigning in practice -as the conclusion has been drawn that she is no longer capable to do so- although she would still be the Sovereign). I don't think her 'restated intention' was supposed to invite discussion about it but to close that matter for once and for all by providing as much clarity as she possibly can.

While I personally think abdication would be a perfectly reasonable action (but better if done when in your 70s) and a great way of serving your country, it is clear that it doesn't fit in queen Elizabeth's way of thinking and most likely would go against her deepest convictions.

Whether staying on is helpful in the long run is also an important question imho because it mainly shows that the country can do without an active monarch doing the various activities that people have come to expect from monarchs and are considered among the advantages of a monarchy (including for example state visits - royals tend to open more doors than non-royals); if apparently, all these activities can be skipped and still be head of state; it stresses the practical irrelevance. So, if a monarchy is happy to have no influence but just function as a figure head with some old people that the citizens can rally around this system works fine (although those future monarchs need to be very careful throughout life to get the reverence in old age).

 

[Osipi]

On the other hand though, people are actively seeing and witnessing the "Firm" not only going strong and as a united front despite the recent losses of working royals along with witnessing and seeing the soft and ongoing transfer of power between monarchs. Elizabeth has been "training" Charles for over 70 years now and she's going to do her best to play an active role in the changes being made now to go into the future. That's how seriously she takes her role.

Remember back when the monarch's only worry was actively just having a male heir? The Queen may not be an absolute monarch but she's very actively involved in her "Firm" and it's way forward into the future.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As one of her people, as long as she is capable, I am very happy for her to be my Queen. I don't really care if she can cut ribbons, meet ambassadors or perform investitures, other members of the family can do these things perfectly well on her behalf. If she wishes to be my Queen, and is able to perform only the most essential functions, I will be delighted.

There are no essential functions. All the duties she does have been done by others during her reign. She could literally do nothing and life could go on as she can delegate others to do everything.

 

[Osipi]

There are no essential functions. All the duties she does have been done by others during her reign. She could literally do nothing and life could go on as she can delegate others to do everything.

True and in my eyes a wonderful way to ensure the peaceful and soft transition of power when the time does come. She probably remembers all too well how it was when she unexpectedly had to step into the role as monarch and wants to spare her son from that as much as possible.

With this in mind, it makes me realize that she's not only remaining in service to her people but she's in service to make the transition, when it comes as easy as possible for her family.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

True and in my eyes a wonderful way to ensure the peaceful and soft transition of power when the time does come. She probably remembers all too well how it was when she unexpectedly had to step into the role as monarch and wants to spare her son from that as much as possible.

With this in mind, it makes me realize that she's not only remaining in service to her people but she's in service to make the transition, when it comes as easy as possible for her family.

Your post is confusing. You agree with the previous poster that there are no essential functions. Then you talk about "transition of power" and "remaining in service if the people" which seems to suggest there is something essential.

Of course, people are emotionally attached to a platinum monarch but seen from a distance: being head of state apparently is a role of such a lightness that a near centenary old lady can do it, and will be succeed by a then probably 75+ years old heir. It shows that the monarchy is purely ornamental and open for questions of (ir)relevance.

 

[Osipi]

Your post is confusing. You agree with the previous poster that there are no essential functions. Then you talk about "transition of power" and "remaining in service if the people" which seems to suggest there is something essential.

Of course, people are emotionally attached to a platinum monarch but seen from a distance: being head of state apparently is a role of such a lightness that a near centenary old lady can do it, and will be succeed by a then probably 75+ years old heir. It shows that the monarchy is purely ornamental and open for questions of (ir)relevance.

Isn't that the point of a constitutional monarchy to begin with? A head of state that represents *all* the people and remains apolitical? To preserve and continue the history of the continuity of the monarchy from the mists of time until the present day? To represent national unity?

Dang... that sounds so appealing to me rather than the infighting and political mess we have here in the US.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just because a job can be done by anyone doesn't mean it should be done by anyone e.g. Chairing the Privy Council is a role done by the monarch. It can be done by two CoS's but that doesn't mean it should be done that way on a regular basis.

The State Opening of Parliament can be done by others but again that doesn't mean that there isn't some significance in it being done by the monarch and all that the symbolism of that ceremony represents ... the supremacy of the House of Commons. Many countries don't have any such ceremony with every step having a significance that even tells the history of the nation.

 

[Mbruno]

Just because a job can be done by anyone doesn't mean it should be done by anyone e.g. Chairing the Privy Council is a role done by the monarch. It can be done by two CoS's but that doesn't mean it should be done that way on a regular basis.

The mere fact that the Queen still meets regularly with the Privy Council is in itself surprising. The Queen's Privy Council for Canada rarely meets, except on special occasions like a new monarch's accession for example. The Privy Council Office, which is a government department, oversees the preparation of Orders in Council which must be and still are signed by the Governor General, but the Governor General does not meet personally with the Privy Council as the Queen does in the UK to approve such orders.

I don't know the situation in Australia (maybe you can tell us), but my understanding is that, although the Federal Executive Council (Australia's equivalent to the Privy Council) does meet, the Governor-General personally does not normally attend such meetings either.

The Privy Council itself is a relic of a constitution that pre-dated parliamentary government. More modern constitutions, like the Spanish constitution of 1978, say simply that the King "issues the decrees approved in the Council of Ministers". In practice, that is also the case in the UK, where executive orders are de facto approved by the cabinet (the British equivalent to a Council of Ministers), but the ministers meet separately with the Queen in their separate capacity as "Privy Counsellors" to give legal effect to those orders. The fact that the ministers of the Crown for the time being are now the active arm of the Privy Council was a later development in the evolution of the parliamentary system.

Curiously, Denmark and, I think, Norway, also have that outdated constitutional format, with their "Council of State" playing the role of the Privy Council in the UK.

 

[Mbruno]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tending-annual-Maundy-Day-church-service.html

The Queen is 96 on 21st April.
I think events such as the Royal Windsor Horse Show, Chelsea Flower Show.Trooping the Colour, The Garter Ceremony, The Derby, Royal Ascot, and State Opening of Parliament are things we will see Charles and Camilla more involved with officially. Time will tell. Don't know about the Garden Parties?

The Royal Windsor Horse Show or Royal Ascot are private, social events. Conversely, attending the Commonwealth Day Service or, even more so, the State Opening of Parliament are part of the constitutional duties of the Head of State.

I know that raising the prospect of the Queen retiring triggers considerable reaction in this forum, especially from the UK posters, but, being candid, if the Queen is no longer able to fulfill her obligations as Head of State such as attending the State Opening of Parliament or holding a state banquet for a visiting monarch or president, then it is time for Prince Charles to be officially recognized as regent rather than informally deputizing for his mother as if those were one-off events as opposed to something that is likely to become the norm from now on.

Accepting that it is time for a regency doesn't mean not appreciating the Queen's dedication to the United Kingdom, the Empire and the Commonwealth for the past 70 years, or saying she is no longer needed and should be discarded. I am just saying that the Queen can probably serve her people better in retirement than by insisting on carrying on a normal workload when she is struggling to do so.

 

[MsJulie]

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

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

 

[Durham]

The Royal Windsor Horse Show or Royal Ascot are private, social events. Conversely, attending the Commonwealth Day Service or, even more so, the State Opening of Parliament are part of the constitutional duties of the Head of State.

I know that raising the prospect of the Queen retiring triggers considerable reaction in this forum, especially from the UK posters, but, being candid, if the Queen is no longer able to fulfill her obligations as Head of State such as attending the State Opening of Parliament or holding a state banquet for a visiting monarch or president, then it is time for Prince Charles to be officially recognized as regent rather than informally deputizing for his mother as if those were one-off events as opposed to something that is likely to become the norm from now on.

Accepting that it is time for a regency doesn't mean not appreciating the Queen's dedication to the United Kingdom, the Empire and the Commonwealth for the past 70 years, or saying she is no longer needed and should be discarded. I am just saying that the Queen can probably serve her people better in retirement than by insisting on carrying on a normal workload when she is struggling to do so.

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

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

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

 

[Stefan]

The Royal Windsor Horse Show or Royal Ascot are private, social events. Conversely, attending the Commonwealth Day Service or, even more so, the State Opening of Parliament are part of the constitutional duties of the Head of State.

I know that raising the prospect of the Queen retiring triggers considerable reaction in this forum, especially from the UK posters, but, being candid, if the Queen is no longer able to fulfill her obligations as Head of State such as attending the State Opening of Parliament or holding a state banquet for a visiting monarch or president, then it is time for Prince Charles to be officially recognized as regent rather than informally deputizing for his mother as if those were one-off events as opposed to something that is likely to become the norm from now on.

Accepting that it is time for a regency doesn't mean not appreciating the Queen's dedication to the United Kingdom, the Empire and the Commonwealth for the past 70 years, or saying she is no longer needed and should be discarded. I am just saying that the Queen can probably serve her people better in retirement than by insisting on carrying on a normal workload when she is struggling to do so.

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

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

 

[Mbruno]

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

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

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

]

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

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

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

 

[Durham]

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

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

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

 

[Durham]

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abdication is a non starter of course.

 

[Somebody]

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

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

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

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

 

[Somebody]

The Royal Windsor Horse Show or Royal Ascot are private, social events. Conversely, attending the Commonwealth Day Service or, even more so, the State Opening of Parliament are part of the constitutional duties of the Head of State.

I know that raising the prospect of the Queen retiring triggers considerable reaction in this forum, especially from the UK posters, but, being candid, if the Queen is no longer able to fulfill her obligations as Head of State such as attending the State Opening of Parliament or holding a state banquet for a visiting monarch or president, then it is time for Prince Charles to be officially recognized as regent rather than informally deputizing for his mother as if those were one-off events as opposed to something that is likely to become the norm from now on.

Accepting that it is time for a regency doesn't mean not appreciating the Queen's dedication to the United Kingdom, the Empire and the Commonwealth for the past 70 years, or saying she is no longer needed and should be discarded. I am just saying that the Queen can probably serve her people better in retirement than by insisting on carrying on a normal workload when she is struggling to do so.

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

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

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

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

 

[Durham]

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

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

or

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

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

 

[Saragli]

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