The Future of the British Monarchy 1: 2018 - 2022

[Alison H]

I feel as if the Royal Family can't win. There've been a lot of complaints from both politicians and members of the public about the cost of supporting an extended royal family. A lot of this has, rather unfairly, been aimed at Beatrice and Eugenie, specifically about the cost of their security, and allegations that they spent all their time on holiday, and questions have also been raised over Prince and Princess Michael living at Kensington Palace. But, when Charles wants to "slim down the monarchy" to exclude Beatrice, Eugenie et al, people complain that he's being unkind to his nieces.

The title of Duke of York has been granted to the second son ever since the end of the Wars of the Roses - the monarch is the Duke of Lancaster. Due to a whole succession of events, it's never become hereditary - some second sons (Henry VIII, Charles I, James II, George V) have become kings because their elder brothers have died, and others have had no legitimate sons. Queen Victoria's second son, Alfred, became Duke of Edinburgh - even though the previous Duke of York had died long before - for some reason. Maybe because he was going to be Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so he was given a less senior British dukedom?

It's very odd that, over more than 500 years, the title has never been passed on, but it hasn't! But Louis can't become Duke of York whilst Andrew is still alive.

 

[FigTree]

And if Prince Louis gets married while his father is already King [and his brother - a Prince of Wales] and Prince Andrew has already passed away - will then Louis and his newly wedded wife be conferred the title of the Duke and Duchess of York?

Through history it seemed to be the traditional title of the second son of the King.

P.S. It seems rather clear that Harry and Meghan will not receive this titles while Charles becomes King and William the Prince of Wales - at the moment King Charles III will pass away, Prince Andrew - as 12 years his junior - will for 99% be still alive.

Yeah you can never know. People get ill or look after their health badly...I.e. Princess Margaret. But he seems to be in good nick.

 

[Denville]

Given the way the cousins have been treated by Charles and William I wouldn't be surprised if they told him to 'get lost' especially as they will be close to their 60s by then and ready to retire to enjoy their lives rather than starting a new career.

How have they been treated? IM not aware of Charles or William mistreating any of thier cousins

 

[Mbruno]

They should make a sort of division between royal family and Royal House like they do -for example- in Spain (Casa Real) or the Netherlands (Koninklijk Huis).

In Spain the royal family are more or less all descendants of Juan de Borbón, varying from the Infanta Margarita to Juan Gómez-Acebo y Borbón. But the Royal House (Casa Real) are only a handful persons: the present royal couple, the former royal couple, the future Queen and her younger sister. All descendants of Juan de Borbón, the royal family, would barely fit on a palace balcony.

Actually, the "Royal Family" in Spain, under Royal Decree 2917/1981, consists of the present King, his spouse, his first-degree ascendants, his descendants, and the heir to the Crown (if not included already in the former). The "Family of the King" is the extended family you referrred to, including the King's siblings, nephews/nieces, and cousins.

When Juan Carlos was still King, not only Infantas Elena and Cristina, but also their children were officially members of the Royal Family under the definition above, as were also the King's parents while they were alive. The official Royal Family has been now slimmed down simply because the present King has only two unmarried daughters. If a rule similar to that of RD 2917/1981 were applied in the UK for example, only the Gloucesters, the Kents and Princess Margaret's descendants would be excluded from the official Royal Family under the present Queen's reign, but the Family would be greatly slimmed down when Charles became King.

Another interesting point is that RD 2917/1981 does not mention the spouses of the King's descendants or of the Heir explicitly, but I assume that they are by implication also members of the official Royal Family in Spain. At least Letizia was considered a member of the official Royal Family when she was Princess of Asturias and, under Art.13 of the Royal Decree 684/2010, military honors are due to the Prince or Princess of Asturias consort.

 

[Denville]

I have to admit my faith in the BRF is totally lost and I no longer expect HM to remain our Head of State when the Queen dies.

I have always been an avid monarchist but these last few years have shown a degree of callous pragmatism that one would expect in a business, not a family. They seem to have become "The Firm" dealing ruthlessly with family members, strategically leaking from all three royal offices has left me wondering if they have forgotten their roots and their raison d'être so to speak.

g.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news...ant-plan-appalling/ar-AAYmDKK?ocid=uxbndlbing

but the RF IS a business as well as a family. and in the past year one member in particular has acted so badly that it is quite impossible NOT to be firm with him and make it clear that while he is still a member of t he family, he is no longer a working royal. If they had not acted 'ruthlessly" they would look worse.

 

[FigTree]

I have to admit my faith in the BRF is totally lost and I no longer expect HM to remain our Head of State when the Queen dies.

I have always been an avid monarchist but these last few years have shown a degree of callous pragmatism that one would expect in a business, not a family. They seem to have become "The Firm" dealing ruthlessly with family members, strategically leaking from all three royal offices has left me wondering if they have forgotten their roots and their raison d'être so to speak.

However, it seems that Prince Charles has received a rude reminder of the difference between even 'family' and 'friends' with news clamouring that he has said he is against the government's move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. There were no "Spider Letters" nor calls to MP's, merely someone reporting on "private conversations". Who those conversations took place with was not reported but must surely leave him both saddened by the betrayal and fuming about the diplomatic furore and a media happy to accuse him obliquely of "political" meddling.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news...ant-plan-appalling/ar-AAYmDKK?ocid=uxbndlbing

They have always been like this and two sides are different. Family one amd business the other. They haven't changed. If William disappeared in the morning they would switch to Beatrice. It isn't personal; it's survival.

 

[Alison H]

but the RF IS a business as well as a family. and in the past year one member in particular has acted so badly that it is quite impossible NOT to be firm with him and make it clear that while he is still a member of t he family, he is no longer a working royal. If they had not acted 'ruthlessly" they would look worse.

Agreed. Again, they can't win. If it'd been announced that the Queen was willing to forgive and forget everything Andrew had done and let him continue to be a working royal and keep all his positions and patronages because she was his mummy and she loved him, there'd have been a huge outcry.

 

[Denville]

Agreed. Again, they can't win. If it'd been announced that the Queen was willing to forgive and forget everything Andrew had done and let him continue to be a working royal and keep all his positions and patronages because she was his mummy and she loved him, there'd have been a huge outcry.

I'd quite agree. In fact I think the queen has not been firm enough with him.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Duke of York has not been convicted of anything, so welcome back in the Firm.


The Queen is the Pope of the Church of England, which preaches forgiveness to sinners. So in the eventuality that the Duke might have been a sinner, it is up to the Defender of Faith to show the teachings of her very own Church indeed.

 

[muriel]

I feel as if the Royal Family can't win. There've been a lot of complaints from both politicians and members of the public about the cost of supporting an extended royal family. A lot of this has, rather unfairly, been aimed at Beatrice and Eugenie, specifically about the cost of their security, and allegations that they spent all their time on holiday, and questions have also been raised over Prince and Princess Michael living at Kensington Palace. But, when Charles wants to "slim down the monarchy" to exclude Beatrice, Eugenie et al, people complain that he's being unkind to his nieces.

I think the public appetite for a large "working" royal family does not exist any longer. Charles is right, IMO, to exclude the York girls from being included as working royals. The only place I read about a quest for royal cousins like the York girls to be included is on royal chat rooms like this one.

I also think it is right for "The Firm" to be focussed, and where required, be prepared to take difficult decisions in relation to certain members of the royal family. We have seen that with Andrew and H&M. The Crown must come first!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Given the way the cousins have been treated by Charles and William I wouldn't be surprised if they told him to 'get lost' especially as they will be close to their 60s by then and ready to retire to enjoy their lives rather than starting a new career.

How have they been treated? IM not aware of Charles or William mistreating any of thier cousins

But, when Charles wants to "slim down the monarchy" to exclude Beatrice, Eugenie et al, people complain that he's being unkind to his nieces.

Iluvbertie has referred from time to time over the years to an report that the Prince of Wales referred to the York daughters as "twits", so I suspect she meant unkind treatment in their private family relationship.

Slimming down a monarchy prospectively by not taking in new working royals, as Queen Elizabeth appears to have done with the York sisters, is not unkind. That said, in most cases I think it is unkind when a working royal who has dutifully served the crown for decades without committing any major errors is suddenly expelled from their position and made to fend for themselves (e.g., Infanta Elena of Spain). I hope that will not happen to the Prince of Wales's working siblings and Queen Elizabeth's working cousins.

 

[Denville]

No. it was different years ago, when the RF had a lot of charities and it was considered a way of keeping in touch with the public for many memmbers to do visits. The world is very different now with social media and there is a perception that the charity stuff has become make work to try and keep the RF looking relevant but that the public would prefer to have fewer working royals and less expense on thier upkeep

 

[Alison H]

I doubt that anyone's going to push the Kents and Gloucesters out of their jobs. They're in their 70s and 80s now, so will presumably be slowing down anyway. And Anne, Edward and Sophie are all needed, especially now that Harry and Meghan have jumped ship.

The charity work they do is important, because the involvement of a senior royal brings a lot of attention to a particular cause/issue. And people like to see the royals at big sporting events etc.

 

[Denville]

I doubt that anyone's going to push the Kents and Gloucesters out of their jobs. They're in their 70s and 80s now, so will presumably be slowing down anyway. And Anne, Edward and Sophie are all needed, especially now that Harry and Meghan have jumped ship.

The charity work they do is important, because the involvement of a senior royal brings a lot of attention to a particular cause/issue. And people like to see the royals at big sporting events etc.

theyre not going to be pushed out, it will go by natural attrition

 

[Queen Claude]

Adding in one or two more working royals from William's generation or younger will not result in a large working family.

I get streamlining the royal family so as not to have 10+ working royals but there very well may be a point when you will be down to as few as 2 working royals, William and Kate, or perhaps 4-6 working royals, all of which are 50+. On that note, I also think that the demographics matter, William and Kate are the youngest working royals and as of the end of this month, they are in their forties.

I don't think that anyone should be raised with the expectation of being a working royal except the heir apparent, but that does not mean that non-heir apparent royals can't be tapped into to become working royals if there is a need and all parties are amenable.

One illustration that comes to mind is Princess Alexandra becoming a working royal. She did not conform to the "model" of who would become a working royal but she was enlisted because The Queen (or one of her advisors) determined that there was a need for her to be added to the roster.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The Duke of York has not been convicted of anything, so welcome back in the Firm.


The Queen is the Pope of the Church of England, which preaches forgiveness to sinners. So in the eventuality that the Duke might have been a sinner, it is up to the Defender of Faith to show the teachings of her very own Church indeed.

Your first line says it all. Andrew is guilty by association. He was convicted of nothing. No charges against him were proven.

Having an unpleasant and obnoxious personality are not crimes.

If it was,, many in the family, press and public wolfpack who are constantly braying for his blood would be in serious trouble.

 

[Denville]

He doesn't just have an obnoxious personality. He is stupid, has no idea when he needs to pull back or keep his mouth shut... and clealry thinks that his position exempts him from judgement. Hanging around with a sex criminal and allowing him to provide girls for you is not behaviour that a royal can get away iwth.. but And does not see that.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Iluvbertie has referred from time to time over the years to an report that the Prince of Wales referred to the York daughters as "twits", so I suspect she meant unkind treatment in their private family relationship.

If Charles actually said that, it must have been hurtful but it has nothing to do with William.

 

[Somebody]

Apparently, the Annual Review has made changes to the duties that the queen is expected to undertake; reducing her activities even further...

See this article on The List; did anyone read the original report and compare it to the queen's previous duties according to the Palace?

Buckingham Palace has changed the list of duties that Queen Elizabeth needs to carry out throughout the year. According to Daily Mail, it has been at*least a decade since the palace last made any alterations to the queen's royal duties.

While Elizabeth will still be*the Head of State and Head of Nation, she will no longer be required*to attend specific events, such*as the State Opening of Parliament, which had previously been mandatory for her due to "constitutional convention." In addition, her other duties as Head of State have been made vague, simply described as "a range of parliamentary and diplomatic duties." As for her role as Head of Nation, the queen will*carry out her duties "where appropriate or necessary."

I am not completely sure about the difference between her role as Head of State and Head of Nation. Can anyone clarify that? Is that about the difference between the UK and the separate nations that comprise the UK?

 

[Curryong]

Apparently, the Annual Review has made changes to the duties that the queen is expected to undertake; reducing her activities even further...

See this article on The List; did anyone read the original report and compare it to the queen's previous duties according to the Palace?



I am not completely sure about the difference between her role as Head of State and Head of Nation. Can anyone clarify that? Is that about the difference between the UK and the separate nations that comprise the UK?

This is from a recent article in Vanity Fair examining the Sovereign Grant Report.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...y-issues-prince-charles-more-responsibilities


The Sovereign Grant report divides the queen's role into two parts, “The role of Head of State, which is a formal constitutional concept, common to all nations and involves the official duties which The Queen, by constitutional convention, must fulfill.” And, additionally, “The role of Head of Nation, a much more symbolic role in the life of the Nation, involving duties which are not directed by the constitution but which The Queen carries out where appropriate or necessary.”

 

[Mbruno]

This is from a recent article in Vanity Fair examining the Sovereign Grant.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...y-issues-prince-charles-more-responsibilities


The Sovereign Grant report divides the queen's role into two parts, “The role of Head of State, which is a formal constitutional concept, common to all nations and involves the official duties which The Queen, by constitutional convention, must fulfill.” And, additionally, “The role of Head of Nation, a much more symbolic role in the life of the Nation, involving duties which are not directed by the constitution but which The Queen carries out where appropriate or necessary.”

I had never seen that distinction between "Head of the Nation" and "Head of State" and I am not aware of that distinction being made by political scientists or legal experts.

So should attending a garden party or a flower show, or visiting local communities, be considered duties of the "Head of the Nation"? Certainly none of those are mandated by the constitution.

 

[Roslyn]

I had never seen that distinction between "Head of the Nation" and "Head of State" and I am not aware of that distinction being made by political scientists or legal experts.

So should attending a garden party or a flower show, or visiting local communities, be considered duties of the "Head of the Nation"? Certainly none of those are mandated by the constitution.

I consider that those "Head of Nation" activities may be the activities that are most important to many people. The formal "Head of State" duties can be carried out by anyone regardless of attractiveness of their person or personality, but the "Head of Nation" stuff requires personality and an effort being made to show they care, and there is that religious element that brings something more mystical to the mix, too. It doesn't require any special training, or particular intelligence or skill, just good manners and PR skills.

The "Head of Nation" activities are the ones that make the public feel good and foster a sense of community and unity and nationhood and make the people feel - and I use the word "feel" intentionally, because it is all about feelings and impressions, not logic or legal requirements - that the members of the royal family are worth their salt and worth keeping.

These are things like King George VI and Queen Elizabeth visiting the East End after the bombings during WWII, and the current Queen visiting the Ariana Grande concert bombing victims in Manchester in 1917, and why there was a kerfuffle about her not doing what some people expected of her about visiting Aberfan in 1996 and returning to London after Diana's death. There was nothing logical or rational, or mature, about members of the public expecting her to abandon her bereaved grandsons and rush to London to comfort them. This part of the role can be likened to the role of a parent in many ways: showing she cares about her subjects - her children. And the garden parties and attending local fairs and judging cattle and flowers and cheese, etc., shows the people that they care enough about them to get out there with them and show an interest in what they are doing. It makes the people feel good, too, to have their little flower show visited by royal and maybe get a royal handshake. It's a chance for them to dress up, too.

And this "Head of Nation" role includes a lot of the ceremonial activities that are not strictly necessary but are jolly good entertainment for the people and also foster that sense of nationhood. Fancy, archaic, military uniforms with brightly coloured jackets and gold braid and swords and bearskin hats and shiny decorations, and feathery capes and hats and marching and horses and bands playing inspiring music, and the royal wives dressed up and wearing pretty clothes and shiny baubles from the vaults. These activities are all part of the show, and very important for the members of the BRF if they want to keep their privileged position because they have to prove they are worth keeping.

The relationship between monarch and the public is a symbiotic one, and the "Head of Nation" things are the Royals' contribution to that relationship.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

When and where did Charles ever call his nieces twits? I don’t think he thinks lowly of them, but not giving them a chance at being working royals isn’t out spite or dislike of them, but survival because in 2010 or 2011, when they used to have RPOs they weren’t seriously travelling for royal duties and the media made such a big fuss about the costs of security that a meeting had to be held about them ever being working royals and security, and the end result was that the security would end until they graduated university and they would not be working royals.

 

[Mbruno]

I consider that those "Head of Nation" activities may be the activities that are most important to many people. The formal "Head of State" duties can be carried out by anyone regardless of attractiveness of their person or personality, but the "Head of Nation" stuff requires personality and an effort being made to show they care, and there is that religious element that brings something more mystical to the mix, too. It doesn't require any special training, or particular intelligence or skill, just good manners and PR skills.
[...]

The relationship between monarch and the public is a symbiotic one, and the "Head of Nation" things are the Royals' contribution to that relationship.

I get your point, but, to be honest, I find that strange. Basically it seems that the Palace is saying that the official constitutional and diplomatic duties of the Head of State are the ones that are "unimportant" and can be done by anyone, whereas the unofficial, even sometimes social functions are the ones that matter to the people and should be prioritized by the Queen if she is up to it.

That reasoning, in my opinion, actuallt raises the question of why there is a need for a monarch as Head of State in the first place. If anyone can do the Queen's official duties, why not replace her with a president and let her retain only the semiofficial role that the Romanian Custodian of the Crown has today? Or even if you don't want to go that far, how is that different from Prince Charles being effectively Regent and his mother being a Queen emerita or in the same position as a monarch after abdication like Princess Beatrix?

I suppose the answer to the last question is that the Queen will still do the essential functions of the Head of State like weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, or approving orders in council , which do not involve mobility, but it is odd anyway. It appears to me that the UK is having to deal with the reality of a 96-year-old Head of State who has increasing linitations, but doesn't know how to handle it properly because abdication or even a formal regency, which would be considered perfectly reasonable alternatives in other countries, are a cultural (or, for some people, even religious) taboo in Britain.

Sorry if I was too candid.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He called them 'twits' about 2010 or 2011.

They had RPOs while they were getting their education although at the time ALL HRHs had 24/7 protection and it wasn't just the girls who lost it but so did Sophie, Anne, The Gloucester and Kents. Sophie and Anne, and the others now only have it when on royal duties but otherwise they don't have royal protection at all.

Beatrice asked a number of times during her school life and was continually told that she would be a working royal, basically doing the sort of things that Alexandra did/does. She wasn't told, until she was in her final year at uni, that she wasn't going to have that role. She was also told at that time that she would never be wanted or needed as a working royal, by both Charles and William. She actually asked them for a larger role in the 2012 Jubilee in support of the Queen and that was their reply. She accepted it gracefully and has since then made her own life.

As for protection - most of the team the girls had left the Metropolitan Police to remain protecting the girls as Andrew offered them more money and better conditions. Who pays for their protection, if they still have any, now I am not sure but assume it would be their husbands, who may also have decided that they don't need it.

Charles was quite scathing of the girls when they were teenagers and thought them vain and silly - hence calling them 'twits' and he was completely horrified at what they wore to William's wedding.

No specific meeting was held about the girls being working royals. It was never even an idea for Eugenie who never wanted that role and always assumed that she wouldn't be one but Beatrice was told over and over again, when she reached a point in her education where she had to choose subjects for the next phase of her education that she would be and then, just as she was graduating uni Charles and William pulled the plug on her. The consequence was that she had a degree in an area in which she had no real interest in working and so had wasted most of her educational years expecting one future only to have to retrain for the field in which she wanted to work - business. She did on the job training and some short courses to reach what she is doing now (although I assume she is still on maternity leave as Sienna isn't 12 months old yet and she is entitled to 12 months maternity leave in the UK).

My sources by the way are friends and distant family who know the royals (I won't name them specifically and assume that many people here won't believe me but that is their bad luck).

 

[muriel]

He called them 'twits' about 2010 or 2011.

They had RPOs while they were getting their education although at the time ALL HRHs had 24/7 protection and it wasn't just the girls who lost it but so did Sophie, Anne, The Gloucester and Kents. Sophie and Anne, and the others now only have it when on royal duties but otherwise they don't have royal protection at all.

Beatrice asked a number of times during her school life and was continually told that she would be a working royal, basically doing the sort of things that Alexandra did/does. She wasn't told, until she was in her final year at uni, that she wasn't going to have that role. She was also told at that time that she would never be wanted or needed as a working royal, by both Charles and William. She actually asked them for a larger role in the 2012 Jubilee in support of the Queen and that was their reply. She accepted it gracefully and has since then made her own life.

As for protection - most of the team the girls had left the Metropolitan Police to remain protecting the girls as Andrew offered them more money and better conditions. Who pays for their protection, if they still have any, now I am not sure but assume it would be their husbands, who may also have decided that they don't need it.

Charles was quite scathing of the girls when they were teenagers and thought them vain and silly - hence calling them 'twits' and he was completely horrified at what they wore to William's wedding.

No specific meeting was held about the girls being working royals. It was never even an idea for Eugenie who never wanted that role and always assumed that she wouldn't be one but Beatrice was told over and over again, when she reached a point in her education where she had to choose subjects for the next phase of her education that she would be and then, just as she was graduating uni Charles and William pulled the plug on her. The consequence was that she had a degree in an area in which she had no real interest in working and so had wasted most of her educational years expecting one future only to have to retrain for the field in which she wanted to work - business. She did on the job training and some short courses to reach what she is doing now (although I assume she is still on maternity leave as Sienna isn't 12 months old yet and she is entitled to 12 months maternity leave in the UK).

My sources by the way are friends and distant family who know the royals (I won't name them specifically and assume that many people here won't believe me but that is their bad luck).

That is all very detailed and specific information, which is not really in the public domain. It is rare to see such a detailed account of conversations or decisions that may or may not have been taken by The Firm over an extended period of time. Your source must be very, very close to the situation to get this level of detail for that long a period of time.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That reasoning, in my opinion, actuallt raises the question of why there is a need for a monarch as Head of State in the first place. If anyone can do the Queen's official duties, why not replace her with a president and let her retain only the semiofficial role that the Romanian Custodian of the Crown has today?

I'm afraid I don't follow the argument. If indeed anyone can do the Queen's official duties, "anyone" would include Elizabeth. Her ability to carry out the official duties by herself would render it unnecessary to add a President to share the official duties with her.

abdication or even a formal regency, which would be considered perfectly reasonable alternatives in other countries, are a cultural (or, for some people, even religious) taboo in Britain.

What indications are there that there is a cultural taboo on abdication or regency? In the case of regency there is existing legislation which explicitly discusses the possibility.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Apparently, the Annual Review has made changes to the duties that the queen is expected to undertake; reducing her activities even further...

See this article on The List; did anyone read the original report and compare it to the queen's previous duties according to the Palace?

This is from a recent article in Vanity Fair examining the Sovereign Grant Report.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...y-issues-prince-charles-more-responsibilities

I think this is the report, although I have not read it to verify. Frankly, I do not see why the websites which choose to write about the report refuse to post a link to the report.

https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2021-22
https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2020-21-0
https://www.royal.uk/media-packs

However, wouldn't this news be better moved to one of Queen Elizabeth's or the Royal Family's threads, as it concerns changes to the monarchy which have already been at least partly implemented, rather than future changes?

 

[Somebody]

I'm afraid I don't follow the argument. If indeed anyone can do the Queen's official duties, "anyone" would include Elizabeth. Her ability to carry out the official duties by herself would render it unnecessary to add a President to share the official duties with her.

It seems the point is that the Palace has decided that the queen will no longer carry out those official duties but -if she is up for it- will prioritize the 'Head of Nation' activities over 'Head of State' activities. In that case, wouldn't it be much more sensible to have a Head of State that is able to perform the duties of a Head of State?! Instead of keeping a monarch who because of age and declining health is no longer to perform them but doesn't want to abdicate or request a regency either.

What indications are there that there is a cultural taboo on abdication or regency? In the case of regency there is existing legislation which explicitly discusses the possibility.

The queen continuously stating that she will serve her whole life (in various forms) seems a clear indication that for her it is indeed a taboo. The fact that a regency isn't called in when in similar (and less serious) situations in other countries this has been done, suggests that while it might have been regulated, there is a taboo to actually use it. Instead they've decided that all the activities that were previously deemed necessary to be performed by the Sovereign do no longer require her present but can easily be delegated on a case by case basis to her more able-bodied family members.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm afraid I don't follow the argument. If indeed anyone can do the Queen's official duties, "anyone" would include Elizabeth. Her ability to carry out the official duties by herself would render it unnecessary to add a President to share the official duties with her.

If anyone can do her job, she is not indispensable and can be replaced.

What indications are there that there is a cultural taboo on abdication or regency? In the case of regency there is existing legislation which explicitly discusses the possibility.

There is clearly a cultural taboo on abdication when the mainstream opinion refuses to accept it as a possibility for a 96-year-old person who is clearly above the reasonable retirement age.


And while there is legislation in place for a regency, there is no legislation in place for abdications, nor an easy mechanism to effect it.