I've rewritten this long post since I last wrote it and added a number of new points to it. I know that this thread is about the monarchy under Charles and I think this post fits into the discussion (the mods can move it if they don't agree), but OMG, and for the thousandth time:
1 - Will the Queen abdicate? No she will not, as I and others have said several times before:
During the Coronation in 1953 she pledged to govern the countries where she is head of state - a promise which she said she would "perform and keep. So help me God."
The Coronation Oath, 2 June 1953:
https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
The Christmas Broadcast 2002:
https://www.royal.uk/christmas-broadcast-2002
Fortified by this and the support you have given throughout the last twelve months which has meant so much to me, I look forward to the New Year, to facing the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, and to continuing to serve you to the very best of my ability each and every day.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee message:
https://www.royal.uk/queens-diamond-jubilee-message
In this special year, as I dedicate myself anew to your service
Nocookies | The Australian
In his recent memoir, former foreign minister Bob Carr provided insight into why. He related a conversation between the Queen and Australia’s outgoing high commissioner to London, the former South Australian premier Mike Rann, that touched on the abdication of Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands.“It’s not something we do here,’’ Elizabeth said.
Letter to The Times, published Wednesday 4th February 2015, from the Principal Private Secretary to TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall:
Our view
His Royal Highness has always preferred not to comment on matters which relate to a future whose date is unknown, and would arise only after the death of his mother.
These are just some of the statements/evidence that show us that she will never abdicate. Former Prime Ministers, former staffers etc have said the same. And the fact that the Queen will never abdicate has nothing to do with Charles's popularity. She had not abdicated regardless of Charles being popular or not.
2 - Should the Queen abdicate? No she should not, as I and others have said several times before, becauce that would have been disastrous for the British monarchy and this is why:
As I've said before on others threads, The monarchies in the UK, Denmark and Norway remains popular, and some polls have shown record high support the last 5 years. This is not going to change unless we get some very very major scandals, which is unlikely.
Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent 70/80% support for the continuation of the Monarchy.
To abolish the British monarchy will be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it.
6: The vast majority of the british population will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity.
And it will be very difficult in Denmark and Norway (If Haakon stays away from trouble when he becomes king) too:
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the parliaments for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
The Swedish monarchy is not so rooted in the people, like the ones I have mentioned above, but it will be very difficult to abolish it.
So all these monarchies (with the exception of Belgium and Spain) are safe for at least the next 100 years.
I think the same goes for the Netherlands (a monarchy I don't follow so much).
I don't think we will see a republic in Belgium either, and I hope that the Spanish monarchy will survive.
Abdications in the The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Vatican/Catholic Church, Japan and possibly, Denmark, Sweden and Norway - I will not include countries with a population of less than 1 million, with the exception of the Pope:
The Netherlands:
Abdication is a tradition there, it has taken place since 1948.
Spain:
Juan Carlos had repeatedly said that he would not abdicate, but because of his stupidity, he had no choice.
Belgium:
Albert was frail and did it for health reasons, but look how he have behaved towards his son after he abdicated.
Vatican/Catholic Church:
The pope is the head of state (in reality dictator) of the Vatican (which has a population of only 1,000 people). No problem to abdicate from this small role.
It is his role as Bishop of Rome and in that capacity, leader of the worldwide Catholic Church which is important. No problem to abdicate from this role either, since a whole bunch of other religious heads in the Christianity have done it before.
And Benedict XVI was a contrversial figure, but did it for health reasons. He had said at least 3 times that there could be a possibility for him to resign, and many of the experts were not surprised at all.
Japan:
Emperor Akihito has been wanting to abdicate for years, so it was no shock. The shocking-part was that the Imperial Household Agency and the government accepted it. But it will not hurt the Japanese monarchy.
Denmark and Sweden:
If Margrethe and Carl Gustaf decides to abdicate, they can do it without any problems and it will not hurt the monarchies.
Norway:
I used to say the same about the Norwegian situasjonen too, but Haakon/Mette-Marit has been in some trouble with the press/politicans lately, so it hadn't been wise for Harald to abdicate now.
But we can't compare these monarchies with the British monarchy.
As far as UK is concerned, I actually think it is the safest Monarchy in the world, along with the Japanese, but an abdication can destroy it, and this is why:
Even if the Queen's vow that her whole life would be devoted to service and her view on the coronation oath hadn't been so important to her as it is, she wouldn't have abdicated, and this is the reason. The Queen is head of state of 16 countries and is the head of the Commonwealth, if she decided to abdicate each country would have to pass a bill approving the abdication as the demise of the crown legislation only accounts for a monarch's death not abdication. When Edward VIII abdicated, the UK could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy, and not forget the Commonwealth.
If the Queen had abdicated it would have created major problems for Charles and led to a fierce debate about the monarchy's future.
The republicans, the press (especially the mirror/guardian and of course the fail) had gone absolutely crazy and done everything in their power to dig up dirt about Charles.
It is better that Charles takes over when the Queen dies. It will go quietly without much debate, because people/media will be very occupied by the Queen's death. That will be a remarkable and very sad event.
The longer she reigns the better it is for Charles, in my opinion.
And why on earth should she abdicate at the age of almost 90. Had she wanted to abdicate, she would have done it long ago.
It is being busy that keeps The Queen in good health.
If she becomes too frail to carry out her constitutional duties, a regency will be created.