Will the Queen abdicate? No she will not, as I and others have said several times before.
Cookies must be enabled. | 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.
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.
Should the Queen abdicate? No she should not, as I and others have said several times before.
I repeat again.
Besides The Queen's view on the coronation oath and her vow that her whole life would be devoted to service, there is a very easy reason why The Queen wouldn't abdicate. The Queen is head of state of 16 countries and 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.
I think the continental royals have set a great precedent.
I don't agree.
The Netherlands.
Abdication is a tradition there, it has taken place since 1948.
Spain.
Juan Carlos has 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 behaves towards his son now.
And you can't compare these monarchies with the British monarchy.
I think that for the long-term survival of the monarchy she should abdicate so that she is there to support Charles and Camilla. The public would be more likely to accept Charles and Camilla if she is there at the coronation etc
The longer she reigns the better it is for Charles, in my opinion.
This was briliant written by EIIR in 2012.
When it comes to Charles acceding the throne I feel people miss the point. There is likely to be a huge outpouring of national grief when The Queen passes away. It's important not to underestimate how powerful that will be. Hundreds of thousands of people queued for days in order to file past the Queen Mother's coffin. The level of mourning for the Queen is likely to be a great deal deeper - the Queen is not only a much loved head of state, she's an international icon.
That national grief will, naturally, lead to a great deal of sympathy flowing to the RF generally, and Charles as the next in line.
There will also be a certain fascination in having a new monarch - the vast majority of Britons have only ever known one monarch. The process of new stamps, notes, coins, not to mention a coronation to look forward to. There's also the fact that Charles' reign is likely to be relatively short and William and Catherine will be closer to the throne while also having their own children who will, no doubt, fascinate us all in much the same way their parents have.
This is all a rather long winded way of saying I really don't believe that there will be any significant change to the British monarchy when Charles takes over. I think Charles will be a surprisingly popular King; he'll be at the 'sweet old man' age rather then in middle aged no mans land. It's an unfortunate fact of life nowadays; we see the young as interesting and cool, and the elderly as sweet and wise. It's the in between stage where people just aren't that interested.
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.