She was a young girl when her uncle abdicated, and she saw the shakeup that caused. I would imagine she would be very unwilling to abdicate unless it was for health reasons. That would be the one thing that I think the British people would not get terribly upset about.
Exactly how much more than what is being done should be done?
Are there Royal Command performances not being attended? Knighthoods unbestowed? Bridges or fetes which are unopened? Garden parties where the tea has gone cold and the chocolate ganache sponge cake is stale? Pieces of government legislation where assent is pending? Centenarian telegrams that are unsent? Commonwealth countries threatening independence through being ignored by their sovereign? No.
The office functions like a well tuned watch and the best philosophical counterpoint you can come up with is some SNL comedian? Puerile.
Unless you are proposing regicide, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
Performed her function precisely as the head of a constitutional monarchy does.
Curiously enough, she does seem to be familiar with the intricacies involved, and of Great Matters of State ™ for that matter.
I get the distinct impression the old girls is clenching until her kid dies.
Chas. is the ultimate “Make abortion retroactive” poster child.
Maybe, if she had just clenched a bit in November, 1948, she could be resting comfortably now in her golden years…
Dear Mods: the above is intended as dry humor. I do not advocate regicide.
yet.
Does she have any choice in the matter of who succeeds her? Can she decide to just skip over Charles if he’s such a dunderhead and go right to her grandson? Or is is absolutely set in stone that unless ol’ Chucky boy precedes her in the embrace of death, he must be next?
No, only Parliament can change the order of succession. If Charles decided he didn’t want to be King, then I expect Parliament would legislatively allow that, but that scenario seems unlikely.
The order of succession is set by acts of parliament, including those of the countries (such as Canada and Australia) where HM is also the monarch. So, to change the order, you’d need laws passed in all those countries. If Prince Charles wanted to abdicate, then you’d probably get that sort of agreement, but it cannot be done unilaterally by the Queen of the UK, the Queen of Canada, the Queen of Australia, etc., etc.
Only to the extent that she outlives him, something like the manner of William IV, who managed to live long enough for his successor (Queen Victoria) to turn 18 and therefore stimie the prospects of Victoria’s mother (Duchess of Kent) and her private secretary John Conroy to act as regents.
IMO if Charles survives his Mum he *will *be King. He’s not been apprenticing for 70-ish years to quit before he wears the crown even for a bit.
If he gets doddery enough before EIIR dies, he may well be King for at least a year himself and then elect to abdicate*, rather than serving to his eventual demise.
Starting thereby, as AK84 so pithily put it, to set the house of Windsor on the same path as the RCC’s “Benedict’s rule”: that life appointments in the 21st Century are really (or at least should be treated by the appointee as) appointments unto inadequacy, not unto death.
- My decidedly inexpert take on Edward VIII’s abdication was that the outrage and earth-shaking impact at the time was about 80% over why he did it (commoner Simpson), 15% over it being a very touchy time in history (pre-WWII 1936), and 5% the idea of abdication in itself. Within the next 15-ish years when Charles’ kingly scenario will inevitably play out, 95% of those issues won’t matter squat and the other 5% will be much reduced in this less monarchical age. IOW it’ll be a speed bump, not a constitutional crisis.
William IV also chose to live with a mistress (Mrs Jordan), and only married late in life, so he had several illegitimate children, and no legitimate children that survived infancy. If he had married Mrs Jordan, then one of his sons would have become king, and not Princess Victoria.
Unquestionably the most qualified heir-apparent in a couple of centuries, if not millennia, which sets up a bit of recurring theme for a substantial block of US voters of the mind that qualification for office represents a disqualification from office.
Which seems to be inconsistent with governance protocols where life appointments to SCOTUS are taken literally and indeed for congressmen & senators where tenure = ranking = access to pork.
King Edward VII had a similarly long apprenticeship; that didn’t work out too well.
I don’t believe so, but as I mentioned upthread, Parliament has in the past been ruthlessly pragmatic.
Which, I assume, makes him unappealing to Parliament? It’s been my impression that Parliament want the funk, gotta have that funk.
Yes he did, but I don’t see that he did anything other than a serviceable job as monarch.
Give the man his due, his mother was a rather difficult act to follow and I’m no Buckingham insider but I’d have thought Elizabeth as both a mother and monarch might be a touch more accommodating that Victoria. Bertie was deliberately excluded from power until he was nearly Charles age.
Folks might enjoy “How to Become the British Monarch”
…
Read up and understand government papers.
Meet with her PM every week
Meet with ambassadors and foreign dignities
Undertake foreign tours
All her domestic visits
Oh and work to solve major crises that might occur
What the monarch does is I repeat not a sinecure and is indeed fairly substantive work. When the Queen visits countries and meets with foreign dignitaries, she is conducting actual diplomacy and promoting British Industry and trade. Yes, she is following the policy as laid down by the Government of the day, however she is infact putting te case forward as well.
From memory she used to have 300 plus major engagement a year. How many 90 year old women can maintain such a schedule?
I agree she will never willingly step aside. But, questions as to role of aged monarchs are’nt likely to go away anytime soon. In 15-20 years or thereabouts Charles will be in the same position as she is today healthwise, hell past retirement age, he is already one major health crises away from being permanently unable to maintain his current scehdule.
I have no comment on Charles’ specific pros and cons as a royal. Not my area. I think it’s an error to assume length of apprenticeship is that much of a help. Sure, ascending at 40 is better than at 10 or 15 or 20. But after a certain point diminishing returns or even negative returns sets in.
My point was that regardless of Charles’ fitness in the eyes of others, he wasn’t going to abdicate voluntarily. *He’s *the one who thinks he’s earned the prize; it doesn’t matter to him what anyone else might think. It’s unthinkable for him to voluntarily forego being King. Clearly Parliament *could *intervene albeit at great cost to the whole Royalist edifice.
As to SCOTUS, life appointments are specifically intended to eliminate political machinations to remove justices. But they often do retire at a time of their own choosing before becoming utterly overwhelmed by the workload or dropping dead.
As to congressman the comparison makes no sense. They’re each up for reelection every 2 or 6 years. I agree that seniority is a valuable asset. And that *some *congressmen ride that horse mercilessly, flogging their ability to bring pork home to the voters so they keep getting reelected. Sen Richard Byrd coming immediately to mind. But that’s far from the typical situation; it stands out precisely because it’s relatively rare; WAG those pols are 10% of the whole.
But it’s not a point. You’re demonstrating a nodding acquaintance with the UK constitution.
Fwiw, seemed to work pretty well this year when the PM resigned and a 6 week period saw the new PM emerge and take over.