Abdication?

Jalima, I am all for excitement, it's good for one, but there is always the fact that too much of a good thing isn't . As I will discover if Murry wins Wimbledon this year

I think Charles has been and is a good heir to the throne , I really believes he cares for people , wonder how many could have kept going as he did when he was under years of media attack, and attack from other quarters

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands did the right thing a few years ago,when she abdicated to allow the next in line to take the throne.
I have always liked Charles and think he should have been crowned at least 10 years ago.
My mum worked as a domestic at one of the establishments he regularly visited.
He often sat in the kitchen with her for tea and chat.
She always spoke very highly of him and she was no royalist.

I do not wish her dead but I think Charles has earned time as King , difficult one , queenie could remain queen and appoint him Prince Regent I suppose but he would still be in her shadow

I also think she should have passed the crown on a while ago, I wonder if she knows more than us. Is there some reason for Charles not to be King, or is he happy with his position where he can be outspoken

Could be she wants to remain queen , and there is Phillip to consider , possibly she knows if she was still around and Charles became King she would still get all the adoration, she can hardly enter a convent if she decided to hand over the crown would she have to watch his coronation on telly

I read something interesting on the thread attached on here. It suggested that Charles could well be 80 when he acceeds (is that the right word?) the throne. William, in turn, could also be of a fairly advanced age.

So, in remaining on the throne, Queenie could actually be setting a precedent for very old monarchs. Not sure that's a good thing for the country.

I reckon Queenie's doing it on purpose. Maybe she thinks that abdicating will cause a constitutional crisis, and pertinent questions will be asked about the relevancy of the Family.

The King of Thailand is a little younger, at 88, than our Queen, but he has been on the throne for seventy years. Just saying.

I don't think having an old monarch is bad for the country or setting a bad precedent. Why would it be unless the aged monarch were somehow troublesome? Queenie isn't in the least bit troublesome so there isn't a problem with her age. To suggest that there might be a problem is quite simply ageist and negative. She has done a fantastic job and still is doing.

The only thing is if Charles is about 75 when he becomes king, having an expensive coronation, and then another less than ten years later let's say, is going to be a bit stressful on the state's coffers. Almost not worth it from a financial point of view, mind you Americans + will flock to London, so maybe a money spinner on both occasions who knows!!!

The timing isn't exactly right for an abdication and all the faffing about it would entail, what with the UK in such a stew about the Referendum. I'm sure the Queen (and the rest of the family) realise that, even if she does intend to do so eventually.

I had decided she should hand over to Charles but suddenly realised we would/could have William as PofWales , not well pleased at that, poor Kate

thatbags Queenie is hale and hearty, it appears, but many older people may not enjoy the kind of health she has.

I wasn't being ageist, simply practical. An older monarch may not be inclined to or able to commit to the responsibilities of the throne.

And I agree that Charles has earned his spurs. I think he'd make a capable King, if we must have one.

It's the last thing we need( an abdication) another 5 years would be good.

I can't believe the amount of knowledge (?) speculation as to what may or may not be in the Queen's mind at present.
However if it passes the time, why not

Well quite Alea! The Queen won't abdicate, she pledged her life to the service of this country whether her life be short or long and she won't renade on that promise. I expect she'll hand over more and more responsibilities to Prince Charles. I agree with roses, another five years would be tickerty boo!

I think the word abdicate is anathema to her; she sees it as her lifelong duty and would never want to be associated with doing what her uncle did all those years ago, which put her in line for the throne.

Alea ? I wonder if the Palace is bugged?

Mind you, the way I feel at the moment ( tired) another 5 years may suit me too.?

They were all out on parade again today at the annual Garter Ceremony in Windsor.

The Queen must be looking forward to finally putting her feet up.

I should think she must be exhausted after such an action packed weekend. My grandson coming for one day poops both of us!! mind you he is only nine, and pretty lively! luckily his two older sisters are a lot quieter!

Unlike the Netherlands (and some other countries), there is no tradition of abdication in the British monarchy – it's always been regarded as a job for life. (Of course, some of those royal lives were cut short by people who then became monarchs themselves.)

HM the Q grew up in he shadow of her uncle's abdication and the subsequent embarrassment of what to do with him once he had ceased to be king. HM the Q Mother blamed the strain of enforced and unexpected kingship for George VI's death, at least partially – the association between smoking and cancer was not widely known in the early 1950s. She never forgave the Duchess of Windsor whom she blamed for causing the whole schemozzle. (Ironic in the light of recent royal marital history.)

absent is right. George 111 remained king until his death in 1820 despite being mad, blind (poor man) and incarcerated at Windsor, no question of abdication, and for certain the Queen will not be the first monarch to change that tradition. It's a job for life, always has been and not about to alter any time soon.

Absent....It is rather different to abdicate for your American lady friend,than the actual heir to the throne!

George 111 appointed a regent, though. No sign of Queenie doing that. Perhaps she should.

She doesn't need to appoint a regent. There's nothing wrong with her mental health and any physically arduous commitments can be undertaken by the younger members of her family who represent her.