Abdication?

Exactly!! Parliament appointed the Regent not the king, under the Regency Act of 1811, after it became obvious that George 111 would not recover from this bout of madness. It had been discussed back in 1788, but the King recovered from that episode of illness, so in the end it wasn't deemed necessary. The Queen has no need of a Regent as she can still make rational decisions sign official papers etc so Parliament has no need to appoint one!

There is something in life called 'duty'.

The Queen may or may not abdicate, nobody will know the answer to that question other than her good self if and when that decision were ever made.

She could at some time be 'removed' as Head of State as is the preferred option of the Republicans.

The Queen to me understands what 'duty' means, she feels a sense of 'duty ' to abide by her promise to the nation , do what she believes to be the best for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

Duty is not a natural instinct for all of us. A sense of 'duty' is what makes our armed forces personnel tick for example. 'Loyalty' is another instinct that does not come naturally to some people but the two are inextricably linked.

Duty and Loyalty in the manner to which I am referring to is not the same as the duty and loyalty we ALL would say we give to our friends and family for example. I mean the duty and loyalty that a percentage of people can give to 'serve others' in which ever form it takes.

The Queen has an understanding of both duty and loyalty in spades and I think it would take a hell of a lot of soul searching , if ever, she chose to abdicate.

Excellent post POGS. She made a solemn promise all those years ago and that's the way it'll stay. As no one has come up with an example of an approved republic that we could emulate, I can only suppose that none exists, so long live the Queen!!!

Why should we emulate another Republic?

Put it a different way then, which one does anyone admire that we could look at and perhaps think, that's an excellent system, we could model ourselves on that when we get rid of the monarchy.

So long as we don't get the equivalent of King Tony/ Queen Cherie/ King David or any other of them..
Still get Lord Major and Lord Brown sticking their oars in NOW when they were weighed in the balance and found wanting years ago

Why should we get rid? We could pare them back.

Gettingonabit, exactly what I have been banging on about, why does it have to be a choice between a dictator or a monarch who is living a lifestyle of an era long gone

widgeon, I'm afraid that's probably what we would get, mind you I don't think you can call President Hollande a dictator, so maybe something modelled on France? for those wanting a republic.

There is something in life called 'duty'
Many people do not understand the true meaning of that word.

Very good post POGS

They are being pared back Gettingonabit. Just because quite a lot were on the balcony and appearing last weekend does not mean they are paid for out of the public purse.

I do think President Blair, President Kinnock, President Johnson or whoever, plus their First Ladies, would cost us even more in the long run.
I can't imagine any of them wanting to live in a draughty, leaking Palace or castle. There would have to be a multi-billion £ refit, or a new palace built somewhere to suit.

Depends if you have stated at 'any time' you are a Republican or eluded to a desire to not have a monarchy. The question was asking about the nuances surrounding an abdication by the Queen.

She has all her wits about her so should not abdicate.
If there was any hint that a monarch had some mental decline then perhaps it should be a consideration, but she hasn't.

many of them are paid for from the public purse , the civil list was reduced and the queens money raised so she could give money to those who would one time been on the civil list, plus the duchy of Cornwall plus protection of property and bodyguards

Any mental decline and I expect there would be a Recency, a new act of parliament? or would 1811 do with a few modifications. How could she abdicate if she's not the full shilling? If she couldn't make a rational decision then how could she make this one?

Did I put this on the wrong thread? Getting now, the two threads seem to be intertwining.
Ah well, for good measure, here it is again:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election

Just to be helpful, a list of countries with elected presidents.
I expect everyone living in those countries has a high standard of living, there is no homelessness, no poverty and no food banks.

The President is great value for money, costs very little and everyone is as happy as can be.

I could be wrong, of course.

Are you taking the Michael?!!!!!

Who? Me? Never!!

Ummmmm!!!

Does America house the presidents cousins, in laws, nieces and nephews , supply them all with body guards

I thought they had had their bodyguards taken away?
(remember that photo where the DGD looked scared?)

They have. Only immediate members of the family have round the clock protection, the others, only when they're on official duties, this includes Prince Andrew and his family, and Prince Edward ditto. I think you'll find other heads of state have the same, particularly in these times of increased terrorist threats.

Just how many cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws do we house and supply with body guards?

Simply curious.

We don't, as stated!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_royal_residences
Scroll down to "Current royal residences by type of residence" to see which are state-owned, which belong to the /crown Estate, which are privately owned etc.

The Crown estate en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate "is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate"

Once upon a time, a monarch owned the whole country, granting the use of bits of it to those who had helped them win it by conquest and would help govern it. The costs of government and of funding an army to defend it and/conquer other land was met by the monarch himself from income from his possessions.

"Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the treasury, thus relieving him of the responsibility to personally pay for the costs of the civil service, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List." Each monarch agrres to the continuation of this arrangement upon accession

"The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government and thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury for the benefit of the British nation."

Scroll down to "

Good post Elegran and sums it up in language we can all understand. Sounded like a good deal to me and probably, bearing mind the tourist draw, cheaper than a republic!