The Queen is in hospital

MissAdventure

Look, I'm sorry to bring this up, but is there no possible way we can blame Meghan for this?

Didn't she make a speech of some sort recently? Is that why the Queen went to hospital????

MissAdventure

Look, I'm sorry to bring this up, but is there no possible way we can blame Meghan for this?

???

Stress?

I just went to have a look at the oath.

None of it says "forever and ever, amen."

So that's a bit she's decided for herself.

www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

She did however, promised to govern the people of Pakistan and Ceylon. That's not worked out as expected, has it?

I wonder how much sleep she managed to get during the last few months, loosing a husband and a son and grandson seldom out of the papers

Her annual trip to Scotland usually gave her peace a privacy then who decides to tag along but Andrew and his ex who would not be there if Philip was alive, while those two across the Atlantic sit planning a bomb shell for next year.

We all have family problems but she has certainly had her fair share recently. An extra tipple may be just what she needed

All the people who claim to love her don’t you want her to be calm and quiet and comfortable in her last days
Bluebelle
I didn't say I loved her. It's how she wants to fulfil her duty in the way she sees fit and to contribute to a cause which she feels strongly about that matters, so who am I to tell her to go home and put her feet up?

Alegrias1

I just went to have a look at the oath.

None of it says "forever and ever, amen."

So that's a bit she's decided for herself.

www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953

She did however, promised to govern the people of Pakistan and Ceylon. That's not worked out as expected, has it?

It was a promise she made way before that.

When the Queen was 21, before she became Queen, she made a solemn promise to serve the people for her whole life. She regards that as a binding obligation and will never have the luxury of retirement. I admire her for that.

It was a promise she made way before that.

The one she made on her 21st birthday? The one I quoted above at 16:00?

Or are there more?

I think the Queen was very affected by her much loved uncle’s abdication. She was only ten and would have seen how much it affected her father, who wasn’t a particularly strong man. The fact he was only 56 when he died and propelled her onto the throne at 26 must have been extremely difficult. I think she only saw her uncle once more and that was on his death bed. So, abdication is the last thing she would ever do, even at her great age. The family rallying around to help/take over everything except what she constitutionally has to (red boxes every day) is a good start, which perhaps should have started two decades ago.

She never promised to be Queen till she died.

But that's what we expect from her, isn't it?

As previously stated she will do as her forebears did. She'll stick to the formula until the traditional- 'The Queen is dead long live the King' ( No rush either your Majesty)

trisher. believes a 95 year old is only capable of being dressed up and taken out to meet and greet,

Sir David Attenborough is 95, is he not mentally capable?

Thought it said she had the gastroenteritis LAST time she was in hosp? Never saw about this time.

Well I’m afraid I agree with trisher and Alegrias. As I see it, whatever she said or didn’t say seventy years ago, it’s way past time that she should have retired. It’s very unfair on Charles to be trained and then waiting for a lifetime to become king, and of course other monarchs have retired and the bottom didn’t drop out of the earth. She’s the Head of State, not a holy deity. At 95 she should retire and then advise Charles and William.

maddyone, you're a very practical woman!

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

She has more or less retired anyway, she attends what she believes is most important and Charles does most of the work.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed!

Yes, they're too old and useless to express an opinion, do or say anything useful, put them out to grass.

Good grief, you'd think we'd been infiltrated by ageist escapees from Mumsnet.
There is a law against ageism.

Aha Alegrias, you may very well say so, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes deleted post

Charles, William, Anne, Edward et al are all carrying out the majority of royal activities. Seems reasonable.

Sir David Attenborough and Queen Elizabeth II

190 years of experience or two doddery oldies who should be put out to grass?

Perhaps it depends on your age how you view them both.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes deleted post

Callistemon

She has more or less retired anyway, she attends what she believes is most important and Charles does most of the work.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed!

Yes, they're too old and useless to express an opinion, do or say anything useful, put them out to grass.

Good grief, you'd think we'd been infiltrated by ageist escapees from Mumsnet.
There is a law against ageism.

I don’t think anyone has suggested that either! ( being out out to grass I mean). Just giving her son a chance,

Yes, I do think the very old should move over to make room for the young, although Charles is hardly young himself. It is stubborn and even selfish to continue to hold on to the jobs and the power when there is plenty of younger talent waiting in the wings for their turn. In any case neither the Queen nor Sir David Attenborough could do the things they do without many other people behind them doing the organising. I’ve always believed that when older people reach retirement age that they should move over and allow others their opportunities. Now I’m in my late sixties, my views haven’t changed. What propels retirees to continue is ego in my opinion. Look at all the aging pop stars who continue forever, it’s not money they need, they need to satisfy their egos.