The Queen is in hospital

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

So Callistemon, she's not up to the job and her son has to do most of it, you say.

But we're the ageist ones for suggesting that she might be given the opportunity to stop working all together?

I'm not a monarchist.

I know we don't have a written constitution but I think the Queen can't just retire, she would have to abdicate which I think she would never do. Charles would never command the respect that his mother has, particularly if she is still alive!

He has no right to have a go at being the monarch - it's just an accident of birth. It's unfortunate for him that he was born to a young mother who unexpectedly became queen in her 20s.

And what if a few years down the line it becomes apparent that he's not up to the job, will people start to lobby for William to have a go?

The whole thing will just fall apart - so monarchist be careful of what you wish for!

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

You could be right about the ego, Maddyoneas my OH lamented his loss of status above all else when he retired.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes deleted post

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.

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,

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes deleted post

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.

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

Message deleted by Gransnet. Quotes deleted post

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

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.

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

maddyone, you're a very practical woman!

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.

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

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

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

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)

She never promised to be Queen till she died.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.