Should Queen Elizabeth II Abdicate?

[Lincoln Republican]

Should 81 year old Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom abdicate and turn the throne over to her 59 year old son Prince Charles?

Please discuss.

[Gabu]

No... why would she?

[The Dowager Mod]

As long as she isn't senile i see no reason for her to quit.

[Platypus]

That's kinda not how it works. Coincidentally, she is also Queen of Australia, tyvm

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The English throne has a history of using regencies, not abdications for elderly monarchs.  Also if Charles wants to avoid the throne, he has a very available out to him.  Given his association with Greek Orthodoxy via his father, if he converted to being an Orthodox Catholic, he would not be Protestant and thus under the Act of Settlement incapable of assuming the throne, but since he wouldn't have committed the heresy of becoming a Papist, Princes William and Henry could still take the throne.

[Lincoln Republican]

That's kinda not how it works. Coincidentally, she is also Queen of Australia, tyvm

The British monarch has the full constitutional right to abdicate the throne, and turn it over to the next in line, at any time during their reign.

Of course, abdication is seldom used.  The last time was in 1936 when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

No

[Verily]

No. She should go for beating Victoria's record. The day after she beats the record, then she can abdicate.

[Platypus]

That's kinda not how it works. Coincidentally, she is also Queen of Australia, tyvm

The British monarch has the full constitutional right to abdicate the throne, and turn it over to the next in line, at any time during their reign.

Of course, abdication is seldom used.  The last time was in 1936 when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

They *can* abdicate, but it is highly unusual for a monarch to abdicate before death kinda forces them to do so.

[Verily]

That's kinda not how it works. Coincidentally, she is also Queen of Australia, tyvm

The British monarch has the full constitutional right to abdicate the throne, and turn it over to the next in line, at any time during their reign.

Of course, abdication is seldom used.  The last time was in 1936 when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

Actually, strictly speaking, the monarch does not have the "constitutional right" to abdicate. It's why they called it the "Abdication Crisis" when Edward VIII stood down: no one was quite sure whether he could do so (and the monarchal oath says something about "serving for all the remaining days of my life", or some such).

[Lincoln Republican]

That's kinda not how it works. Coincidentally, she is also Queen of Australia, tyvm

The British monarch has the full constitutional right to abdicate the throne, and turn it over to the next in line, at any time during their reign.

Of course, abdication is seldom used.  The last time was in 1936 when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

Actually, strictly speaking, the monarch does not have the "constitutional right" to abdicate. It's why they called it the "Abdication Crisis" when Edward VIII stood down: no one was quite sure whether he could do so (and the monarchal oath says something about "serving for all the remaining days of my life", or some such).

True, I should have said there are certain circumstances under which a monarch could abdicate, and Parliament would then legitimize the abdication.

However, Queen Elizabeth II could in fact abdicate due to age, and turn over the throne to her son, Prince Charles.

[Gabu]

True, I should have said there are certain circumstances under which a monarch could abdicate, and Parliament would then legitimize the abdication.

However, Queen Elizabeth II could in fact abdicate due to age, and turn over the throne to her son, Prince Charles.

But why would she?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Queen, if you remember only became Queen because her uncle Edward VIII abdicated (having said that - if Edward had lived as long as he did as King, and not had children Elizabeth would've become Queen). I've read in many books about her that she considers her role to be one until the day she dies, and has a very low opinion of abdication, since she believes the stress on her physically and emotionally weak father, killed him.

The last time there was a functioning regency was when George, Prince of Wales took over from 1810-1820 when George III's porphyria had become too unpredictable. Regencies are not that common. The best indication was when Queen Juliana of the Netherlands abdicated in 1980 at the age of 71 - Elizabeth II was told and replied, "leave it to the Dutch". She functions incredibly well - she certianly has no physical or mental issues we know of, her mother only became clearly weak into her mid-90s. Assuming that, I don't see any reason why her majesty should abdicate - besides there needs to be more time to see what can be done constitutionally to manage the "Camilla issue".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's kinda not how it works. Coincidentally, she is also Queen of Australia, tyvm

The British monarch has the full constitutional right to abdicate the throne, and turn it over to the next in line, at any time during their reign.

Of course, abdication is seldom used.  The last time was in 1936 when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry the American divorcee Wallis Simpson.

Actually, they had to pass a law to allow Edward to abdicate.  Under the British system as it currently stands, abdication requires the consent of Parliament.  Still I think it will be some years before George VII takes over from his mother, even assuming he outlives her.

[Padfoot]

I see no reason for the Queen to abdicate.  Even if she was senile its not like she wields enough power to send her country into chaos by making rash decisions.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No. She should go for beating Victoria's record. The day after she beats the record, then she can abdicate.

If you're gonna beat a record - keep going so that the record is harder to beat.

I say no - there's no reason to.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

She'll become the oldest reigning monarch on 21 December 2007, and will beat Victoria's record on 9 September 2015. The other side is that Charles will be 67, which would also beat the record for the oldest person to succeed the throne (William IV was 64 - but he succeeded his brother George IV (whose own daughter Charlotte had died), rather than his father).

[J. J.]

The English throne has a history of using regencies, not abdications for elderly monarchs.  Also if Charles wants to avoid the throne, he has a very available out to him.  Given his association with Greek Orthodoxy via his father, if he converted to being an Orthodox Catholic, he would not be Protestant and thus under the Act of Settlement incapable of assuming the throne, but since he wouldn't have committed the heresy of becoming a Papist, Princes William and Henry could still take the throne.

Actually, Orthodox Christianity does not violate the Act.  It is specific to Communion with Rome. Or a papist.  http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208

I think the Orthodox Church was in Communion with the Anglican Communion, at least until they started ordaining women.

[J. J.]

Should 81 year old Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom abdicate and turn the throne over to her 59 year old son Prince Charles?

Please discuss.

The part after the "and" creates the problem.

Seriously, I've heard the idea that she does consider it an oath before God.  He mother was active at the century mark, so another 19 years is possible.

[StateBoiler]

I actually have an immense amount of respect for the Queen and her position in British politics. I've read that she takes her position importantly as far as reading every piece of legislation she signs, and that she has meetings with the prime minister once a week. Can you imagine the huge amount of knowledge regarding politics that she can draw from for all her discussions with all the prime ministers during her tenure?

[Silent Hunter]

I actually have an immense amount of respect for the Queen and her position in British politics. I've read that she takes her position importantly as far as reading every piece of legislation she signs, and that she has meetings with the prime minister once a week. Can you imagine the huge amount of knowledge regarding politics that she can draw from for all her discussions with all the prime ministers during her tenure?

I like the Queen. I just don't like the Prince of Wales.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

[Verily]

She'll become the oldest reigning monarch on 21 December 2007, and will beat Victoria's record on 9 September 2015. The other side is that Charles will be 67, which would also beat the record for the oldest person to succeed the throne (William IV was 64 - but he succeeded his brother George IV (whose own daughter Charlotte had died), rather than his father).

Which is why there is some talk of the throne passing directly to Prince William rather than to Prince Charles.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

She'll become the oldest reigning monarch on 21 December 2007, and will beat Victoria's record on 9 September 2015. The other side is that Charles will be 67, which would also beat the record for the oldest person to succeed the throne (William IV was 64 - but he succeeded his brother George IV (whose own daughter Charlotte had died), rather than his father).

Which is why there is some talk of the throne passing directly to Prince William rather than to Prince Charles.

There's been talk of that since 1992. I don't think such a thing will happen. Charles would not willingly give up the position he's waiting his whole life for, and I don't think they would wish the responsbility on William. But it will be quite funny - if the Queen should live to 101 like her mother, Charles would be 79 and William would be 45.

[John Dibble]

No, there's not really any reason to.