Should Queen Elizabeth be next for royal retirement?
Queen Elizabeth shakes the hand of her son Prince Charles
at the end of the Queen's Jubilee Concert in front of Buckingham
Palace last June. Charles has been in line for the monarch's role for 61 years, longer than anyone in British history. (AP Photo)
The word 'abdication' has a pretty bad reputation in the UK, unlike the Netherlands, where it is viewed as a natural succession process.
Still, it was hard to avoid the obvious question of when Queen Elizabeth would abandon the throne after Queen Beatrix, a woman 11 years her junior, announced she was stepping aside for her son this week. (Right, the good friends in Rotterdam in 2007)
The British newspapers couldn't help themselves from giving heir-for-life Prince Charles a little dig in the ribs. "Queen Gives Up Her Throne to Son," said the Daily Mirror, followed by the addendum: "Easy, Charles ... It's Queen Beatrix of Netherlands."
"Queen abdicates in favour of her middle-aged son!" wrote the Daily Mail, followed by the punch line: "(no sorry, Charles, not THAT queen ... the one in Holland)."
The fact is the only certain thing that will force Queen Elizabeth off the throne is death. Anything else would be considered a scandal, akin to the 1936 throne crisis when Edward abdicated for "the woman I love," Wallis Simpson.
In the Netherlands, abdication is handled like a pleasurable retirement party. Beatrix's mother Julianna retired in 1980 at age 71, and lived another 24 years. Julianna's mother, Wihelmina, gave up the throne in 1948 when she was only 61, dying in 1962. In fact, Beatrix is the oldest serving monarch in the country's history.
The royal tradition in Britain is much different, though occasionally debated. There, it is a job for life, and the Queen is not about set a precedent.
As Lord Norton, a professor of government, told the Guardian, the thought of abdication is "completely alien to our system, and it's also alien to our law, which stipulates who will succeed -- so the Queen remains the queen until such time as she dies, and then the succession is automatic."
But even that simple formula has been called into question, with people wondering if grandpa-to-be, 64-year-old Charles, should just let the throne skip his generation and go directly to his son Prince William. That notion, too, is far-fetched (and a relief to the not-ready-for-prime-time William).
So, Charles will get the throne at some point and have one of the shorter reigns. That will not be a tragedy, because he is likely accomplishing much more through his Prince's Charities than would be possible time-wise if he were king.
In the meantime, the Commonwealth has a Queen blessed with good health and a sense of duty second to none. She will rule till her deathbed and no one's in a hurry to get her there.
What's your opinion?
HARRY HAS 'TASTE OF BLOOD' IN BATTLE
The BBC documentary featuring Prince Harry in Afghanistan has had its airing in the UK this week, which will do nothing to improve the humour of the Taliban.
In "Prince Harry: Frontline Afghanistan," the viewer is presented with the prince as the swashbuckling soldier, filled with a deep thirst for action as he battles the boredom of waiting for the phone to ring.
"As soon as we get a shout, whatever it is, we all run to the aircraft, and at that point you have the taste of blood in your mouth," he says in one of the wide-ranging interviews done during his four-and-a-half month deployment to the war-torn country.
A Palace spokesperson tried to take a little bit of the edge off Harry's battle cry, telling the Telegraph: "He was describing how he copes with the adrenalin of a call-out, so it's important to understand the context in which he was speaking."
Here's that full BBC documentary:
PRINCE CHARLES MEETS CANADIAN CEOs
Representatives of Canadian companies meet with Prince Charles in the Royal Dining Room at Clarence House on Tuesday. (CNW Group/Prince's Charities Canada)
A dozen heads of Canadian companies sat down with Prince Charles in Clarence House on Tuesday to undergo a little royal arm-twisting.
The CEOs were in London to hear about the prince's Seeing is Believing program, where business leaders step out of their comfort zone and go into the community to put their skills to work solving grassroots social issues.
"CEOs solve problems for a living," said Amanda Sherrington, President of Prince's Charities Canada. "The goal is to see both the companies and the communities they serve transformed for the better."
Some of the Canadian companies represented were George Weston Ltd., RBC, Daniels Corp., Xerox Canada, Borden Ladner Gervais and Ground Efects Environmental Services.
The Seeing is Believing program has been running in the UK for 20 years and is now taking its foothold in Canada. The Tuesday session ended with a promise to the prince to start recruiting fellow business leaders across the country to join in the venture.
"We've started something powerful here," Pavi Binning, president of George Weston, said after the meeting with the Prince. "Now the real work begins."
Prince
Charles meets members of the local
community after a visit to Circle Sports in north London on Tuesday in
London. The prince led a group of
senior business leaders on a visit to Circle Sports, which is a business
supported by one of the prince's charities, Seeing is Believing. The
charity aims at helping unemployed young people become successful in
business. (Getty Images)
Yes I fully believe she should give up the throne as she has been there long enough and it's time to have young, fresh blood there now. By young, I don't mean Charles and Camilla either. It's time to have YOUNG blood there who can bring fresh changes to the country and monarchy and not old blood or old ideas or stale ideas. I really think it's long overdue for the Queen to step down as she should have done that moons ago.
Posted by: brenda | 01/29/2013 at 12:47 PM
The Queen has a duty to out-live Charles.
Posted by: Fred | 01/29/2013 at 03:03 PM
Hopefully, The Queen will outlive Prince Charles and William will inherit the Throne.
Posted by: Brian_to | 01/29/2013 at 03:29 PM
We'd better all hope that the Queen outlives her idiot son, so he never becomes King. He has shown himself too unworthy of being monarch, on numerous occasions.
Posted by: LaryOly | 01/29/2013 at 04:05 PM
The abdication of 1936 was hard on all the countries with the monarch at their head. We felt sorry for the father of Elizabeth, having to pick up the pieces when his brother took off.
There is no reason our monarch should follow the tradition of the Netherlands and age is not a reason to quit a dutyb she vower at Coronation to devote her life to.
Posted by: Margaret Rose | 01/29/2013 at 04:24 PM
Not if Chuckie is taking over!!!
Posted by: Mike McElhone | 01/29/2013 at 05:17 PM
Long live the Queen and hopefully William and Kate will be ready to step in when is not around anymore. I would prefer to see Charles and Camilla having fun with their grandchildren and great grandchildren. I have seen enough of both of them to last me a life time.
Posted by: margaret baker | 01/30/2013 at 04:45 AM
The Queen is different from Queen Beatrix when it comes to abdication.
For a young Elizabeth, abdication meant an upset of the family unit and royal tradition. It was seen as a selfish act by her uncle, and it put her father on the throne during war time. It was a very difficult, dramatic thing to happen, and it was drilled into the Princess' head that one does not abandon duty.
The Netherlands are far more relaxed, as it really is like a retirement. Not so for the UK. Besides, I don't really want to see the Queen go anywhere, do you? I love that lady.
Posted by: MandysRoyalty (@mandysroyalty) | 02/27/2013 at 04:25 PM
I think she`s the string one in the whole ecuation so if you ask me, she should stay for as long as she lives (or her health is letting her).
Not to mention that her voice has an echo all over the world...
Posted by: Andrew Host | 05/20/2013 at 07:15 AM