As a committed Republican almost from birth, I wish she wasn’t what she is anyway, but recently she has been advised by doctors to take things easier and we are constantly told by ‘The Palace’ that there is nothing to worry about but that she is a 95 year old woman and will be taking things easier in future.
So my point is, if she was anything other than The Queen, she would have been forced into retirement long ago on health, or age, grounds. If she can’t do ‘the job’ to its full requirement anymore why doesn’t she hand over to someone who can? Even though he himself is almost as old as me. The bloke who imho is probably the best of an otherwise dysfunctional institution.
I think it’s hard for republicans like us to see this issue from a royalist point of view. For us, the head of state is just a function - in many respects a job like any other - so it’s pretty obvious you should retire when you can no longer do it.
But for royalists it’s not that simple, because it’s permeated by history and tradition, and - lets be honest - mystification - around the royal person. To them, the role is inherent in the person, and can’t be passed on, except in the way it has traditionally been.
And there is a bizarre logic to their thinking: once the tradition is broken - once a monarch can cease to be monarch - once the function is separated from the royal person - then the whole idea of why on earth the head of state role gets inherited is called into question too.
The Queen is the same age as my dear old mum would have been had she not been taken so young.
Queen Elizabeth has been the reigning monarch during my whole life and is a British institution. The Royal family is a large part of British heritage and the country would be so much poorer without it (tourism).
Yes I am a Royalist and proud of it. As head of state she reigns not rules, it’s those that try to rule and mess up the country of my birth that need to be eradicated
Oh dear, here’s some bad news for an avowed royalist - that constitutes treason.
Because you can’t have it both ways, you get the monarch who is next in line, you don’t get to choose. That is the whole point of hereditary monarchy, constitutional or otherwise (and why I am a republican).
“Modern monarchy” is a contradiction in terms and just a clever bit of communication strategy.
Think of Tennyson: “it little profits that an idle king, by this still hearth among these barren crags, matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole unequal laws unto a savage race that hoard and sleep and feed and know not me”
Both the Queen and Charles could abdicate thereby putting William on the throne without the need to commit treason and being sent to the Tower.
As for being a ‘republic’ what system do people want - the French and US model where the Pres is all powerful or the German one where he/she has next to no power?
I think that HM the Queen has been an amazing steady hand for the nation, I do however think it’s time for her to retire and hopefully enjoy the latter part of her life. She deserves a break from hand shaking and small talk with people she probably really doesn’t want to meet.
There does need to be a change, perhaps Charles will bring that in, hopefully it will be enough to modernise the royal family. They certainly need to get rid of the hangers on that sit happily in the palaces living basically off the tax payer.
I remain unconvinced that they bring in any more tourism, people would stroll around Buckingham palace, Windsor etc whether they existed or not. It’s the history people come to see, not the people (as usually they are elsewhere in the world shaking hands and smiling, lecturing on climate change or dodging justice )
I have to say I’m not sure Andrew’s lawyers are doing the royal family any favours by their approach - which seems to revolve around legal technicalities and withholding information, rather than evidence of what actually took place.
The impression given to the public so far is definitely that he has something to hide.
I agree with all the republican sentiments expressed above, and:
Why would Charles need/want to abdicate, he talks a lot of sense on many things, just as many others not so privileged do as well, and I don’t see anything wonderful about his son, apart from dutifully marrying a ‘suitable’ girl and doing his bit to perpetuate the outdated institution.
As to the ‘all powerful French and US presidents’, not so sure about that, have you seen the struggle Biden is having trying to take something positive to Glasgow in the face of the opposition of some in his own party?
But whether the elected heads are powerful or figureheads it matters not, just as long as they are elected, that is the point. At least in Britain the non-elected do not have power, that really would be a nightmare.
I suppose I would be a royalist if I had to choose.
Don’t agree, I watched a wonderful interview with David Attenborough last night, same age HM, and the reporter had just watched him do a 6 hour filming day. He said he just accepts he can’t plan too far ahead! Wonderful spirit and amazing zest for life at that age, I think that is shared with HM.
I think that some folk forget that the Queen made a solemn promise to dedicate her whole life to her role of Queen… (I’ve forgotten the exact wording , but that’s basically it.)
She is a woman of her word and I don’t think she’d be too pleased if folk suggested she break her solemn promise.
However, I do think that Charles might well come into the forefront, more and more. If only to lighten her load.
I know he’s already doing a great deal, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see him do even more… as and when necessary.
But that is precisely the point Tory. I too watched it and applaud him and all he does, but she is unable to do what she is supposed to do simply because of age or health.
There is no doubt about that, it is the official explanation.
If I hadn’t retired voluntarily and was still rolling around France and elsewhere with my lorry, and then said due to age and frailty I couldn’t do certain journeys, my employment would soon be terminated anyway.
@Stella Again, my point is not that she should abdicate and therefore break her promise, but that her employment, because that is what it is, Head of State, should be ended as she is patently unable to do the job anymore.
It is of no consequence to me as I do not believe she should be in that job any way, so it might as well be her as anybody else, just comparing it to the norm.
The only thing I would say is that twice she has been withdrawn (on doctors’ advice) from planned visits, not because of health, but because of age, although some lies, not hers admittedly as far as we know, were told about her health. You don’t go into hospital overnight in order to ‘take things a bit easy’.
But she has good reason, because of her age.
From experience with my OH over the years… going into Hospital overnight has allowed monitoring and tests to be carried out… plus some things are best judged first thing, on an empty stomach… that sort of thing…
Our Queen’s age means (possibly) that things might start to go wrong, healthwise… (and they might not)
However, it makes sense (to me) that monitoring in hospital conditions… is carried out as and when deemed advisable.
Better to be proactive than reactive when it comes to health, in my opinion (others are free to disagree… )
Ha ha… I think not… surely everyone is allowed to be a little tired or a little under the weather… ??? Personally, I cannot see anything wrong with her being advised to take things a little easier.
Certainly, video-conferencing is less stressful/tiring than travelling all over the place.
I’m wondering which one of us would dare to admit to feeling off-colour or not quite up to par… if it would mean we were “given the push” from our work or chosen path.
If going into hospital overnight, was taken to mean that we were at the end of our useful life…
I’m enjoying this question/discussion … going back and forth… it’s interesting to see different thoughts…
She sees it as a lifetime of service, and that’s what it is (and what we are getting).
It’s actually quite inspiring/encouraging to see someone bucking the trend of taking retirement and relaxing. Instead - like those of us who are married, I suppose - it’s a case of “in sickness and in health” and she does what she can.
Of course, she’s a special case, but - royalist or not (I doubt I will be so keen on King Charles) - I’d far rather have a Head of State who isn’t a politician!
There are a lot of people over 90 doing amazing things…two of my favourites are Yuichiro Muira the climber and Bo Gilbert the model. And that’ without mentioning Mandela, Attenborough and the like. So age is not necessarily a barrier. And in recent years many institutions have removed mandatory retirement ages - B&Q for example has workers the same age as the Queen, and shelf stacking can be fairly demanding!
I am no great royalist, but a couple of sick days in 60 years is a pretty impressive work record. And although she has hardly any real power she is all that stands between democracy and egotistical dictatorship in the UK right now. So let the woman determine her own future, and if she wants to keep going then I would let here.
)