No Abdication for Queen Elizabeth?
Let us assume that Princess Diana never died in a car crash. Let us also assume that she and Prince Charles never divorced, and managed to work out their differences and continued to be married. Would Queen Elizabeth have abdicated, or would be planning to do so? Another way to look at this question is this -- is her supposed of the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) one of the reasons why she will not abdicate in favor or her son?
- ?Lv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
She made a famous radio broadcast when she was 18 that she was resolved to dedicate her life to the service of Britain and the Commonwealth, and she believes totally that monarchy IS for life. She has never given any indication that she will abdicate and as far as anyone knows, that is still her view. End of, as they say. And as British, I think she's amazing - 61 years of this and she's never put a foot wrong. It's not a life I'd wish on anyone.
I rather like the modern Dutch tradition of abdicating to a well-earned retirement as their last three monarchs have done. Queen Wilhelmina started that - she became Queen aged 10, and led her country through both world wars. Another amazing and strong woman and she very reasonably abdicated once her health started failing. Without it, the fact that people live so much longer these days - and in general the British royal family enjoy rude good health - is inevitably going to lead to all monarchs being pensioners. Prince Charles already is - 65th birthday this week, the British state pension age. Meanwhile, the Netherlands has King Willem-Alexander, still in his 40s. That has to be the way forward. But Queen Elizabeth II is not going to be the one to start it.
Add to that, the only abdication Britain has ever had was Edward VIII, who was rather forced into it. So it doesn't have honourable connotations in Britain and Queen Elizabeth II, who was 10 at the time, remembers it only too well. It forced her father to be king, which he never expected to be, and her mother hated Wallis Simpson for being the cause of it. Of course it takes two to tango and if Edward hadn't been in love with Wallis and wanted to marry her, all might have been well. But the late Queen Mother never saw it that way.
It's even not quite that simple... Edward was a rich playboy, totally uninterested in the boring duties and real work of being king, and a Nazi sympathiser. (It IS a job of work - the Queen sees a lot of official papers to keep her informed and regularly meets the Prime Minister to chew things over. Prime Ministers all like that because it's their one chance each week to spend an hour with someone who really knows what's going on but absolutely will never, ever, leak what they said. As you might imagine, now she's been in the job for over 60 years, she's worth talking to.) Even his own father, King George V, said that "the boy will ruin himself within 12 months" and hoped that nothing would keep "Bertie and Lilibet" from the throne. Bertie was Prince Albert, who became King George VI, and Lilibet was Queen Elizabeth II's first attempt to say her own name. If there is a heaven and George V is able to see what has happened since he died, I venture to suggest that he would be very happy to see that that's what happened. "The British Establishment", especially Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Lang, schemed for months to get Edward to abdicate. Wallis provided the perfect excuse to lay it down straight: you can't be Supreme Governor of the Church of England AND break its own rules by marrying a divorcee. Until that point, the British public knew absolutely nothing of what was going on as the press were much more respectful, but Edward's declared intention to marry Wallis meant they could put the pressure on by going public. (The Church of England has changed its mind since, which is how Prince Charles gets away with it, but in 1936 it was totally opposed to divorce.)
However you look at it, the whole business left a nasty taste in the mouth and Queen Elizabeth II is very disinclined to follow her uncle's example.
- BilboLv 77 years ago
No she has always said it is a job for life. There is no tradition of abdication except for Edward VIII and she will not be looking to repeat that fiasco.
She wii be quite content for Charles and Camilla to take up their order in the succession - or would have done something about it long ago.
- flyingbugLv 57 years ago
The Queen has already seen what can happen after an abdication (her uncle abdicated in 1936). She's been brought up with a sense of duty, and she will not abdicate. Delegate some of her duties, perhaps, but not abdicate.
- CloLv 77 years ago
NO. The British monarchs consider the job a job for life. Elizabeth vowed to serve "all the days of my life, whether they be long or short." She intends to fulfill this vow. Edward VIII's abdication was considered a CRISIS, an unusual occurrence not to be repeated. British monarchs consider abdication a shirking of duty.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous7 years ago
There are many utterly unreasonable assumptions in your question; not least the assumption that the Queen approved of Diana more than she approves of Camilla. She originally thought the teenage Diana could be moulded into a 'suitable' queen consort, but within a very few years she sure as h*ll knew she had been very badly mistaken.
- HannahLv 77 years ago
She said she will never abdicate ever because of the impact it had on her dad. She has taken those vows very seriously since she became queen.
- quite contraryLv 67 years ago
All of your scenarios aside, there is no way she would abdicate.
Our next monarch will be when we hear the announcement, 'The Queen is Dead, Long Live The King!' ... and I reckon there's plenty of life in the old, girl yet!
- Mr. BluelightLv 77 years ago
No. Queen Elizabeth views it as her duty, and she has stated she will not abdicate.