Is It Now Time For The Queen To Step Down.

[gollob]

She is in her 90's and how many people of that age are still working.She is having trouble attending different functions now. Her Majesty has a very able successor in Prince Charles who will make a good King . Perhaps time to retire now after a glorious reign

[DTCwordfan]

So Woofgang, on that basis, how did the future George IV ever become Prince Regent when his father went supposedly bonkers? Yes, it would probably take an Act of Parliament but not beyond the wit of Buck Pal or the Houses if she wanted to remain Queen and drop her load of red boxes etc on to one or two of the next generations.

[Peter Pedant]

Prince Chazza has lucid intervals but I wouldnt say he wd obviously make a good King

[Peter Pedant]

well far more detail on the regency than you would ever want to know
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts#:~:text=The%20Regency%20Acts%20are%20Acts,deal%20with%20a%20specific%20situation.

see Madness of King George which wasnt bad
question of getting royal assent
Lord thurlow ( who appears in the film - shakespeare scene) was gonna apply the royal seal

the king not really being in a singing mood

and in 1811 it seems that is what they did

[Peter Pedant]

singing or signing - the King wasnt doing any of that

[New Judge]

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about Monarchs. They are not Presidents; they are not Prime Ministers; they are not politicians. The idea of a monarchy is that it provides continuity. That is, it continues from one incumbent to another, separated only by death. It is not subject to the whims of the electorate, nor to the edicts of politicians. Any power exercised by the Monarch (such that there is in a Constitutional Monarchy that is the UK) rests with The Crown, not with the reigning Monarch.

So the present Monarch reigns until death overcomes them, when immediately their successor takes over. He or she does not reign until the people in their Kingdom get bored with them or believe they are too old to carry on. The machinery that is the Monarchy is perfectly capable of adjusting to the Queen’s advancing years and to suggest she should stand down is simply ridiculous and, more to the point, is unconstitutional.

[dance2trance]

Well I must ask myself has she stepped up? If not how can she step down?

[ToraToraTora]

no, ridiculous notion.

[jim360]

That's cool and all, but abdication is a thing, NJ. Moreover, monarchies in some other countries have folded the idea of regular abdication/retirement into the arrangement, most notably the Netherlands, which has seen three successive abdications, and four abdications out of six of their monarchs since 1815.

I am not saying that the Queen should step down, but to suggest that there is no mechanism for that, should she (and the country) so desire, is clearly mistaken, and I don't think it would break with any tradition or undermine Her Majesty's legacy and devotion to duty. Clearly though, right now she doesn't want to and that's the end of the matter.

[tiggerblue10]

No, of course not.

George III was still king even when he was suffering with mental health issues and his son was Prince Regent. And HM very much has her faculties in order.

[Patsy33]

She'll hang on to the very last. She is the one holding it altogether..

[burlyshirley]

^ I suspect she knows that too.

[Peter Pedant]

// how did the future George IV ever become Prince Regent when his father went bonkers?//

this is not really a parallel - 1788 they had a dress rehearsal - the film is not bad historically, but has the central theme that anyone who say the King mad gets fired.

1811 reqd an act of parliament but the old boy was so completely out of it he didnt sign the bill (*)- - - never mind a committee of Lords de loonee was on hand they declared his incapacity and signed on his behalf. The King famously had possed against the oak tree and then addressed it as the King of Prussia

(*) foo yeah: bill before assent, act after it - not many Aber actually passed History O level

my memory for the more picturesque events of British history is legendary [first said of Prince Albert Victor whose memory of the rest was said to be poor]

e so I think the differing details make it not applicable

[bhg481]

Patsy // She is the one holding it altogether.//

Better than one of her grand-daughters-in-law, some would say.

[Peter Pedant]

o god repeated post
doesnt matter
no one reads them - and in true AB fashion those that do - dont understand
[ yeah see foo if no one reads then the set of those that understand must pretty well be nil - ok too much detail]

[Paigntonian]

Not a snowball's.

[Peter Pedant]

queens daughter in laws?
crowd of non starters - which one were you referring to

about Monarchs. They are not Presidents; they are not Prime Ministers; they are not politicians.
hey reminds me
I am not a bat or a rat or a cat
I'm nardda fox or some sox or a phlox
I am the Queen - and-I'm--in-abit-ovva hole!

great sixties song

[Paigntonian]

The monarchy: 'It is not subject to the whims of the electorate, nor to the edicts of politicians.'
Thought 'the whims of the electorate' was called democracy and a good thing. Also thought the 'edicts' of politicians were called laws, also a good thing. Funny how people suspend normal dialogue when dealing with daft ideas like a herititary monarchy.

[Paigntonian]

Doubtless we'll hear the 'they're good for tourism' idiocy next. Amazing how Paris is the number one tourist destination and the French manage to struggle on without a monarchy.

[bhg481]

PP - I was taking "it" as referring to herself, not the monarchy/country ie, as in "holding herself together" not as in "holding the country together". The person then becomes obvious.

[jim360]

Quite, Paigntonian. Also, the argument NJ's making is based ultimately on the idea that the Crown's power that is vested in God (and the Christian one at that). It has to be, because that's the main reason that it's protected from the "whims" of the people or the politicians.

This is a situation that in practice is only sustainable because the people are onside. The Queen serves at the pleasure of her people, and not the other way round -- constitutionally this isn't true, as I am sure NJ would point out, but it is self-evidently necessary. A monarchy couldn't be sustained if the people didn't want it in place, and any given monarch couldn't last if their people wanted that specific person out.

The Queen still holds the Crown, then, because (a) the people want her to; (b) Parliament wants her to, and (c) she wants to. Constitutionally, only (c) matters, but in practice (a) and (b) are far more important.