The Queen is getting on in years and so
is her heir apparent, Prince Charles.

Isn't it time she retired and handed the
throne over to him?

What do other OLO posters think?

The Queen will probably live to be 100 so she's got a few years left yet. I don't think Charles will ever become King while she is still alive, but he may find himself accepting the responsibilities of King during that time (He may be titled the Crown Prince). As far as the Queen is concerned, she undertook the role of Queen for life and intends to keep that commitment.

Dear Steel Mann,

The Queen did take on her role for "life."
But what does "life" mean?
Does it mean "working life" as it does for you
and me, or does it mean until one dies?

It seems to me that she could take a page
ou of her own mother's example,
and retire to some castle somewhere.
Making the necessary appearances, as required.

Afterall she's earned a rest, everyone would agree
on that.

Charles would probably be grateful to ascend
the throne while he can still walk.

The other question that I forgot to
mention of course is that of Queen Camilla.

Isn't it time that the "bygones" of the
past be forgotten? Afterall even Prince
William and Prince Harry now fully accept Camilla,
because she makes "Charles," happy, and doesn't
allow him to take himself too seriously.

I think that the British would eventually
accept her as Queen.

Time heals all wounds, so they say...

Foxy,

I think you have misunderstood. Elizabeth's mother was never the Queen in her own right. She was Queen-consort i.e. the spouse of the reigning monarch. Her title after his death was Queen-Mother i.e. mother of the reigning queen. Just as Phillip is not "King Phillip" and does not get to become King if Elizabeth pops her clogs before him. Thus also, there is absolutely no possibility of a "Queen" Camilla.

And no, monarchy does not have a use-by date. Unlike other jobs, there is no retirement age: it's life tenure. Ageing monarchs have been a cause for worry for the past couple of thousand years - but the fact remains that they don't get handed a gold watch and a piece of cake when they get to a certain age.

Queen Victoria also remained on the throne for, what seemed to her ageing son, far too long after he had achieved his majority. However, no matter what their own thoughts upon the subject, all members of royal families are brought up in the knowledge that dying in harness, as it were, is part of the job description.

Dear Romany,

Thanks for your comments.

You're right of course.
The Queen will not retire.

I knew that the Queen mother
was not a queen in her own right.

It was just wishful thinking
on my part. I only meant to use
her, as an example for her daughter, but your
point is well taken, the Queen's position is
entirely different.

About 'Queen Camilla' I'm not so certain.

If Charles is crowned king, I can't imagine
Camilla not being crowned queen. She would not
be a queen in her own right, (same as the previous
Queen mum), but I think that Charles would insist
on his wife being granted that privilege.

Hey, Foxy,

I personally can't see Camilla becoming a Queen. There is no precedence for such a thing and so it would involve a huge re-drafting of the "Royalty Rules". And Charles is very old school.

His poor old Grandpa was not brought up to be a King and Elizabeth (Bowes-Lyons) never imagined for a moment she would be the wife of one - so they were both sorta of caught on the hop, as it were.

Elizabeth (present monarch) never forget how much her shy, stuttering father suffered at being put in that position and has trained Charles, since infancy, into the duties of a monarch (and yeah - marriage for convenience and a mistress on the side has always been a part of that, too!).

So, while, as Prince of Wales, he may have countenanced a divorce, at least there was precedence for that. But, as King, I just can't see him breaking with tradition to such an extent. After all, another thing his mum has always drummed into him is how his Great-Uncles break with tradition forced her to become a Queen in the first place.

Whatever one's views about the monarchy, there is no denying that they are England's salvation. With the decline from being the Great Empire and the Great Industrialists, the UK has now become the Great Tourist Destination and the millions in revenue that this brings in is, in very large part, due to the Royal Family. If he stuffed it up not only would England be in a pickle, but, given he is not exactly Flavour of the Month, England would never forgive him, I think.

While she's a quite remarkable woman who's done an admirable job of pacing the decks of the Britannic Titanic in dignified regalia, I think that what should happen is that she ahould hang on to the title until she finally expires - more than likely in a lovely homoeopathic nursing home, at the age of about 120.

That should give Australians enough time (i.e. around 2046 or so) to have finally grown up enough collectively - as an independent and multicultural nation - to have worked out our own Constitutional means to live and work together.

I reckon it'll take about that long, at least - to get it somewhere near right.

CJ: “I reckon it'll take about that long, at least - to get it somewhere near right.”

Yep.

The Queen is alive and vibrant. Long live the Queen.

May Australia NOT become a republic until we are confident that we are on the right track (towards sustainability and away from the absurdity of continuous growth).

At present, we are very clearly not.

If QE II was to give the charge over to Charlie, there would be a massive push for a republic in Oz.

That’d be bad news, as it would serve to reinforce the current continuous growth anti-sustainable future-destroying paradigm.

Once our collective mindset has changed and sustainability has been embraced as the most important aspect of the governance of our society and nation, which it will in the near future (but probably not before great hardship), then it will be time to become a republic.

So, while it is nothing against Charles, it is better for Australia that Queen Elizabeth remains as Great Britain’s and our monarch for a considerably time yet.

Dear Romany,

As always - you've given me food for thought.
And yours is an interesting take on Charles.

I guess only time will tell what his character
is really like.

Have you read Tina Brown's, "The Diana Chronicles," or
Jonathan Dimbleby's biography of Charles?
Both are quite revealing, especially Tina Brown's book,
where the image presented of Charles is of someone
used to getting his own way. Brown tell us:

"All of his life the Prince of Wales had been surrounded
by sycophants who leapt to assuage his moods."

I don't doubt that he's 'old school,' in certain areas,
however he did not follow the rules of
'noblesse oblige,' when he was asked to give up his
mistress to save his marriage by his stoic mother.

Camilla was 'non-negotiable,' as far as Charles was concerned.
He placed his own needs ahead of his obligations.

As for Camilla ever being queen. I agree with you - it is
a difficult situation, especially because she's not of
royal birth, and she is a divorcee. The Church of England
would have a great deal to say, I imagine.

It will be interesting to see how things develop
in the years ahead. I do agree though, I can't
imagine the queen retiring of her own free will.

As you point out - England does need the royal family.

Well, Foxy and Romany, what a pair of right little royalists you two are - both such a wealth of information on the ins and outs of royalty, I'm most impressed! I'm pretty clueless when it comes to royal history and protocol, but I can't help feeling sorry for Charles.

As you say, he's been groomed all his life for this role, and yet it's looking increasingly likely that it will pass over him and be handed on to his eldest son. I can't think of anything more galling than to spend your whole life preparing for something and then after all that time to never see your longheld hopes and efforts come to fruition.

I actually think Charles is far more interesting than his rather staid and emotionless mother. What has she ever stood for, apart from pomp and ceremony? Does anyone really know what she thinks on any issue of consequence? Charles, in contrast, has championed several causes, often considered of little importance at the time, but which have since gone on to prove his judgement correct, for example, his interests in architecture and organic gardening.

As for Camilla, if Charles ever becomes King, I think she should certainly stand beside him as Queen Camilla.

Dear Bronwyn,

I too feel rather sorry for Charles, and
I agree that he has indeed championed
the causes that he blieves in. Even
to the point of being described by some
as rather 'odd.'

Much as I loved Helen Mirren's portrayal
of "The Queen," I find the real woman
consumed by her duty to the nation.

To me Queen Elizabeth II is fated to be defined for ever as
a mother by the photograph of her returning
from her royal tour of the Commonwealth in 1954
and shaking her five-year-old son gravely
by the hand.

There's not much room for spontaneity when
parenting can only happen by appointment.

I believe that Charles is very close to both
his sons.