View Full Version : Should the Queen abdicate?

Tartan Gannet
30th Apr 2002, 19:24
HM Queen Elizabeth II in her speech today has dismissed thoughts of her abdicating. I totally agree with her here!

However, given that her late mother, of honoured memory, lasted to nearly 102 then she could be with us for quite some time and the matter could arise again.

I therefore give Jet Blasters a chance to air their views on this matter in the poll attached.

30th Apr 2002, 19:41
There is no reason now for HRH Liz to remain monarch now that the Queen Mum has gone. It is well known that she didn't abdicate before so that mum could keep a title and also her income from the tax payer.
Personally I think they should all go but that won't happen in my lifetime, for reasons unknown to me too many people want to keep throwing money at them.:confused: :mad: :confused:

30th Apr 2002, 21:19
Mr. Gannet, you are impertinent. Whether Her Majesty retires abdicates or whatever is entirely a matter for herself. Subjects should keep their opinions to themselves, and not presume to advise their Sovereign.

Tartan Gannet
30th Apr 2002, 21:35
Tsk! Tsk! Raptor. Now had a High Tory such as Send Clowns said this I would have shrugged my shoulders, but arent you a member of what calls itself the (New) Labour Party? Has that once great Left of Centre Organisation become as Royalist as the Daily Telegraph these days?

BTW I am NOT a republican, not when I consider what we could have in Betty's place. President Prescott, President Mandelson, President Tebbit. No thank you, Ill stick with what we have got, all in all she is doing a damn fine job! I DO however reserve my right to criticise her or any other Royal, and shudder at the idea of King Charles III. Now, am I going to be put in the Tower and face the axeman for my sins? Pictures of TG being arrested when he gets off the train at Marlow and clapped in irons.

Still buy you that pint though U_R!

:D ::D :D

30th Apr 2002, 21:50
Well, as a Dunnunda who had British Subject written on his passport at the age of 3, can I ask a question?

If Betty Windsor and the royal family go, what then is left in the wake of the English (and the Oz for that matter) Constitution? Wouldnt both be then subject to the whims of politicians for personal and Party opportunism? In Australia the socialist ALP especialy would like a few holes in the Constitution so as to have a carte-blanche open cheque on implimentation of its version of democracy and political feather-bedding. The ALPs vehemency during its campaign in this was almost rabid in its zeal. Fortunatley the locals smelled a rat and the campaign (tax-payer funded of course) fell flat on its arse.

In 1975 I noted the positive influence of Queens Intervention (not her personaly or the Governor-General, but the event itself) that ridded the country of the PM Gough Whitlam and his bunch of Trotskyite dog-farts, as Australia was rapidly descending into economic chaos at that time through the extremist socialist excesses of the Whitlam ALP government.

Most of the Unwashed both here and there in the UK cant see past their noses wrt the horrendous Constitutional implications and consequences to both respective countrys of an abolition of the Offices of British Royalty. Personaly I do not care much for the present Windsor family nor its social status, but the Office itself should not be wiped out without full consideration and deliberation as to the consequences.

Im sure youll agree NO politician, neither British nor Australian, could be entrusted with any Constitutional reform without the protection afforded by Queens Representation and Right of Intervention. Not in this present era anyway.

Comments gentlemen?

Lima Tambo
30th Apr 2002, 22:04
surely only a barrister can be an abdicate in the UK?

30th Apr 2002, 22:06

When Queen Megawati takes over that big mine that's situated on the other side of the Arafura Sea, you won't have reason to worry to much about who's picture to hang in the RSL's. You'll be too busy bowing to the landlords.

Personally, King Wills sounds like a good idea. He's young and pretty, and just perfect for Cool Britannia.

Big Ears could farm organic veggies with Camilla, and Lillibet could finally finish that big jigsaw she and Sir Robert Fellows have been working on all these years. Perfect.

30th Apr 2002, 22:29
I say the Queen should give way to Charles, but I am also semi-republican. I think that getting rid of the monarchy might be more trouble than its worth, I would rather see them reformed extensively.

What's wrong with Charles being King TG? He's been in this very difficult position for years, and I think that The Queen should step down now and enjoy her retirement. It was in the days when 60 was a good age to live to that the idea that the monarch stayed until they died was instilled.

So in short, Queen should abdicate in favour of Charles, and the monarchy should be reformed but kept in favour of becoming a republic.

30th Apr 2002, 22:33
Of course your queen should abdicate. Not only that; she should emigrate. And join the thousands of ten pound pommies happily at home here downunder.

Where, sooner rather than later, she is welcome, as will be any citizen, to choose to be a candidate for our head of state. Viva the Republic of Australia!

(ok, things are crook at the palace, nine pounds fifty pee, and it's still a bargain.) ;)

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 22:35
I personally have long felt that the only reason Charles does not pre-emptively abdicate in William's favour is that he feels sorry for the poor lad. I think he considers it an unpleasant duty the next King will bear for life, a deeply unpleasant prospect. I don't think Chales is looking forward at all to being King : alone on the throne he will make a lonely figure. A monarch should not be unmarried, as that tends to leave everyone at least a step away. Hence perhaps Victoria's close friendship with one man when her beloved Albert died.

30th Apr 2002, 22:36
Erm....Cammy fyi I dont live in Indonesia.

30th Apr 2002, 22:38
Slasher: You and your countrymen are truly welcome to remain as subjects of Her Majesty. You get a badly-needed touch of class, and HM gets a trip Dunnunda every five years or so when she gets the chance to be danced at by picturesque natives.

TG: Pray do not confuse the support one feels for a political party, which is intellectual and moral, with the support one feels for a football team, which is emotional and tribal.

30th Apr 2002, 22:40
Not that far from Saigon, though Slash!

Any of the history buffs out there know if there's even been a British Monarch who's abdicated before they popped their clogs? Apart from that dolt who gave it all up for that American **** who wanted to be Queen of England.

Seems to me like LIZZIE II wants to beat Victoria's record of 64 years on the throne. Highly likely she'll last the distance......what do we think?

30th Apr 2002, 23:02
I know its JB and the whole thing is therefore taken lightly, but I spoke to a QC in Oz a few years ago re the Constitutional consequences when this Socialist-led anti-royal fad was in vogue with the street-masses. I dont have a copy of the Constitution with me but the Councel did point out certain sections of this document that could be fully exploited by political interests to the detriment of its citizens in the longer term. The Fabians are just waiting in the wings to make their move.

Unfortunatley Australia is one of the more idealistic nations of the world and therefore has dificulty in formulating pragmatic solutions to complex problems especialy where unpopular personalitys are involved. I doubt any Australian under the age of 30 is even aware of who the Fabian Society is and its charter of gradualism, much less the heavey damage it has inflicted on Australia since the early 70s. Only the 1975 Intervention prevented it from realising its full mission statement (much to Robert Hawkes later disapointment).

Tartan Gannet
30th Apr 2002, 23:17
Khazi, I may be wrong but it think the following English/British monarchs abdicated, apart from said Edward VIII / Duke of Windsor.

Richard II replaced by Henry Bollingbroke (Henry IV)
Henry VI replaced by Edward IV
James II replaced By William III and Mary II (his daughter)

I dont think Edward II actually abdicated, he was deposed and killed in a rather nasty manner at Berkeley Castle.

The exact situation of the Empress Matilda has always puzzled me. I known that King Stephen was succeeded by Henry II instead of his son Eustace but what actually happened to Matilda.

Any English History buffs out there answer that one for me please?

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 23:33
Nasty? Some people'd pay good money for a hot poker up the botty :eek:

1st May 2002, 02:09
I think the Queen may abdicate in favour of Charles when she reaches the age of eighty.

And for those who think the Royal family are costing them money I recommend a post by ORAC, (can't find the thread), in a recent thread on the monarchy which should dispel all your fears about where your tax pound is actually going.

1st May 2002, 02:45
Slasher, you raise a very good point. If GB becomes a Republic, what'll happen to those states in the Commonwealth that have the Queen as a nominal head of state? I'm not much of a monarchist, by any stretch of the imagiation, but the monarchy is part of the heritage of this country, part of what makes us what we are. I've no problem with having the Queen's appointed representative, the Governor General, as the head of state. In fact, I shudder with embarrassment when that fu**ing buffoon we elected mounts the stage to represent this country internationally.
As for the constitutional question, you're spot on in your fear that it could be used for political ends. Look no farther than this country as an example. The dogs breakfast we call a constitution was concieved, not in public view or even the light of day. It was cobbled together at three AM in a hotel room with much horse trading and arm twisting, by a bunch of back room political aides. This noble document doesn't even include the province with twenty five percent of the Canadian population. Comparatively speaking, this is as if the US constitution did not include the State of California. This happened because the despicable son of a bitch who happened to be PM at the time wanted to leave as a legacy something other than the fact he'd spent the country into near bankruptcy paying for social programs we could not afford.

1st May 2002, 06:04
If Mrs. Battenburg ceased to be Queen of England, the Scots may prefer to keep her as Queen, the English to vote her into the office of President (I mean, she's the only credible candidate after all...) and the Welsh who were given their own Prince in lieu of submitting to the King all those centuries ago, could hang on to their existing figurehead (or figureears as he may more accurately be described).

Then we'd have HM the Queen of Scotland, President of England and her son HRH The Prince of Wales as a Trinity of Heads of State. But what would we call it? The Uncommonwealth of Britain perhaps?

Meanwhile she'd still be Queen of Australia (whence her ancestor Matilda went a waltzing, t'is said) New Zealand (wherever that is) and the three American-speaking quarters of Canada.

One advantage of an elected President is that folk get the Head of State they deserve - the USA is one perfect example. France is about to show us the way again soon and then there was dear old Uganda. Way to go Idi, way to go!! Yeah!

Through difficulties to the cinema

henry crun
1st May 2002, 06:49
Any speculation about who should succeed her is academic now she has made it very plain that she intends to carry on.

She is obviously of very sound mind and capable of doing, which is more than can be said for many of the polititians she has/had to endure.

1st May 2002, 11:00
Indeed Crun,

I reckon shes gunna be around till she drops. Would be a helluva thing to beat Victoria's 64 years on the throne, thus becoming the longest reigning Monarch of all time.


1st May 2002, 13:02
My sources at the Palace tell me that HM will actually abdicate in favour of Prince William.

Apparently she considers Charles a tad unstable, 'talking to flowers' :eek: etc, so thats why........

<slurps cheap supermarket plonk>

Can I have my money now.....? :D

1st May 2002, 14:29
Not that fussed but if I had to choose then I'd say pass over Wingnut and give it to Billyboy......

1st May 2002, 14:33
But surely you don't want yopur Queen to end up like the Pope, all frail and decrepid but refusing to budge and just becoming an embaressment.

Feeton Terrafirma
1st May 2002, 15:32
Well Slasher & Pigboat,

You both have a very legitimate point about the political manipulation which could be carried out during a change to the Aussie government structure. In fact, in the referendum that was EXACTLY what Little Johnny Arthur did!! Him being a died in the wool Monarchist, contrived to present such an unpalatable solution as the only alternative to Monarchy that it was a no contest.

What the referendum should have asked was "Do Australians want to be a Republic?" NOT "Do Australians want this specifically screwed version of a republic?"

If the basic question had been asked and IF the answer was yes, we want a republic, THEN we could set about deciding, what structure it should have, and how to move from here to what we want.

Personally I want a republic, but there was no way I wanted the mess Little Johnny Arthur proposed.


In fact, I shudder with embarrassment when that fu**ing buffoon we elected mounts the stage to represent this country internationally.
At least in the manipluation of the Referendum, he was nobodies fool.

1st May 2002, 16:53
WxJx thinks she should abdicate, without a replacement, for reasons stated in posts passim


Send Clowns
1st May 2002, 17:48

If her mother is anything to go by the Queen will probably not become frail or decrepit, but stay alert and active to the end.


But if you vote for a republic in a referendum without specifying the details, how do you gaurantee that a shambles similar to the rejected system will not be foisted upon you? Never trust the politicians, ours are just trying to think how they can get what they weant from a referendum despite the fact that more than 60% of the population are consistently against them, so far very resistant to persuasion.

1st May 2002, 19:04
SC, she's not her mother, nowhere near her in terms of the "common touch" with the people, therefore will you be comfortable with a frail grumpy old Queen in 20 years time when there's younger memebers who are fresher and have more vitality?

Formulating a constitution is not rocket science, that's a pretty feeble excuse to defend a monarchy with, that the "evil" politicians will come up with a constitution that will erode citizens rights and give them absolute power. It doesn't happen, these constitutions are OF the people and BY the people. You'll all be telling us next that America went downhill after 1776!

Come on Australia, what exactly are you afraid of? Is it not time you came into the world community as an independant stand alone nation without clinging on to your mothers apron strings?

Send Clowns
1st May 2002, 20:01
My point was that, given her heredity, it is unlikely the queen will ever be frail. Not sure how I can put it any more simply. No reason to think, given her good humour to this point, that she will ever be grumpy either.

No reason Aus should release her ties to the UK. You defining this as "clinging to the apron strings" is completely meaningless appeal to emotion. It has no reality. My point was that if she does move to become a republic the people should no only choose that the transition occurs (and choose by a solid, not a potentially transient, majority) but also the form of the republic. For those capable of seeing the subtlety I also wanted to reinforce the point that in a republic the head of state is a politician, and therefore inherently untrustworthy.

Emotionally two of the closest three republics to the UK are France and the USA (the other being Ireland). Look at the trouble those two have had with presidents over the last few years, and with presidential elections. Why would any country wish that on itself, when it has a perfectly good apolitical and symbolic head of state?

1st May 2002, 20:14
I'm no monarchist by any means, but SC's got a very strong point there. Just imagine President Blair!:eek:

Having said this, having a monarchy is no obstacle to having civil rights that are enshrined in a written constitution.

Anti-constitutionalists would have us believe that it's an "either-or" situation. This is a red herring.

A written constitution and a ceremonial monarch are perfectly compatible. Don't forget that successive governments have subsumed the remaining political power of "the Crown" to the point that "the Crown" and the Government of the day are legally one and the same.

Most senior politicians oppose a written constitution because it would place a check on the untrammelled power that a British Prime Minister can wield so long as they can command a majority in Parliament.

We should be loyal Citizens, not mere Subjects!

edited for missing words by Caslance

1st May 2002, 20:28
The Queen with a sense of humour? She must hide it very well! Her mother, by the way, was frail before her death. The point that republicans make is that you have no choice with your head of state, it's King, Queen X or it's nothing. With republics the head of state is always answerable to the people, if the people don't like him/her then they are rejected at the next ballot, simple and just.

The head of state of a republic need not be a politician, our two past presidents were both first and foremost successful attorneys, neither of which you would call political.
To sum up the argument, with republics it's all about choice, you don't like a candidate, well don't vote for him/her! Or reject them at the next ballot, again it's CHOICE. They're empowered by the people, not thrust upon them with no say in the matter, it's not exactly fair is it? And it's not exact;y fair on the person born into that privilaged position, they don't exactly have a choice either!

I see you're now also defining what a majority is SC, so if a majority in Oz voted for a republic of 52-48% you suggest that it could be questioned?! Sorry citzens of Australia, a majority is what we say it is! Get real!

Send Clowns
1st May 2002, 20:40
Blood'y 'ell 1world22, I didn't say she had any kind of a sense of humour, though I understand she has, but that she had good humour, and entirely different thing and what the Queen has required above all else in her role.

We have the only choice we need : to keep the monarchy or remove it. That is better than you have with a republic, because you get rid if one you get another shyster as likely as not, and it's all but impossible to reconstitute a monarchy (though Albania managed it - respect to King Zog).

In Ireland you have been lucky, but put it to the vote and soon enough you get politicians. Our PM is also a former Lawyer, but would not wish him on my worst enemy.

No system is fair. We admit it, and get on with it. The party system, the priviliges of upbringing bring all presidential candidates to place themselves before the people. This is no fairer than birthright, yet instills more influence. The French for example now have no choice. They have to elect a corrupt, vain, self-serving, politician who looks only to the political classs and ignores the people even when they turn to extremism. yet he assumes a democratic mandate! Which system is more democratic? Our head of state has none of the power an election gives.

The apolitical, constitutionally powerless head of state is our overwhelming choice. It works to our advantage in some ways, and never as far as I can see to a significant detriment.

Send Clowns
1st May 2002, 20:47
Oh, and you make the same mistake as our fool of a PM. Irreversible major constitutional change should not be made on the whim af a slim majority. This majority may reverse later, but the change back cannot be made, so it is undemocratic. The choice to join the Euro should be made only on a substantial majority in a referendum for example. So you get real - this is enshrined in the US constitution for good reason, that ammendments need a two-thirds majority.

1st May 2002, 21:08
I don't want to get into an argument on this, my own belief is that the British do not want in any way to abolish the monarchy, poll after poll has stated this and I think it will probably stay like that for the indefinite future. If the British people want to keep a monarchy, well good on you! It doesn't bother me one way or the other, because it doesn't effect me, and it's none of my business!

I'm just pointing out my beliefs, I believe very deeply in what Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independance. I believe all political power should come from politicians who are elected by the people, if they abuse that power, then the people can quickly and ruthlessly take that power away.

Australia has no reason to keep ties with the UK, it gains no benefits from it at all. Whilst I think they would benefit from cutting those ties, no Australian should be a subject of a monarch 12000 miles away. Australia is very split on this, you have the 2nd and third generation Brits and then you have the others, the descendants of the Irish, the Greeks, Italians and also the asian population. Why should they be made subjects of a monarch that they have no emotional or historical ties to?

2nd May 2002, 01:49
Although a monarchist myself I don't see the point in getting worked up about Australia becoming a republic.

Rightly or wrongly it will happen simply through the numbers and ages of the electorate.

In ten years time ten years worth of older monarchist will have died and been replaced by ten years worth of people who have reached voting age and have no connection to the UK and will probably vote for a republic, I don't see it as a case if if butwhen , sadly, in my opinion.:(

2nd May 2002, 03:13
Hi Feet
I'm a bit confused with your statement that "in the manipulation of the referendum, he was nobodies fool." I take this to mean that you think that Jean Chretien was somehow able to manipulate the results of, or that he played major part in, the defeat of the separatist yes forces in the last Quebec referendum on independance in 1995. If that assumption is correct, then I respectfully submit that nothing could be further from the truth. Through his own inaction - some would say incompetence - he came within a whisker, 50,000 votes, of losing that referendum and being the last Prime Minister of this country. In a Liberal caucus meeting shortly before the vote, Chretien broke down and wept, and admitted that he had lost the campaign and that being the case, the country was headed for a breakup.
The two people who should be credited with the success of the no side - thus keeping this country together - are Jean Charest and Brian Tobin. Charest, because he never quit hammering away at the bulls**t being spouted by the separatists, and Tobin because two days before the vote he organized a rally of the federalist forces in Montreal. A lot of Canadians agree that that one act probably convinced enough Montrealers to vote no, thus winning the referendum for the federalist side, and coincidentially Jean Chretien's a**.
Sorry for hi-jacking this thread and the history exercise there, but I had to correct what I thought was a misconception.

Send Clowns
2nd May 2002, 09:16
G Khan

No problem with Australian Republic, just like those of the people I know and would like them to get a decent republic, if they want it. They get no disadvantage from the current arrangement, but I agree that time may make it less relevant.


All true political power in the UK does reside with elected members. We have appointed and hereditary peers with strong influence, but historically they have represented the people far bettewr than the elected MPs. They have only queried legislation when it was either badly flawed, very unpopular or worked against the interests of a minority in a very unfair way. They know they can be removed far more easily than the governmenrt if they as a group become unpopular, and they are not subject to party discipline so can easily go against the party leadership.

The monarchy has no effective political power at all.

Tartan Gannet
2nd May 2002, 10:08
I have to agree with SC here. Weighing up all the options its better to have a figurehead non-political Queen than the alternatives.

Take an Executice President, in our case President Blair. Now unless we totally overhaul the UK Parliamentary system he would have virtually untrammelled power. Unlike the USA we have no Separation of Powers, no Supreme Court, and indeed no written Constitution. Blair as head of the party with a massive majority, only slightly reduced in last years General Election by a few seats, can really do what he likes to a very great extent. The Courts can have their judgements annulled buy Laws whipped through the Commons, the Lords are subject to Prime Ministerial Patronage and can only delay Commons Bills for a short time and not Finance Bills at all! I also know from personal experience just what a ruthless political machine the New Labour Party is in the UK with de-selection the punishment for any brave soul who bucks the party line. De facto we have no real Opposition either. The Tory Party is on the ropes, with a totally lacklustre and unelectible leader, a clone of the one rejected last year. In my town, Reading Berkshire, the Tories are putting very little effort into most of the wards in today's local elections and will get the poor result they deserve. I doubt if they will gain a single seat from New Labour who have dominated this town since the mid 1980s.

The Lib Dems, despite very significant gains, at the expense of the Tories for the most part , can not yet bridge the credibility gap in the eyes of the Electorate to become a Government in waiting. This is in part due to their lightweight Leader Charles Kennedy, good at TV chat shows but little else, and the residual "nut cutlet beard and sandals weirdo" image with which Liberals were tainted in the past, and their apparent unwillingness to "fight to win" being obsessed with power sharing schemes such as Proportional Representation.

So in Britain an Executive President would be a big mistake unless we had checks and balances built in such as a Supreme Court in the US style and a Written Constitution.

Now what about a Figurehead President as in the Republic of Ireland, Germany, Israel etc? What's the point! We would only get some washed out party hack imposed on us. Look at the farce of the London Mayoral election when the absolutely useless Frank Dobson was wheeled out by New Labour as their official candidate. Thankfully the charismatic Ken Livingstone, former Leader of the GLC won the day against the machinations, character assasination and dirty tricks of the New Labour Machine.

If we are going to have a figurehead, Id rather have the Queen we have. With the exception of the short term Edward VIII, British Monarchs since Victoria have served the Country well in very difficult times of change and two World Wars. I DO have serious reservations about Prince Charles but, given the probable longevity of Queen Elizabeth II, the "Hand of God " may well resolve that problem for us with Prince William succeeding his Grandmother in due time in the normal way.

One thing I DO have a slight problem with is being considered a "SUBJECT". I am glad to be a British CITIZEN, but consider myself the "subject" of none but Almighty God. I believe there is an Organisation in the UK which for a nominal payment issues and registers a Declaration whereby one renounces subject status and declares oneself to be a British Citizen only. Does anyone know of this, what its URL may be, and what legality such a Declaration may have?