There are some British monarchs that everyone knows: the apparently virginal Elizabeth I (cough), the strong Victoria, Henry VIII, the “crazy” King George III – and there are those that only the royal obsessives cut off the die-hard fans, like Ethelred the Unready, King Stephen and Queen Matilda. (One of my favorites? Lady Jane Grey, who was queen for only nine days.)
Going all the way back to King Egbert in 827, there have been 61 monarchs who have ruled the lands of Britain and England, men and women who have been, in turn, tyrants, idiots, loving fathers, murderers, gentle souls, gluttons , sybarites and a round of the most famous ding dongs in history.
But at least one thing unites them all: none of them has ever retired due to age. To this day there is no king or queen who has taken a step back due to advancing years, creaky hips and a well-deserved need for a good, long sit.
And right now, 1195 years after Egbert, one person and one person alone carries the weight of that standard: our very diligent current queen.
When it comes to Elizabeth II, we all know the facts and the numbers. She is the longest-serving monarch in UK history after turning 70 on February 6 this year. He has visited 117 countries, dealt with 14 UK Prime Ministers, met 13 US Presidents and even visited Eastenders set
And right now she’s stuck; totally and utterly stuck in a miserable liminal space between history and modernity; between the artificial demands of government and the human realities of aging.
In any other industry or field, a 97-year-old man still required by his job to cope and fulfill a series of duties would constitute some form of elder abuse, but the monarchy is nothing more than a monstrous institution of times
We all know the Queen isn’t doing so well right now. I’ve never typed the words ‘cancellation’ and ‘retirement’ more than in the 10 months since Her Majesty’s health crisis began (or at least came to public attention) in October last year . Almost every previously immutable event in her diary, such as the State Opening of Parliament and Remembrance Day, has seen Buckingham Palace issue apologetic statements announcing the 90-year-old’s last-minute withdrawal.
In fact, it’s telling that the Queen actually going to a ceremonial event or engagement is now being reported as happy news and not just expected.
However, the House of Windsor is now stuck in a no-man’s land between the increasingly sorry twilight of Elizabeth’s reign and the ascension of her son Prince Charles, with the 73-year-old replacing the his mother for almost all the main exits. By and large, the world’s most famous philanderer is now king in all but name.
This is not a win-win scenario for either party involved, but there is no end in sight to their current mess because there is no mechanism or precedent for royal retirement. There are only two constitutional options available to the Queen in this scenario and both are equally odious to her.
The one thing the Queen won’t do
The first is abdication, the very move that landed the horse-crazy young Princess Elizabeth a job she never asked for or wanted.
For the Queen, her uncle Edward VIII’s abdication was a cowardly and selfish decision, forcing her younger brother, the stammering Bertie, to ascend the throne. The crisis also irreparably and irrevocably shaped his views on this subject. Edward’s actions have caused His Majesty to view abdication not as a dignified step back, but as a failure of the obligation to serve for life; an abominably self-centered putting of personal needs before the good of the monarchy.
During her coronation in 1953, the Queen swore to God that she would serve as Queen for the rest of her life. This is a position from which he has never wavered and, like a marriage vow, he still takes his pact with a higher power seriously. As the esteemed royal historian Hugo Vickers put it guardian: “One of the main reasons the Queen won’t abdicate is unlike other European monarchs, she’s an anointed queen. And if you’re an anointed queen, you don’t abdicate.”
Where is the prince regent?
The other option available here would be the institution of a regency under which Her Majesty would remain on the throne, but Prince Charles would be formally invested with sovereign powers, including being able to appoint prime ministers, sign laws and dissolve. Parliament.
However, there is also the question of whether he would see such a move as an admission of defeat.
While this sounds like an excellent solution, the problem is that regencies have only been instituted when a king or queen has been ill, insane, or out of the country.
There is nothing in the history books like a voluntary and dignified regency where everyone leaves smiling and on good terms.
The last time this act was put into action was in 1811 when the dissolute Prince of Wales, later George IV, assumed power by force from his “mad” father George III. (These days, historians are divided over whether he suffered from a liver disease called porphyria, bipolar disorder, or something related to the high levels of arsenic later found in his blood.)
So, as it stands, our Queen’s only options are seen as a) something she considers abhorrently selfish or b) removing the constitutional rope and thus surrendering to an ignominious list of monarchs who they weren’t until work
Is it any wonder, then, that Her Majesty has bravely carried on despite the fact that she is clearly only growing frailer?
Looking for a (dignified) exit.
Unfortunately for her, she’s stuck in a job that includes exactly zero provisions for any kind of dignified exit other than the obvious fatal one.
But just because the Queen is staunchly and vehemently opposed to abdication and a regency would be a bitter pill to swallow doesn’t mean the palace shouldn’t seriously consider them right now as this increasingly untenable situation drags on .
Because a queen who rules largely from her living room is really a queen? Is a sovereign really a sovereign who is only seen by her people from behind a zoom screen or in staged photographs sequestered inside a large country estate?
Yes, both abdication and regency have more than a whiff of them, but surely that’s something easily addressed with a smart, well-thought-out PR campaign and an outright admission by the royals that, as a woman, she is about to mark her own 100th birthday. Telegram needs some breathing space.
There isn’t a single lonely person who would begrudge great-grandmother getting to spend much more time with her horses, dogs, and family (in that order) after a lifetime of unwavering righteousness and service.
In May, the percentage of Britons who thought she should remain Queen for the rest of her life fell below 50% for the first time, with a third of people thinking she should step down.
This is not an irreparable situation, but one that requires dealing with a stubbornly dedicated monarchy and a careful communication strategy.
That is, an abdication or the institution of a regency could be very successfully sold to the public as a well-deserved break and not a selfish abandonment of a sacred covenant.
Look to Rome for inspiration
What should also be considered is that a regency would mean a carefully managed transfer of power to Charles, which would in turn ensure that two of the things the palace focuses on – continuity and stability – are keep the same
However, a prolonged decline of the Queen, a literally and figuratively diminished figure on the public stage, will do the monarchy no favours.
Her Majesty is a woman of faith, so she should look no further than Pope Benedict XVI to see how this sort of thing can be done. For nearly 2000 years there have been bishops of Rome, as they are also called, and being elected to the papal office, like the throne, was a job to be done until death. In 2013, Benedict, the 265th holder of the title, broke with millennia of tradition and announced his retirement.
“I have come to the certainty that my strengths due to advanced age are no longer adequate [for the role]”, he said at the time.
The Queen is clearly a woman still driven by an abiding sense of duty and desire to serve, but like Benedict, it’s time for her to admit she’s no longer up to it. There should be no shame in this or any sense of defeat. Instead, handing things over to Charles, whether by abdicating or instituting a regency, would be a moment of celebration for an extraordinary woman.
In 2017, when Prince Philip retired at 97, the exact age his wife is now, he told the BBC: “I think I’ve done my part.” The Queen has clearly ‘done her bit’, well and truly. Her Majesty hardly needs a gold watch, but a good time? It’s definitely time.
Daniela Elser is a royal expert and writer with over 15 years’ experience working with several of Australia’s leading media titles.
Read related topics: Queen Elizabeth II