Why Queen Elizabeth II will never abdicate
After almost sixty-two years of reign, the British sovereign entrusts more and more responsibilities to her heir, Prince Charles. Rumors are about his departure, but the queen says "her mission lasts a lifetime."
Rumors have spread to hell on both sides of the Channel since Buckingham Palace announced that Queen Elizabeth II would travel to France on June 6 to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings, accompanied by the Prince of Wales , among the heads of state invited by François Hollande, such as Barack Obama, the King of the Netherlands or the Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. A French government source in charge of organizing the commemoration told the Sunday Times: “We have been hinted that this will likely be the Queen's last official visit abroad.
»All that was needed was to revive the prognosis of a possible abdication of the queen in 2014. Admittedly, after 62 years of reign and 161 visits abroad, the British sovereign, who celebrated her 88 years on the 21st April, entrusts more and more responsibilities to his heir Charles, himself reached, at 65, by what is considered in the public service as the retirement age ...
After representing the Queen at the Commonwealth Summit in Sri Lanka in November 2013, then at the funeral of Nelson Mandela in South Africa in December, we are witnessing what is akin to a smooth handover and which translates, in terms of organization, by merging the press services and moving the Prince of Wales' teams from Clarence House to Buckingham Palace "in order to coordinate their actions". And prepare for the advent of Charles III? Nothing is less sure ! The envisaged solution would be closer to the distribution of tasks that the English press has dubbed job share.
As much to affirm it forcefully, Elizabeth II will never give up her royal prerogatives: she is queen of the United Kingdom and will die on the throne. There are several reasons for this. First, the word abdication is banned from the sovereign's vocabulary. Particularly because his uncle, King Edward VIII, not yet consecrated in Westminster Abbey, had publicly announced in a radio message in December 1936 that he was stepping down from royal duties to marry "the woman he loved" , Wallis Simpson, now Duchess of Windsor. It will take many years for Elizabeth II, who became Crown Princess and then Queen, to forgive “Uncle David”. She will visit him in Paris only when passions have subsided, just before his death, in 1972. During the sale of the furniture of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, at Sotheby's in New York, in February 1998, the experts had come into contact with the queen to offer to buy the desk on which Edward VIII had signed his act of abdication. "What would I do with an abdication office? The queen then reportedly replied, refusing to buy this relic from a bygone past.
It is true that abdication is contrary to British tradition. The Queen was anointed with holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury on her coronation on 3 June 1953 in Westminster Abbey, and she holds her role as a quasi-priest. She explained this a few years ago, specifying that "her mission lasts a lifetime". There was no way she could, like her cousins, Queen Juliana or her daughter, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, put her crown and ermine coat in the locker room. She took the oath. As early as 1947, before moving to South Africa as Crown Princess, she pledged to "serve her country and the Commonwealth throughout her life." It renewed the unwritten pact with the British nation during all its jubilees, that of silver in 1977, gold in 2002, and diamonds in 2012. The very notion of abdication would jeopardize respect and prestige. of the British monarchical institution.
A function that guarantees stability
The crown is not a personal possession which a sovereign could choose at will to keep or to give up. Everyone agrees that the automatic and non-questionable position of the monarch secures his position as head of state, which cannot be the subject of intrigue of power, or even of pressure from governments. However, what would happen if the Queen was too old to fully ensure her royal prerogatives? The sovereign's incapacity is foreseen in the texts and, already in 1811, during the madness of George III, the Prince of Wales (later George IV) ensured the regency. At the moment, in London, it is all about task-sharing, not regency. If Prince Charles ensures on behalf of his mother investiture ceremonies or official trips abroad, only the Queen retains the signing of legislative acts, the power to appoint a Prime Minister and the rights to be consulted, to warn and advise.
And everyone knows, across the Channel, that the queen's greatest wealth is her irreplaceable experience. As for Charles, he has always said he is happy to be patient on the steps of the throne, free to move and say what he says because, when he has to gird the crown on the death of his mother, he will be reduced to constitutional silence.
