Ship of Fools: Should the Queen retire?

Thread: Should the Queen retire? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027068

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

I wonder when the poor old Queen will be allowed to put her feet up? I see that she turned 88 yesterday and is still hard at work. Surely there is a human rights issue in this? Is she the only person in the UK who literally will have to work until they drop? I think the Dutch have the right idea. Their old Queen was allowed to retire last year at the respectable age of 75. So civilised. It strikes me that, however healthy and willing, a lady of 88 just cannot bring the energy to the role which it requires. It's not fair to make her keep going. She should be enjoying a country retirement in Norfolk or maybe Balmoral, with her dogs and horses and her beloved Prince Philip.

[ 22. April 2014, 12:55: Message edited by: Tulfes ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

She's already foisted off the arduous duties of touring Australia and New Zealand to younger royals. Perhaps having young George perform public duties should raise questions of child labour as well?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
She's already foisted off the arduous duties of touring Australia and New Zealand to younger royals. Perhaps having young George perform public duties should raise questions of child labour as well?

But George doesn't know that he is "performing". Yet. The problems may come later if he chooses to "rebel". Unlike his dad and grandad.

Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :

What ever makes you think she's being forced?

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.

But she is being forced to keep going. abdication is a dirty word in the recent history of the British Royals. Heck, even a Pope has retired recently due to advancing years. there's no shame in it.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.
But she is being forced to keep going. abdication is a dirty word in the recent history of the British Royals. Heck, even a Pope has retired recently due to advancing years. there's no shame in it.

It's only a dirty word amongst themselves. No-one else I know has a problem with it. Either they're republicans like me and don't give a monkey's, or they see no reason she shouldn't retire. Resistance to stepping down comes from the monarchy itself - i.e. the Queen. Put it another way, she doesn't step down because she doesn't want to.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yes

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

The Queen does not have to abdicate in order to retire. She could have Prince Charles appointed as Regent: whilst she would still be Queen, all the duties and functions of the monarchy would be carried out by Charles.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I think the Queen has always gently let it be known that when she made her coronation vows, there was nothing in them to suggest it was to be a temporary appointment.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Quite. Certainly whilst she is in possession of her main faculties, she would see no reason why she should retire, and neither do I. Different ball game if she starts losing it but, even then, precedent suggests a regency of some kind rather than abdication.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

The Queen seems still in her 80s to manage lots of things to do, and to look OK. She also does use her son and his son to work too. Her mother was much more ancient, in her 100s ! So this Queen may last for ages and ages, still OK !

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
... a lady of 88 just cannot bring the energy to the role which it requires ...

To the extent that she and her advisors think she is falling short, I'm sure they will make appropriate delegations. But she is remarkable - just to see her walking down stairs without a hand rail gives me hope. If I can do that in 25 years time ...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

No - because she can't.

I'm amazed that this is seen as a possibility in this forum.

A priest is ordained and we invoke the Holy Spirit: although she/he may subsequently retire from active ministry they don't cease to be a priest until death.

We anoint a monarch with holy oil and invoke the Holy Spirit: thus they may cease to carry out duties but they can't cease to be a monarch until death.

Will ER II retire - yes, in fact I think she's in the process of doing so. But there's no chance of her ceasing to be queen.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

The idea that anyone should have to retire when no one is questioning their ability to function seems rather appalling to me. Certainly everyone should be allowed to retire, but anyone who wants to keep working, surely that is their right as long as they can do the job well?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

[Overused]

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A priest is ordained and we invoke the Holy Spirit: although she/he may subsequently retire from active ministry they don't cease to be a priest until death.

We anoint a monarch with holy oil and invoke the Holy Spirit: thus they may cease to carry out duties but they can't cease to be a monarch until death.

Will ER II retire - yes, in fact I think she's in the process of doing so. But there's no chance of her ceasing to be queen.

What about Benny Ratzinger?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

He's not been de-frocked, just retired: officially he is Pope Emeritus.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Even Salvation Army officers retire from active service but keep their rank and ability to minister until death.

The Queen is anointed and has vowed to God that she will serve the people. She cannot retire.

[ 22. April 2014, 15:34: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the Queen has always gently let it be known that when she made her coronation vows, there was nothing in them to suggest it was to be a temporary appointment.

I agree with this. I think she has always taken her vows very seriously and all the more so in the wake of the abdication that made her heiress to the throne. I know it's fictionalised, but The King's Speech brought this out very strongly for me.

Now, could we get Charles to miss his turn? That would seem a very pragmatic decision to me, and I don't think he'd be anywhere near as bothered about it as his mum.

[ 22. April 2014, 15:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I think Adeodatus was referring to this:

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."

This was part of a speech the Queen presented by radio on her 21st birthday from Cape Town. It appears that she meant it then and means it now.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

She has made it clear that she will not abdicate. I think she takes her role seriously - for her, it is not just a job, it is her calling, her duty.

In a world where people make all the money they want to, and then retire to spend it all - when retirement is seen as the aim in life for so many - I admire her belief that this is not for her. Lets be clear, her mother made her century, and was pretty capable up to the last few.

I am sure that she has discussions about roles that others can take on, and will continue to delegate maybe even to the point of making Charles regent. But she sees her role as being Queen for life - not out of compulsion, but because someone has to take the role seriously.

And she will not even consider giving up until she has ruled longer than Victoria. Given that she is still fit and healthy, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Duty is her touchstone, I think. If the Queen reaches the stage where she cannot do her duty, she will take a back seat. I think she has good judgment about that; also she is probably well aware of the particular difficulties Charles would face as her successor, even if she wasn't such a hard act to follow.

I'm not a royalist but I have a great deal of respect for the way the Queen has both fulfilled the role and been realistic about the necessity of change. The institution of the monarchy has been lucky to have her during a time of profound social change.

[ 22. April 2014, 17:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

Fully agree with Barnabas62, except that I am a royalist.

Her Majesty understands the meaning of the word Duty.
She serves, and she does it with dignity.

This does not mean she ought to do a "John Paul Two", staying in office even though unfit to exercise it. That would not be service, for Duty could no longer be fulfiled; it would be identifying oneself with an Office, instead of seeing oneself as a servant, and temporary holder, of that Office.
The point is simply that she is still fit to do her Duty, so she will.

If this is increasingly at odds with the prevailing Zeitgeist , then it says more about how increasingly "modern" people are incapable of holding ideals, than about the sense of Her Majesty's role.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Now, could we get Charles to miss his turn? That would seem a very pragmatic decision to me, and I don't think he'd be anywhere near as bothered about it as his mum.

This is probably a more relevant question where the future is concerned. The Queen will not abdicate, as others have said, she believes with every fibre of her being, the oath she made in Cape Town. Also, as a Christian, I'm sure she acepts the chrism of her coronation in the same spirit as priesthood. But as she ages, it's inevitable that those younger than herself are going to take a more active role. whether this will ever require a formal regency is yet to determine. I often feel sorry for Charles. He's been preparing all his life for the day when he would become king, and he hasn't always found it easy. I'm sure that his work as a gentleman farmer at Highgrove is what gives him most satisfaction. Under the British Constitution he must become king on his mother's death.

It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choise for Charles. William, Kate and George have the perfect family image to keep the monarchy popular. Charles probably doesn't, with the memory of Diana still large in so many people's eyes. And I'm not sure if being married to a divorcee is compatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While I have great respect for both Charles and his wife, they can't cut it like William and Kate do.

One of the great strengths of the hereditary monarchy is that it's the institution which matters more than the individual, and Charles is perfectly entitled to sit on the throne from the time of his mother's death until his own. If he chooses that path, I would respect his decision and pledge my sword to him. But I think that, for the sake of the future of monarchy itself in this land, William can have a much longer and more popular reign, and is better suited to the task.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choice for Charles.

I don't think he will. He, too, would see abdication as a betrayal of duty (doubly so because he would be dumping the job on his son.) I think I agree with you that he would be much happier as a country gentleman than as King, but I don't think he sees that there is a choice.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think I agree with you that he would be much happier as a country gentleman than as King, but I don't think he sees that there is a choice.

Where Charles would have a greater choice than the Queen lies in the fact that he hasn't taken any oaths, coronation or otherwise. To abdicate prior to coronation, as did Edward VIII is much easier, and would be unlikely to cause the constitutional crisis it did in 1936.from this evenings "Evening Standard" George is beng called the "Republican Slayer" down under, where even republicans are saying that Williams's PR machine is good. It says,

"The visit has given him (William) a chance to show his brand of royalty-a new style for a new generation from the future king, his dutiful and beautiful wife the Duchess of Cambridge and their little showstopper Prince George."

Now they won't be young forever, and Charles himself was always popular in Australia, but this young family has it together in every important way, and would maximaise the chances of the Royal Family continuing for at least another generation.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
The Queen seems still in her 80s to manage lots of things to do, and to look OK. She also does use her son and his son to work too. Her mother was much more ancient, in her 100s ! So this Queen may last for ages and ages, still OK !

True but she's not as pickled in Gin as her mother was, so she might not last as long.

[ 22. April 2014, 19:55: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.

At the standard flat rate of course. Presumably she already gets the free TV licence being over 80.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Oh come on!

Why do these parasites get special treatment?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

If she reaches 100, who will send her a birthday letter?

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
If she reaches 100, who will send her a birthday letter?

Prince Charles?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Should the Queen retire?

Well I, for one, am not holding my breath.

I know nothing about her really, but in my opinion she will never give in, she sees it as a vocation. I think she sees it as given her by God. I think she thinks of her father a lot.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

And in case that came across as a bit short, I honour her for it.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No - because she can't.

I'm amazed that this is seen as a possibility in this forum.

A priest is ordained and we invoke the Holy Spirit: although she/he may subsequently retire from active ministry they don't cease to be a priest until death.

We anoint a monarch with holy oil and invoke the Holy Spirit: thus they may cease to carry out duties but they can't cease to be a monarch until death.

Will ER II retire - yes, in fact I think she's in the process of doing so. But there's no chance of her ceasing to be queen.

Nonsense. Edward VIII's abdication was nothing then? Legally, she was Queen when George VI (of late and happy memory) passed away, the Coronation is just for show and sentiment. She's Queen because 13 Commonwealth Parliaments and the Act of Settlement say she is, nothing else.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Without a dog in this fight, since I live in a land where celebrity rather than royalty rule the day, but I suspect QEII is as likely to retire as she is to divorce Prince Philip and then launch into a series of one-night stands with assorted aristocratic gigolos (if any such exist).

She strikes me as one who understands her position as destined, and her job as seeing her assigned role through to the end with as much dignity as can be mustered.

As dignity seems to be in shorter and shorter supply these days on both sides of the pond, I respect that position, though I'm quite sure I couldn't, myself, ever pull it off, not even with all the alleged training royals get in public composure. I wouldn't even be able to manage bits of small talk with the assorted flower girls appointed to curtsy & present bouquets to visiting royals.

Personally, I find the whole institution of royalty incomprehensible. That said, QEII seems to be managing the whole atavistic business as well as anybody could be expected to. Further, I rather doubt she trusts Charles to pull off the dignity bit as she has. I also think she imagines he might launch some silly initiatives into compost tea or architecture or something that will set the populace into antagonisms.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
originally posted by Garasu:
Why do these parasites get special treatment?

Explain in what way they're parasites. If you're going to talk about how much they cost, you know nothing about how the system works.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.

I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?

A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?

A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.

*tangent alert* An acquaintance did a parallel history SF novel about Australia where Rasputin had survived Prince Obolenskiy's plot and somehow made it to Queensland, where he set up shop wreaking havoc with the ladies of the Toowoomba RSL, using his sexual powers to eventually becoming Premier of Queensland as Sir Greg Rasputin, and installing the last of the Romanovs on the throne of Australia. She still hasn't found a publisher for it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I like it, I like it. And all those of the Orthodox hierarchy moving in to Canberra! Prhaps even the Ecumenical Patriarch could be persuaded to set up residence on one of the points jutting out into the lake to remind him of the Golden Horn and the Bosphorus!

[ 23. April 2014, 03:49: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?

A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.

Doesn't the rightful heir to the throne live in Australia somewhere. ISTR a TV program narrated by Tony Robinson linking this chap to Edward IVth's wife's affair with a member of his army.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Oh come on!

Why do these parasites get special treatment?

She can always apply for DLA or Family Tax Credit if she's a bit short (there's lots of relatives around, none of them working).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Charles himself was always popular in Australia is news to us living here. Sure, he spent a term at Geelong Grammar's Timbertop, but that's over 45 years ago now, and scarcely your local public school. A better adjective would be indifferent.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
She can always apply for DLA or Family Tax Credit if she's a bit short (there's lots of relatives around, none of them working).

None of them working? Then what would she be retiring from?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Oh come on!

Why do these parasites get special treatment?

Sorry, what special treatment? She has committed to a role for life, and is fulfilling that commitment.

That role has all sorts of responsibilities that come along with it, and all sorts of perks. As do most roles you take on.

I am not an out and out royalist. But I actually do believe that we get good value for our monarchy. The cost is high, but the impact, the stabilising role she plays, is also significant.

Its not perfect, of course. But I think she earns her money much more than other very wealthy people in other areas of business.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But I think she earns her money much more than other very wealthy people in other areas of business.

Plus, as long as she's there, preventing Cameron or one of his cronies in the Eton Mess styling themselves "Head of State", she's worth any amount of my money.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?

A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.
Doesn't the rightful heir to the throne live in Australia somewhere. ISTR a TV program narrated by Tony Robinson linking this chap to Edward IVth's wife's affair with a member of his army.

If there be any truth in the rumours it was Richard, Duke of York who was cuckolded by his Duchess making Edward IV the cuckoo in the nest. If one accepts the Yorkist claim to the throne then this means that the rightwise heir was the Duke of Clarence and it his his descendant who is living in Oz (and who is, as it happens, a Republican). There are three small snags with this theory.

1/ The Duke of York may, for all we know, have been cuckolded but at this juncture we can hardly prove the matter one way or another.
2/ Henry VII assumed the throne on the basis of the Lancastrian claim. Whilst he tactfully adopted the Tudor Rose and married the heiress to the Yorkist claim his claim to the throne had nothing to do with descent from Edward IV.
3/ In any event the Queen rules on the basis of the Act of Settlement not on the grounds that she has the best claim on grounds of primogeniture.

So it's an entertaining theory but not really one for the constitutional lawyers.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It all boils down to who had the biggest bunch of thugs in Anglo-Saxon times (including the 1066 General Election, with its shock Norman landslide result), and who had the religion everyone was least scared of in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I can't get excited about it.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Why would we replace a constitutionally limited monarch with an executive head of state? (Although wasn't Australia given that option, and rejected it?)

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.

The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choise for Charles. William, Kate and George have the perfect family image to keep the monarchy popular. Charles probably doesn't, with the memory of Diana still large in so many people's eyes. And I'm not sure if being married to a divorcee is compatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While I have great respect for both Charles and his wife, they can't cut it like William and Kate do.

Seems to me that the civil marriage between Charles, divorced widower, and Camilla is close to a perfect representation of UK reality. Too bad Charles is not gay, and Diana wasn't his closet. If the future Defender of the Faith was in a civil union with some guy now, and planning to upgrade that to a gay marriage soon, then he would have absolutely nailed the Zeitgeist. What's with the idea of having a royal Ken & Barbie moment? This isn't the 60s, and it seems decidedly weird to me to have the Royals as a projection screen of ideals that have been ditched with considerable enthusiasm by society. Do they have to be a living museum of the British past in their personal lives? I say it's retro enough if they live in palaces, do the royal pageantry for the natives and tourists, and the national representation spiel on the international stage.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

[Bastard Plantagenet tangent contd] Richard III of course famously declared his brother's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville/ Woodville invalid as Edward had allegedly been betrothed to another woman (Nell someone or other?) when he married her, hence the princes in the Tower were declared bastards so Richard could then be King. It was his other brother George who declared that their mother Cicely Neville had a roll in the hay with someone other than their father to conceive Edward, whilst he was in cahoots with Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. As I'm descended from pretty much all of them, I don't bloody well care! [/Bastard Plantagenet tangent]

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choise for Charles. William, Kate and George have the perfect family image to keep the monarchy popular. Charles probably doesn't, with the memory of Diana still large in so many people's eyes. And I'm not sure if being married to a divorcee is compatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While I have great respect for both Charles and his wife, they can't cut it like William and Kate do.
Seems to me that the civil marriage between Charles, divorced widower, and Camilla is close to a perfect representation of UK reality. Too bad Charles is not gay, and Diana wasn't his closet. If the future Defender of the Faith was in a civil union with some guy now, and planning to upgrade that to a gay marriage soon, then he would have absolutely nailed the Zeitgeist. What's with the idea of having a royal Ken & Barbie moment? This isn't the 60s, and it seems decidedly weird to me to have the Royals as a projection screen of ideals that have been ditched with considerable enthusiasm by society. Do they have to be a living museum of the British past in their personal lives? I say it's retro enough if they live in palaces, do the royal pageantry for the natives and tourists, and the national representation spiel on the international stage.

Meanwhile in Germany, ministers are effectively required to hold doctorates and resign when it is revealed they don't. To each his own obsession.

[ 23. April 2014, 12:57: Message edited by: JFH ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.

The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.

If you could get someone declared a bastard then you effectively ruled them out of the succession - as Matt points out that worked very well for Richard III. If you could convince people that the Queen had committed adultery you could attaint her for High Treason, hence the suggestion of an affair between Margaret and Somerset. In Henry VIII's reign this did for Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.

Actually, it would have been ironic if Edward of Westminster had been illegitimate, given that Fortescue dedicated 'The Laws and Governance of England' to him. The Laws and Governance is, among other things, a tract demonstrating the superiority of English law to Roman law. Among the superiorities adduced by Fortescue is that under no circumstances in English law can a bastard be legitimised!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you could get someone declared a bastard then you effectively ruled them out of the succession

Shame that doesn't work for UKIP candidates...

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Ho ho ho!

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Meanwhile in Germany, ministers are effectively required to hold doctorates and resign when it is revealed they don't. To each his own obsession.

I'm aware of four doctorates out of 17 members among the third Merkel cabinet. Given the nature of the job, I think that's an OK ratio. And several German ministers had to leave over having plagiarised to attain their PhD title, and in consequence losing it when that was discovered. The logic there is the usual one of political life: everybody expects politicians to cheat, but being clever enough to not get caught is part of the job description. That there were several cases in a row also has the obvious reasons: once one minister was discovered as having cheated to obtain his doctorate, and lost his position over it, people started paying close attention to the doctorates of other politicians in the expectation that several more could be tripped up that way. The same deal as with the UK expenses scandal then, just on a smaller scale and about cheating for status rather than money.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.

The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.

But it's on the goggle box so it must be right.

Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on :

For what it's worth, she has my respect for continuing on as long as she has and that will grow the more she goes on. Certainly I think there comes a point where one must face their age and step down, but until then, the workaholic in me sees something to aspire to.

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

There are two different themes here a) Monarchy v Republicanism and b) Ageism. Facing (b) myself at the moment (de facto I am I danger of being pushed aside at work in favour of someone younger - hoping to come through), I worry that even on this board folk are prepared to suggest someone be forced to retire solely on the basis of age. It should be their choice.

quote:
In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or racial discrimination. Dominic Abrams, social psychology professor at the university, concluded that Ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

You're misrepresenting my OP. My argument is that the Queen feels compelled to continue, possibly to the detriment of her health and well being. I have not suggested that she be forced to retire.
But on agism generally, we're now in an era wherein selfish baby boomers are clinging onto their high paid positions to fund their over indulgent lifestyles, or maybe the over indulgences of the past, long past the age when they might have been expected to make way for new growth. We prune plants for the benefit of the garden.

Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.

The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.
But it's on the goggle box so it must be right.

Sorry to continue this tangent but it appears from contemporary evidence when they were children that (although Edward as an adult was indeed about 6'4") George was *not* as tall as Richard for his age. And all the contemporary depictions of Edward show him with dark hair. The rumours about Edward's bastardy had been going the rounds for years, especially circulated by the French. The story of Edward's bigamous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was revealed by Bishop Robert Stillington, who claimed to have witnessed Edward's contract of marriage to Eleanor Talbot, not by Richard, who was planning the coronation of Edward V.

Right, back to the scheduled conversation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

At Common Law, descent has historically been from the person last seised. The person last seised before HMQ was George VI.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
My argument is that the Queen feels compelled to continue, possibly to the detriment of her health and well being. I have not suggested that she be forced to retire.

Compelled by whom? ISTM, she's compelled by her own sense of duty. No one, as far as I know, is forcing her to continue against her will - that would be as wrong as forcing her to retire.

And, at present she is fit and healthy, more than capable of fulfilling the roles she has. Which includes delegating to other members of the family. I'm sure her advisors and doctor would make sure that she doesn't over do things and make herself unwell, although if she set her mind on doing something I doubt they'd talk her out of it.

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
You're misrepresenting my OP. My argument is that the Queen feels compelled to continue, possibly to the detriment of her health and well being. I have not suggested that she be forced to retire.
But on agism generally, we're now in an era wherein selfish baby boomers are clinging onto their high paid positions to fund their over indulgent lifestyles, or maybe the over indulgences of the past, long past the age when they might have been expected to make way for new growth. We prune plants for the benefit of the garden.

Some of us cling to our positions to provide a roof and fund our offspring and their partners who, after graduation, struggle to find employment or earn a minimum wage, live at home and have no hope of moving out and being self sustaining in the foreseeable future. I most certainly could not afford to do that on my pension. Once free of responsibilities perhaps then I will be able sell the house, retire and live off the pension. I resent being called selfish when for the moment I see my dreams of retirement disappearing in the face of family economic necessity.

That quite apart from the fact that I am fitter than my father at the same age, do my job well, have both capacity and experience to offer and am able to embrace and drive change in a a way that some of the "new growth" frankly do not.

As for over indulgent lifestyle: how do you judge? I work hard, and live comfortably but try to give back to family, church and community.

To be called selfish because I want to be judged on my ability to hold down a job on the basis of competence and achievement so that I can continue to support my dependants feels like ageism to me. Silly of me feel hurt because of something said by someone I don't even know - but it feels a struggle to try and hold down that well paid job, look after the family long after I expected them to be independent and do it after I have had to give half the assets and the pension to the ex.

Far from indulgence, I really would just like to get off the roundabout and do something for me. Perhaps one day.
Meanwhile why is it wrong to expect a level playing field? Tomorrow I find out whether I have succeeded in securing another 2-3 years which should give the family space or whether I have been pruned.

Already so many of my peers have been pruned. Some physically ill, some mentally tired and many ready for retirement. But some physically fit, mentally agile and wanting to work, wanting to continue to contribute rather than becoming dependant but not understanding why they can no longer get the jobs or why their contribution is not valued in spite of over performing on their targets. I no longer want to go to farewells, its too sad.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Merchant Trader's post shows how these issues are touching many people. One of the things I like about the Queen's approach is that she is showing us that age, in itself, is no barrier to function (admittedly, she's not a surgeon or pilot and is in a line of work where words and presence are the basic tools).

Her focus is on duty and I suspect that if she felt that her condition be barrier to her carrying out her duty, we would see her take action. I do not know if that would include abdication-- I would imagine more a transfer of powers and I suspect that protocols have been worked out somewhere.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0