Dutch Queen Abdicates, Should Lizzie Do The Same?

Plazaman

Queen Beatrix (75) has announced she is to abdicate and let her son Prince Willem-Alexander (45) take over the throne. She was 30 years on the throne (seat of power not toilet).

Should Queen Lizzie follow suit? Let another William take power? I think it would rejuvinate the royal family as a lot of younger generations in the UK don't really give a flying fcuk about the Royal Family.

No royal bashing please and no 800 years blah blah (and if you don't give a monkeys then don't post - although this might be a quiet thread so )

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/queen-beatrix-announces-abdication-3368842.html

Fratton Fred

Plazaman wrote: »

Queen Beatrix (75) has announced she is to abdicate and let her son Prince Willem-Alexander (45) take over the throne. She was 30 years on the throne (seat of power not toilet).

Should Queen Lizzie follow suit? Let another William take power? I think it would rejuvinate the royal family as a lot of younger generations in the UK don't really give a flying fcuk about the Royal Family.

No royal bashing please and no 800 years blah blah (and if you don't give a monkeys then don't post - although this might be a quiet thread so )

Charles is next in line to the throne, not William.

Soups123

You have my opinion covered 'don't really give a flying fcuk'

Plazaman

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Charles is next in line to the throne, not William.

Crap, I forgot about Charlie. OK maybe a double abdication within weeks them BAM world wide headlines, history made and rabble about UK leaving the EU goes to the back pages.

Damn I could be in PR. *writes letter "Dear Liz......"

Peregrinus

Reportedly, Lizzie's attitude (and the attitude of her family) to monarchy is that it's a duty. If it falls to your lot, then you have to do it, and declining to do it (as Uncle David did) is shirking your duty in the most shameful way. Thus the monarch's job is to be monarch, and the job of everyone else in the family is to support them being the monarch in every possible way. The question of whether some other member of the family could do the job better, or to greater popular acclaim, is simply not an issue. The only reason for abdication would be if you no longer had the wherewithal, physically or mentally, to do the job.

You may think the whole notion is silly, but if they give up on this notion then they give up on the central rationale for any of them being king or queen at all. If you don't think you ought to be king or queen, then why would you expect anyone else to think that you ought to? So if they give up on this idea about monarchy, they have to come up pretty quickly with some other justification for why Britain should have monarch, and why it should be them. Otherwise the whole system suffers a crisis of confidence from within.

BrensBenz

I think Betty should quit and put her feet up but I doubt if she will - duty, appointed by God(?) and blah blah. Also, I once read in that insightful and well-informed magazine Hello! that Philo doesn't rate Charlie very highly; skipping a generation would cause the royal Klingons and yabbering classes to go into extended hysteria so Betty stays until she drops, or at least until Philo drops. Then Charlie takes over, the Earth spins off it's axis, Willy comes to the rescue and we all live happily ever after. Aaaahhhhhh!

Cookie_Monster

I bet she's hanging on for a bit more war with the Argies, best part of the job; declaring war

Fratton Fred

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I bet she's hanging on for a bit more war with the Argies, best part of the job; declaring war

Apparently she wants Ireland back, then India.

Sunnyisland

Bit of topic, I do think Giovanni Trapattoni should step down maybe even give the job to the queen,she cant do any worse than him.

Ghandee

What makes someone 'royal' anyway?

All of us need food warmth and shelter to survive, all of us need to empty our bowels/bladders, and when death reaches us all, we'll all decay or burn.

Kinda hard to justify how someone is 'regal' watching them on the bog/taking their final breath.


That's my uptake on it.

FutureGuy

Plazaman wrote: »

Queen Beatrix (75) has announced she is to abdicate and let her son Prince Willem-Alexander (45) take over the throne. She was 30 years on the throne (seat of power not toilet).

Should Queen Lizzie follow suit? Let another William take power? I think it would rejuvinate the royal family as a lot of younger generations in the UK don't really give a flying fcuk about the Royal Family.

No royal bashing please and no 800 years blah blah (and if you don't give a monkeys then don't post - although this might be a quiet thread so )

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/queen-beatrix-announces-abdication-3368842.html

"Don't call me Lizzie ya little prick, I'm a Queen!"

anncoates

Ever notice how royals like William start out looking normal but then it's like the Diana genes were eventually routed by the Windsor ones and next thing you have another horse-headed, ruddy-cheeked, balding, rubber-lipped Charles /Andrew /Edward clone on your hands.

Will be an epic battle between the Windsor DNA and Harrys ginger Hewitt genes, but.

BraziliaNZ

Yes to anything that gets me a day off work

Lionel Messy

Hi.

What does abdicate mean?

guttenberg

When Lizzie goes, would that mean all UK Sterling coins/notes would have to be replaced to feature big nosed Charlies face?

OldGoat

Ghandee wrote: »

What makes someone 'royal' anyway?

I believe it's something to do with the colour of their blood and that they never wear the same pair of socks twice. Ever.

LordSutch

She'll be a hard act to follow that's for sure. Would be nice if William & Kate become King & Queen at some stage, but Lizzie really hasn't put a foot wrong since she was crowned way back in 1953, a class act by any standards. People have been speculating about Charles replacing her for at least twenty years, and Lizzie's still going strong, I dont see Charles becoming King, but I might be wrong?

KKkitty

Lionel Messy wrote: »

Hi.

What does abdicate mean?

Step down from the throne. The English monarchy tend to stay there til they're on their last legs so I doubt Queen Elizabeth will do that.

Fratton Fred

KKkitty wrote: »

Step down from the throne. The English monarchy tend to stay there til they're on their last legs so I doubt Queen Elizabeth will do that.

I think (and cant be bothered to check otherwise) that a British monarch that abdicates has to leave the realm.

OneArt

I'd say Lizzie isn't letting Charles become king because he once stayed out past his curfew and she's never forgiven him.

KKkitty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think (and cant be bothered to check otherwise) that a British monarch that abdicates has to leave the realm.

Was Edward stripped of all royal titles after the Wallis Simpson saga?

Son0vagun

No the Queen shouldn't Abdicate, but Charles certainly should when it's his turn.

Fratton Fred

KKkitty wrote: »

Was Edward stripped of all royal titles after the Wallis Simpson saga?

I think so.

Times have changed since then though. marrying an American divorcee is no longer prohibited

bnt

Plazaman wrote: »

Crap, I forgot about Charlie.

You're not the only one who has, or is trying to. He hardly seems Monarch material, does he? If you've seen The King's Speech, you could say the same about George VI, but he had an excuse in that he wasn't supposed to take the crown, and it only happened because his brother (Edward VIII) abdicated.

Just as Bertie took the George name, Charles probably won't call himself Charles III. The name would bring up bad memories of Charles I and Charles II, as well as potentially causing bad feelings in Scotland (memories of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobite Rebellion).

There are those who would rather see a King William V next, skipping Charles entirely.

im invisible

Still cant marry a catholic

KKkitty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think so.

Times have changed since then though. marrying an American divorcee is no longer prohibited

Maybe Charles got away with it because he's mummy's favourite

anncoates

im invisible wrote: »

Still cant marry a catholic

She must be an AH regular with that attitude.

Fratton Fred

im invisible wrote: »

Still cant marry a catholic

yeah they can

the_syco

Keep ruling until she drops; it alienates the young people better :P

bnt

KKkitty wrote: »

Was Edward stripped of all royal titles after the Wallis Simpson saga?

Not exactly. Since he was no longer King after abdication, he lost all titles associated with that, so they made him Royal Duke of Windsor. That was a peerage created for him specifically, to (effectively) keep him out of the House of Lords and other potential political offices. He retained "His Royal Highness" until he died.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think (and cant be bothered to check otherwise) that a British monarch that abdicates has to leave the realm.

There's no law about this. When Edward VIII abdicated he went to France, but this was probably something he was quite happy to do - it suited him as much as everyone else. He spent the war very much in the realm - he was Governor of the Bahamas - but returned to France after the war and lived there from then on. He made occasional visits to the UK, but never lived there again.

Peregrinus

KKkitty wrote: »

Was Edward stripped of all royal titles after the Wallis Simpson saga?

He lost them automatically when he abdicated - they were the king's titles, and he was no longer king. The titles he'd had before he became king had all merged into the crown on his accession, so they were gone to.

If they hadn't made him HRH the Duke of Windsor, he's have been plain David Windsor, Esq.

Alun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I bet she's hanging on for a bit more war with the Argies, best part of the job; declaring war

Well, seeing as the Netherlands will soon have an Argentinian queen, they could just declare war on them instead. Much closer, and would save a load of money on fuel.

Agricola

Monarchies are a sham with no place in a 21st century developed society. Bank rolling freeloaders because of some supposed birthright!

KKkitty

I think the English monarchy are very traditional in the regard that they will wait til Queen Elizabeth passes away til a new monarch takes the throne. I think she's got a good few years left in her yet.

Davyhal

im invisible wrote: »

Still cant marry a catholic

This changed in 2011 - A member of the royal family can marry a Roman Catholic, and still maintain their place in the line of succession, but it does raise problems when it comes to the issue of their children.... Assuming that the spouse of the member of the royal family chooses to remain Roman Catholic, it is stated in Catholic Canon Law that they must Baptise their child in the Catholic Faith. However, Catholics cannot ascend to the throne as the Monarch is the head of the Anglican Faith. Therefore, the monarch must be Anglican.

So their choice is:
(1) Baptise any children Catholic, but this excludes them from the line of succession or
(2) Baptise any children Anglican, which goes against Catholic Canon Law, which essentially means that the Catholic parent is going against their faith.

Essentially, if a Catholic marries a member of the royal family, to be practical, they must convert if they wish for their children to be in the line of succession

blackwhite

Agricola wrote: »

Monarchies are a sham with no place in a 21st century developed society. Bank rolling freeloaders because of some supposed birthright!

I've read in numerous different publications that the royal family usually contribute more into the State coffers than they cost......... :rolleyes:

mike65

Where else would one look to other than After Hours on boards.ie for a discussion on the British constitution with regard to the Monarchy?