zlacker

Imagine being groomed to do this job from birth, with no real way to opt out[1]. You wanted to breed horses, become a blacksmith or start a business? Get that nonsense out of your head, you're a princess!

Then, when you're 25, your daddy dies aged only 56 and after a rather brief period of mourning you get pushed into taking his job in a pompous ceremony. Now you're going to be doing this until you die. No retirement! I bet there were times where Lilibet just wanted to go to her room and cry.

I wouldn't have wanted her job for all the wealth and power that came with it.

[1] Well, you could make a big scandal about marrying an American divorcee, but that didn't go down too well for the last guy.

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
Monarchs all over Europe bowed out of this bullshit after WW2, so it can definitely be done. The UK monarchs rebranded themselves as "the royal family", at considerable effort and expense, so that they could carry on "enjoying" their lifestyle. Whatever enjoyment might mean in this context, in terms of the personal enjoument of one woman, who knows, and I'm not sure why I'd care either.

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
> Now you're going to be doing this until you die. No retirement!

If she had wanted to, at some point, abdicate in favour of Charles, that could have been arranged. It would have required a special Act of the UK Parliament (following the prior example of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936) [0] – and probably also supporting legislation in the other Commonwealth Realms (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) – but no doubt the governments of the Commonwealth Realms would have obliged. It was her own decision that she did not want that. I would not be surprised if, in another 10 or 15 years, King Charles III makes a different decision, but we shall see. In recent years, monarchs abdicating due to advanced age has become rather common – the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Japan, among others.

[0] http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1936/ukpga_19360003_e...

>>skissa+Zl
The only recent abdication in UK history (and maybe the only voluntary one ever?) put her father and herself in line to the throne, dragged the monarchy and the rest of the UK's system of government through a major public scandal, and caused serious damage to the royal family. Because of all that, I doubt she would have considered abdicating herself.

>>twblal+Nm
That was all about the reason for that particular abdication though, not the act of abdication itself. I can't see why it would have caused any scandal or damage for the monarch to abdicate due to ill health or old age, and other European monarchs have abdicated for similar reasons without scandal.

(Spain is somewhat of an exception, but Juan Carlos' abdication was linked to corruption allegations over shady business dealings in Saudi Arabia; I very much doubt Elizabeth had any such skeletons lurking in her closets.)

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
> I bet there were times where Lilibet just wanted to go to her room and cry.

Somehow I think those of us who also feel this way and dear Lilibet had very different experiences doing so.

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
You could absolutely abdicate. You could, if you really believed in democracy, peacefully dissolve the monarchy. I understand that that would have meant losing many members of her family, and I understand on a personal level why she would not choose to do that.

She did go beyond simply maintaining the monarchy - she worked to influence legislation to, among other things, hide her personal wealth, give her and her family an exemption from seatbelt laws, and make it easier to lease land for development. Pretty minor issues all things considered, probably much more mild than the average MP, but it does not sit right with me given that she was unelected and in office for life.

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
Abdication and eradication of the monarchy is the only thing compatible with human rights and equality she could've done. If she wanted to get a job that's all there was to do.

>>skissa+tn
The idea is that another abdication, even if it wasn't driven by an underlying scandal, would have sowed a perception of instability in people's minds, associated the concept of "Royal Family" with chaos or drama, and might have led to the fall of British Monarchy. I genuinely think she didn't feel like that was even an option.

>>concin+Gs
The Dutch monarchy has seen two abdications in recent decades (Juliana in 1980 and Beatrix in 2013), and I'm not aware it has caused any damage to the institution. I think they've even come to expect it – King Willem-Alexander is 55 now, both his mother and grandmother abdicated in their 70s, it seems likely in another 15–20 years he will follow their example, and pass the throne to Catharina-Amalia (who is only 18 now, but will be in her 30s by then).

So, if the Dutch monarchy can survive it, why not the British? I think you are probably right about her own attitudes to the topic, likely irreversibly marked by the events of 1936. But I'd be surprised if the same is true of her son or grandson.

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
"The Queen" did a fairly good account of how this went down for Elizabeth.

>>twblal+Nm
> dragged the monarchy and the rest of the UK's system of government through a major public scandal, and caused serious damage to the royal family.

The damage in both cases were mainly to their pride. If that was all she risked, I'm not impressed. Her uncle Edward was a literal Nazi, and yet even he was willing to give up power to marry the woman he loved.

But it could of course be that she risked more than that. What keeps elderly rulers clinging to power is often the knowledge that they and their close ones has done some very bad things, and that the descent may not be so graceful if they let go willingly.

>>skissa+tn
> I very much doubt Elizabeth had any such skeletons lurking in her closets.

Her son and heir has literally been accepting suitcases full of cash from middle east despots (nominally for his charity), and her other son was up to his neck in Epstein's dealings. I wouldn't be so sure.

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
Former Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands retired from being queen in 2013, she felt like the duty of her position belonged to the next generation.

Queen Elizabeth could've just passed on the throne to her son any time she wanted to.

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
> No retirement!

Or lifelong retirement, depends how you see it

>>sdfjkl+(OP)
Compared to actual poverty that is experienced by billions, that doesn't seem nearly as terrible.

>>skissa+Bv
Completely different. The risk with the British Royalty is that the Queen is Queen of many Kingdoms. While England may still be pro-monarchy, some of these kingdoms and territories are more split down the middle. You only need one to switch, and proclaim itself a Republic, and that would severely increase the risk of more proclamations, in a domino effect. Domestically you'd have comparisons to the fall of the British Empire, and opinion may shift more against royalty domestically as a result.

Note that this scenario may still happen, but she was extremely lucid to realize its salience:

https://time.com/6212004/queen-elizabeth-republicanism-anti-...

>>vinter+a51
So just like many American politicians.