Queen’s frequent absences sparked speculation about her retirement

Despite the fact that Queen Elizabeth has missed several significant royal engagements in recent months due to health issues, royal analysts believe she will not retire.

Emma Dooney, a reporter for Women and Home, consulted with royal and constitutional experts to better understand why the Queen can’t just retire from public life and hand over to her son, Prince Charles.

Many people have urged that the Queen, who is 96 years old, should stand down after missing significant royal events such as the State Opening of Parliament on May 10, but experts say it isn’t practicable.

As per Dooney stated, “If the Queen wishes to transfer her powers to the Prince of Wales without having to abdicate, a ‘regency’ would have to take place. However, this wouldn’t happen without some tough board table talks between five key players in the British monarchy.”

Prof. Vernon Bogdanor, a constitutional specialist, discussed it further, “A regency requires three out of five dignitaries, the Prince of Wales, the lord chancellor, the Speaker of the Commons, the lord chief justice and the master of the rolls, to certify that the Queen is permanently—permanently—incapable of carrying out her duties.”

He added, “That judgment would no doubt be made on doctor’s advice. There is no evidence that this is the case… The criterion is objective. The Queen cannot simply say: ‘I cannot carry out my duties.’ A voluntary decision she could in theory take is abdication.”

Abdication is not in the cards for Queen Elizabeth, who feels it would go against the contract she made with God when she took the throne in 1953, according to royal historian Hugo Vickers.

According to the Guardian, Vickers said, “She is an anointed Queen. And if you are an anointed Queen you do not abdicate.”

Also Read

Why Queen skip today’s speech? Statement from Buckingham Palace

Queen Elizabeth II, 96, has been suffering from "episodic movement issues" and...