The Washington Post

In Britain, pending royal birth puts spotlight on aging monarch

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that the queen is expecting her first great-grandchild, and that the child’s birth will mark the first time a reigning British monarch has had three direct heirs. The story has been corrected.

Aging monarchs in the Netherlands and Belgium are making room for the next generation of Europe’s crowned heads. But here in Britain, the birth in the coming days of a royal baby will have heirs stacking up like so many planes at this city’s super-clogged Heathrow Airport.

So with Queen Elizabeth II now 87 after 61 years on the throne, perhaps it is no surprise that the “A-word” is floating around these isles.


There is no sign that she is heading for the gilded doors, and those close to her dismiss any suggestion of the queen as a quitter, arguing that she will never go the way of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Yet, as the queen and her 92-year-old husband, Prince Philip, confront health issues and with a third direct heir on the way, chatter about a royal retirement has rarely been louder.

“Will the Queen abdicate?” Britain’s Guardian newspaper asked with casual bluntness after Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands called it a day following 33 years on the throne. The paper went on to wonder whether, after “years of smiling and waving and keeping shtoom while gaffes abound around her,” is it time for Queen Elizabeth to finally “relax with the corgis?”

Generate a custom name for the royal baby.

With the British monarch’s great-grandchild due any day now, London-based YouGov published a poll last month showing that those who wanted the queen to serve for life stood at 60 percent. Although up from a poll in May, it was down four percentage points compared with one taken in March about the time the queen was briefly hospitalized with a stomach infection and had to cancel a number of official engagements.

Even Lord John Prescott, a former member of the Privy Council, which advises the monarch, penned an opinion piece in the Sunday Mirror, ostensibly about a “friend” who felt that the queen was “overburdening herself” and deserved “to break convention and consider enjoying a long and fulfilling retirement.”

By at least one measure — international travel — the queen is unquestionably slowing down. Eyebrows arched across Britain in May when Buckingham Palace announced that she would, for the first time in 40 years, skip her biennial trip abroad to address leaders of her far-flung realms, including Australia and Canada. It would please Her Majesty to instead send her son, Prince Charles — the longest-waiting monarch-to-be in British history.

Royal biographer Robert Lacey said he found it hard to believe that the queen would retire, particularly while her husband, now recovering from an abdominal operation, is alive. And yet, Lacey noted, the royal lineup of the queen, Charles, Prince William and baby “isn’t just statistical.”

“It really increases the likelihood that the queen will do what was once thought unthinkable and abdicate and step down,” he said. “To be cynical about it, I can see demands growing for it, you know, ‘Give Charles a chance,’ that sort of thing.”

For all the talk of retirement, however, there is no doubting the queen’s popularity.

Celebrity of rare decorum

The public questions after her seemingly cold response to the 1997 death of Diana, Princess of Wales, are a distant memory. Instead, the queen is seen here as a constant in a fast-changing world, a celebrity of rare decorum in an age of reality show trash. In her youth, she stood as symbol of the stalwart British spirit in the aftermath of World War II. And now, in her winter, many here say, she is setting an example by balancing public duty and an aging body to surprisingly robust effect.

At 87, she still regularly delights in horseback riding on the grounds of Windsor Castle, and she let down her guard at the Ascot races this year in a burst of joy when her own horse came in first.

Although the queen is reducing her overseas schedule, in 2012 — the year she celebrated her Diamond Jubilee commemorating 60 years on the throne — she hit no less than 425 domestic engagements, compared with 325 a year earlier.

And yet there is no denying, observers say, that a changing of the guard of sorts is taking place. Charles and his wife, Camilla, accompanied the queen to the state opening of Parliament this year, an event of high pomp during which the spotlight is typically reserved for the reigning monarch.

Indeed, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall are riding a string of positive media reports that have led some observers to speculate of an orchestrated campaign. In May, Camilla went on her first solo foreign tour, joking with photographers at the Louvre in Paris about not wanting to “block the Mona Lisa.” Charles, his own popularity on the upswing, is coming off a humorous turn as a BBC weatherman and a witty speech last year in which he brought down the house by touting the accomplishments of “Mummy.”

Of course, it’s not all Charles and Camilla either. William and Kate represented the queen on a nine-day tour of Asia and the South Pacific. Even Prince Harry, the spare to his brother’s role as heir, stood in for the queen on a tour of Belize, the Bahamas, Jamaica and Brazil.

A solemn oath

The queen’s strong aversion to retirement, royal watchers say, is based partly on the famous abdication of her uncle, King Edward VIII, to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee. The act is said to have been regarded by the queen as shirking official responsibility even as it had the effect of thrusting her father into the role of king.

But the queen, said Dickie Arbiter, a former spokesman, is also deeply religious, and “she sees herself of having sworn to serve for life not only to the people, but to God.”

A provision of the 1937 Regency Act allows for the removal of monarchs under certain conditions if they become incapacitated. But her condition would need to be positively vegetative, observers say, before any such attempt would be contemplated.

Instead, over time, she is expected to hand off more and more of her official duties. Should she become seriously ill, royal watchers say, the queen is more likely to opt to remain monarch, while perhaps allowing Charles to assume the role of regent — a designation allowing him to run most of her state affairs.

Arbiter described the chances of an abdication as “zero, none, never going to happen.”

He cited a 1947 speech in which the queen, then a crown princess, said:

“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.”

Karla Adam contributed to this report.

Anthony Faiola is The Post's Berlin bureau chief. Faiola joined the Post in 1994, since then reporting for the paper from six continents and serving as bureau chief in Tokyo, Buenos Aires, New York and London.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments

Sign up for email updates from the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

You have signed up for the "Confronting the Caliphate" series.

Thank you for signing up
You'll receive e-mail when new stories are published in this series.
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.