Is it the end of the line for Queen Elizabeth?

Earlier today the bookmaker Coral closed the market on bets around whether the Queen would announce in her Christmas broadcast this year that she was to step down. This would follow the practice of other European Monarch’s who have annouced their abidications in favour of a younger generation.

There was a flurry of bets in the aftermath of her speech being recorded by the BBC.

Buckingham Palace has denied the report.

So, will Queen Elizabeth step down in 2015?

, ,

  • Belfast Barman(ager)

    I suppose it’ll give the royal mint and post office something to do in January

  • barnshee

    No–By precedent the British monarch

    Gets Executed or
    Dies in Harness or
    Abdicates for ” legover” reasons

    I cannot see HM going for any of the above–looks like a safe bet

  • Mirrorballman

    The end of her reign based on 1 £200 bet and few others of smaller amounts? silly season?

  • ted hagan

    Who cares?

  • Tacapall

    Mrs Windsor and her kind all need to stand down and get off the peoples backs its 2014, the world is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe there is no future for fairytales, kings, queens, princes or princesses. What type of society accepts their children are of a lesser value than another for no other reason other than a family name, what type of society allows a family of billionaires live like parasites of the backs of the poor.

  • Jason Allen

    She needs to spend more time in the open air with Prince Philip apparently…..His Dr said it’d be good for him as he thinks he’s a turnip. All turnips benefit from lots of sunshine and water his Dr said, in a recent statement.

  • Alan N/Ards

    Maybe it’s time for a UK republic. I have a the greatest respect for The Queen but it’s time to let the people decide what they want.

  • ted hagan

    A Swede? Surely his roots go back to Denmark?

  • Alan N/Ards

    How about a united republic of Ireland and Britain?

  • barnshee

    “English seem to like it more than an alternative.”

    And there we have it

  • Robin Keogh

    jESUS, Could u imagine Fine Gael or Fianna Fail trying to rule Britain as well as Ireland..

  • Robin Keogh

    I like her and I would not be celebrating her stepping down. I will never forget the day she laid a wreath in honour of all the rebels who fought for Irish freedom, that took guts courage and a great level kindness.

  • Alan N/Ards

    The day will surely come when your President comes to Belfast to lay a wreath at the cenotaph. That action will speak louder than words.

  • Tacapall

    “that took guts courage and a great level kindness”

    Why would it take guts, courage and kindness ?

    What kind of republican would support privileged birth ?

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Actually, England, and her colonies, have pretty much been Republican since 1688 when a small junta of self interested politicians forced their progressive king into exile for attempting to create an even playing field for all of his subjects of whatever religion:

    http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674073098

    “Though often depicted as a despot who sought to impose his own Catholic faith on a Protestant people, James is revealed as a man ahead of his time, a king who pressed for religious toleration at the expense of his throne. The Glorious Revolution, Sowerby finds, was not primarily a crisis provoked by political repression. It was, in fact, a conservative counter-revolution against the movement for enlightened reform that James himself encouraged and sustained.”

    Strange how the myth of “James the b*g*t” lingers in certain quarters…..

  • Alan N/Ards

    That’s a bit like me having nothing in common with the good folk of Tipperary or Cork etc. It’s such a shame.

  • Ernekid

    Unless her health is failing or she’s started the slow slide into dementia. I doubt she’ll abidicate, the memories of her uncles abidication are still fresh in her mind.

  • Comrade Stalin

    that took guts courage and a great level kindness.

    Not really. She was told to do it by the Prime Minister.

    The Queen is to all intents and purposes, like the President of Ireland – a glorified civil servant.

  • Bryan Magee

    I wonder. If she didn’t want to do it, surely she could refuse?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Then she’d be going against her own government, which by convention she cannot do.

  • Cue Bono

    James the Despot I think. His removal saw the end of dictatorship and the ushering in of democracy. It also removed any requirement for a French style bloody revolution. Apart from in Ireland of course.

  • Cue Bono

    It would certainly be mighty confusing for the Sinners.

  • Cue Bono

    Nice little earner for the bookies though. Fools and their money are easily parted.

  • Zig70

    Monarchy is perverse. I often think it reveals a persons intellect, their grasp of the wider world, when they appear on the BBC all doe eyed over Lizzy or Kate, but it’s just human nature to follow sometimes.

  • Bryan Magee

    Well I don’t know how we can really know about things like this. I have a feeling she is a bit more autonomous than you say, but who knows.

  • chrisjones2

    Virtually every one

  • ted hagan

    Don’t reckon there’s much intellect rattling around in the royal genes, if that’s what you mean.

  • Robin Keogh

    Our President surely will someday as he has done in london

  • Robin Keogh

    Show me where i said i supported privilaged birth?

  • Jon Hope

    I think Doug Stanhope said it best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctOHo4RzZEc

  • Tacapall

    “Then she’d be going against her own government, which by convention she cannot do”

    Really, so why does she have the power, and has used it in the recent past, to refuse to enact any new law that the elected members of parliament wish to be enacted.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Really, so why does she have the power, and has used it in the recent past, to refuse to enact any new law that the elected members of parliament wish to be enacted.

    She doesn’t.

  • ted hagan

    Don’t reckon there’s much intellect rattling around in the royal genes, if that’s what you mean.

  • Tacapall

    You serious ?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html

    “Queen Vetoed The Passing Of War Powers To Parliament, Whitehall Documents Reveal”

  • Comrade Stalin

    The Queen does not have the power to “refuse to enact any new law that the elected members of parliament wish to be enacted.” which is what you said.

    The Queen and the Prince of Wales apparently have the right to refuse consent to bills which directly effect their personal interests or property, or any prerogative powers (which is news to me, I admit).

    The Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the “advice” of the government. In other words, when the government tell her to do something, she has to do it.

    Strangely, the original document containing the source material behind the article you linked to is no longer available, so I’m not able to verify any of the claims in it. I wonder why that is.

  • Tacapall

    Comrade she refused to enact a law that would have allowed parliament rather than the crown to declare war.

  • Comrade Stalin

    You’re moving the goalposts. I’m replying to point out that the statement below :

    Really, so why does she have the power, and has used it in the recent past, to refuse to enact any new law that the elected members of parliament wish to be enacted.

    .. is false.

  • Tacapall

    How is it false when she has already done it recently ?

  • Tacapall

    Maybe you could answer a question before asking a question Robin.

  • Robin Keogh

    Maybe you should just accept that not everybody firs neatly into your narrow view of the world xx

  • Tacapall

    Comrade did any law get passed into law that the queen or Prince Charlie refused to give consent to ?

  • terence patrick hewett

    The Queen is deeply loved for her steadfastness and Christian love: every monarch of our turbulent entity has to earn that respect and some have spectacularly fallen short of popular consensus. Republicans are looking forward to the accession of Big-Ears but I am afraid they are likely to be disappointed since Camilla is a charmer of spectacular proportions who as Cathy Lette said “Aussie women recognise her as a woman’s woman and one of our own” and after her comes Kate and believe me she has a will of iron whose antecedents are from the very proletarian Southall and Leeds.

    As Marriot Edgar put it:

    “When they told him they’d brought Magna Charter,
    The King seemed to go kind of limp,
    But minding his manners he took off his hat
    And said ‘Thanks very much, have a shrimp.’

    ‘You’d best sign at once,’ said Fitzwalter,
    ‘If you don’t, I’ll tell thee for a start
    The next coronation will happen quite soon,
    And you won’t be there to take part.’

    So they spread Charter out on t’ tea table,
    And John signed his name like a lamb,
    His writing in places was sticky and thick
    Through dipping his pen in the jam.

    And it’s through that there Magna Charter,
    As were made by the Barons of old,
    That in England today we can do what we like,
    So long as we do what we’re told”

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Cue Bono, read the book, man, and see if you can still read what you’ve just written without blushing! What James’s removal “ushered in” was a commercially exclusivist oligrachy with a puppet ruler acting at their behest that set the tone for elitist government in England and anyone else unfortunate enough to be under their baleful influence. Democracy indeed! Hypocracy more like.

    “Despot: one who exercises absolute power in a cruel or oppressive manner.” With James driven into exile for attempting to remove oppressive laws that the Prince of Orange and the revolutionary Junta quickly restored, I think you may just have applied the term to the wrong ruler!

    And its not as if anyone but the elite benefited. Presbyterians in Britian and Ireland who were duped into supporting the revolutionaries with a lot of cynical anti-Catholic propaganda put back their own civil rights simply so that their fellow countrymen who were Catholics would not enjoy similar freedoms, crippling the cause of civil and religious liberty in all three kingdoms for another hundred years. But continue to ignore reality and choose to be duped by the tired old slogans of those self interested Whigs who put themselves and their like in power for the last three hundred years and aborted any posibility of fair and equitable government for all of Ireland’s people throughout this period.

    And read a bit more real history, perhaps, to discover just what methods of stark repression were employed “over the water” to avoid “a French style bloody revolution.” The “Our Island Story” juvenile version presenting a brave march forward to Democracy is only credited these days by interested parties such as Michael Gove.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Hey, Comrade, “The Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the “advice” of the government.” Can you show me where that is set down as law? As I understand it the constitution is not a written document but simply customary usage, something that may simply be altered at need.

    The situation is much, much more fluid than you are suggesting. The common law court judges in the reign of James I & VI asserted that they possessed the right to determine the limits of the royal prerogative. This was challenged across the seventeenth century by the Stuarts, culminating with James II & VII using his dispensing power to crush unjust laws to limit freedom of worship and the civil rights of his people as a whole, where legal precident actually confirmed his powers. He was forced into exile on this contentious issue by a self interested elite. However, the ability of government to simply function necessitated that these prerogative powers continued to be available to the Prime Minister and cabinet, but this is simply “conventional usage”, and actually has no formal legal force. The final authority of the prerogative is still vested in the crown. Notably, Wikipedia states that:

    “The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.”

    Anecdotally this is actually what Edward VIII retired into exile over, rather than the silly Red Top story of “Abdicating for the woman he loved.” Notably his words “discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do” in his farewell speech were seen as a “hidden transcript” for his demand that serious efforts should be made to offer help to the very poorest of his people, and his threat to use the Royal Prerogative should he be thwarted in this. So, under the bluster, this is still very much a live squib as Tacapall states.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Didn’t you read my previous reply to you ?

    The Queen and the Prince of Wales apparently have the right to refuse consent to bills which directly effect their personal interests or property, or any prerogative powers (which is news to me, I admit).

    She does not have the power to stop any law, which is what you said.

    And incidentally, how do you know that her refusal to grant consent for a bill that effected prerogative powers was not at the request of the Government ? Communications between the government and the monarch are confidential.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Hey, Comrade, “The Queen is constitutionally bound to follow the “advice” of the government.” Can you show me where that is set down as law?

    It doesn’t have to be set down in law.

    Also, things which are set down in law aren’t necessarily an issue if the law is not enforced.

    The point being that there’s a gap between the written law and the reality.

    As I understand it the constitution is not a written document but simply customary usage, something that may simply be altered at need.

    Which is the same as any other constitution anywhere else in the world.

    The constitution of any country ultimately has to reflect the requirements of the population and the country itself. If it does not, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on as either it will become unenforceable (or unenforced) or there will be a revolution.

  • Tacapall

    Pardon my ignorance Comrade maybe I should have been a bit clearer, she has the power to refuse to give her consent to any bill that parliament wishes passed into law that would affect her or her family’s interests but those interests are open to interpretation and have been numerous times by Charles. The case in point being the queen refusing to give consent for a bill to become law that would have allowed Parliament rather than her the power to declare war on behalf of the UK.

    Does parliament now have the power to declare war on behalf of the UK or does that power still rest with the queen after she refused to give her consent ?

  • Cue Bono

    James was in the process of re-establishing the Papacy in Great Britain and Ireland. That was very much against the democratic will of the people. If he had succeeded of course there would have been no Enlightenment and you would very possibly be traversing his progressive Kingdom on a Shetland Pony.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Good grief Cue Bono, did you even read my posting? Where do I begin? Well, for a start my own primary source research has shown me long ago that that the re-establishment of Catholicism story is simply a disingenuous piece of propaganda to scare up opposition among those people who would have benefited from his reforms, such as Presbyterians. James was attempting to create general toleration by suspending the Test Act (“My only test is that of loyalty”), which meant that he was able to employ Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians and such like, but his enemies concentrated on his employment of Catholics to create a very effective propaganda scare against a previously very popular king. James was, after all, the hero of the Dutch wars and was known as a bluff, honest soldier who could be trusted to keep his word. This is the real voice of informed Presbyterianism at the time:

    http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16870491.htm

    I’d suggest that you should actually get Sowerby’s book from your local library and check out properly for yourself just how you and your ancestors have had your credulity abused by this mendacious myth, but you may need to let go of some of the fairy tales which you may have grown up with.

    No Enlightenment, you suggest? During the eighteenth century the exiled Stuarts were noted for their espousal and patronage of enlightenment ideas. This was so well known that when James’s corpse was exposed during the French Revolution, those radicals “in the know” objected to such treatment of a poor “Sans Coulotte” king who had himself suffered under tyrants. And to speak as you do of the “democratic will of the people” in 1688 is so bizarrely anachronistic I can only assume that you are utterly unschooled in any serious British and Irish history.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Ah Comrade, when answering Tacapall you stated that “She does not have the power to stop any law, which is what you said.”

    Actually, there is no legal constraint on her doing that very thing, and she would even have the entire support of custom if she acted so in an emergency. I entirely agree that written laws are not necessarily followed, but any appeal to “custom” means that “The British Constitution” uses those instances of “custom” that it needs to at any point, effectively that the constitution is simply what anyone authoritative claims it may be in any given situation.

    Accordingly, you cannot lay down the law about how the Royal Prerogative may need to be used at any time in the future. Simply stated, Tacapall is right here.

  • John Calvert

    No monarch has refuse Royal Assent since Queen Anne with the Scottish Militia Bill of 1707.

  • John Calvert

    Ok well, once the Queen unilaturally declares war on Vanuatu we’ll know the truth of your unsubstantiated claims.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    John, what have the New Hebrides ever done to her?

    Cheap beer I’m told, by the way.

  • Ian James Parsley

    No. Next…

  • Turgon

    Worth noting how daft this article looks now