I sort of forget when it happened, but at some point, I stopped having concerns about Prince Charles and his eventual rise to king. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, it was all the rage to doubt Charles and to say that the Queen should hold on to the throne forever. But a lot has changed and shifted over the years. Nowadays, Charles looks like a prescient leader, a decision-maker who suffers no fools, and the Queen is the one who looks indecisive and ill-equipped to handle the job of monarch. The Prince Andrew story has really done a number on the monarchy as an institution, and it’s like we’ve seen the man behind the curtain: oh, right, these people are f–king tone-deaf amateurs. So, there’s been a lot of conversation about whether the Queen should step down/abdicate and just leave Charles to deal with everything. Some even claimed that she would step down on her 95th birthday, and “retire” to the country, like her husband. Not so fast, says Vanity Fair. Katie Nicholl did a lengthy piece about this subject this week:
Last week the Sun newspaper reported that the Queen plans to retire at 95 allowing Charles to rule in all but name. It is not the first time the rumour has circulated but with the milestone birthday now just 18 months away, it seems that a plan B might be in place at the Queen’s London HQ. Unsurprisingly Buckingham Palace has been swift to deny any suggestion that the Queen is planning to scale back her duties, and certainly abdication remains a banned word in the corridors of power. One senior royal aide told Vanity Fair, “There is no sign of any hand over or retirement’ while a spokesman for the Prince of Wales was also quick to quash the speculation. “There are no plans for a transition of responsibilities at age 95 or any other age,” the spokesman said.
Vanity Fair has been told however that the Queen plans to mark her 95th birthday in 2021 with major celebrations, which has led some royal watchers to believe that the milestone might be an opportune moment for the Queen to announce a royal handover. According to Charles’s biographer Robert Jobson, the Queen intends to trigger a period of regency when she turns 95 meaning Charles would become Prince Regent. Essentially this would mean that while she remains Queen, her Majesty would hand the day-to-day running of the monarchy to Charles.
“It is the Queen’s intention is to hand over to Charles when she turns 95,” Jobson told Vanity Fair. “We are in a period of transition at the moment and it is my understanding the Queen wants to hand the regency over to Charles and in doing so, give him all the executive powers of the monarch. She will retain the title of Queen, she’s not abdicating, but there is enough scope within the Regency Act for her to step down should she wish to. We are talking regency not an abdication. The most important thing is to maintain the strength and integrity of the institution. If she feels her advancing age is in any way weakening the institution, then she would bring about change.”
Aides at the palace, however, insist that “a regency is not going to happen” with one well-placed source saying it was “more like a plot line from The Crown rather than the truth.” The source pointed out that at 93 the Queen is in good health and well supported by the royal family which enables the smooth day-to-day running of the monarchy.
Robert Jobson is the author of Charles at 70, the authorized biography of Charles which came out last year, and was possibly the “ground zero” book promotion that triggered many of the nastiest smears on the Duchess of Sussex. My point is that Jobson is likely carrying water for Charles and his team, and maybe Charles is arguing for a regency. I feel like a regency would actually be a good solution, a good transition, and if it happens, I hope it happens in the next year. Because I honestly don’t think Charles should trust the Queen’s decision-making at this point. Her actions and inactions are damaging the crown.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red.
We can certainly wish for it but I have a feeling it isn’t going to happen.
Why is his face so very red? The two of them next to each other is quite a contrast.
Because she’s still wearing make up. He does not wear make up. I have a similar complexion – and the older you get the worse the red gets.
It could be very hot , sitting on a raised dais, in a room full of people, in a full uniform. His hands are pink too, which makes me think he’s sweltering but too much of a stiff-upper-lip professional to let it show.
The queen might not be as affected due to her age; I had an older relative could weather an overly-hot room like a champ because his circulation wasn’t the greatest. He just didn’t heat up.
George IV was the regent for the George III when he lost his sanity. There have been other regents throughout British history…
Elizabeth is sane, but let’s be honest-is it realistic for a 93 year old, however extraordinary, to carry the duties of a reigning monarch?
A regency would solve the verboten abdication issue and would also solve the issue of the Queen’s slowly budding negligence.
It is time for Charles to rule.
At this rate Charles will be Regent for the Queen and very soon after Billy will be Regent for Charles. Time to put a retirement clause in that ordained by God contract….
They’ve already been doing this for a while. This has been the plan for a few years, I thought. Charles is more or less Regent already. Her Maj will never step down. It goes against the whole idea of the monarchy as divine right.
The Windsors aren’t making much of a case for ‘divine right’ anymore, and I don’t think people buy it anymore either. Too much of their dirty laundry being aired out for all to see, but the Queen is so out of touch at this point that she still believes they are beyond reproach.
I’d rather have Charles properly in charge. She can’t change or see how dangerous this all is for their future existence.
The church ride with Andrew is all the proof needed to show she is no longer equipped to head the monarchy.
Prince Charles looks like a stuffed dummy sitting on the throne, especially in the second pic (resting Tussaud). I don’t see why it’s so urgent for Charles to take over now. She’s been reigning for almost sixty years! Just a PR move, of course.
More concerning is the severe rosacea on his face, one of the most severe cases I’ve ever seen. That is caused by very low stomach acid. That needs to be treated. Low stomach acid can lead to so many health problems!
It is terrible.
I always thought it was an alkie tan. I get the impression he and Camilla do like their drinkie-poos.
I don’t know where you got the idea that it’s caused by low stomach acid from but there are many potential causes of Rosacea, including stress and blood pressure.
I came here to say the same thing. His skin looks AWFUL!!
double post.
I have rosacea and believe me it is not due to low stomach acid.
@ Audrey – why do you think they chose that photo. 😆
It’s extremely florid. My Dad suffers from myriad skin issues like rosacea and they are very treatment resistent.
Dermatosic by Valmont. The Holy Grail for Rosacea in my book. Any of you ladies or gents suffering from it, see if you can find a place that sells Valmont skin products and try the tester of this stuff. One pump, put it on your nose and cheeks and check yourself in the mirror 30 minutes later. Or see if they have little sample tubes and get a couple to test it out. I hope that if any of you do try it, it will be as much as a life-saver for you as it was for me. Magic stuff, and you don’t need to use a lot of it.
It’s truly painful to look at him.
his hands are always very red and look swollen, too
We go through this every few months. That old bag is going to hold onto her power with all the strength she has until she finally kicks it.
I think it’s strange to talk about her turning 95 as if it’s an inevitability. Yes, her mother lived past 100, but that doesn’t prove that Elizabeth is actually a part of a bloodline anointed by God who can will herself to live as long as she wants. If she’s ever going to abdicate or create some sort of dual monarchy (not that it worked well for Henry II), she should do it sooner rather than later.
Maybe they could all retire in the country and get real jobs. How about that?
hahaha +1,000,000
Lol – I would love to see this lot at the local job centre talking about their ‘transferable skills’. HILARIOUS.
Oh for the days of the Spitting Image puppet show. My links never get through, but you can find this clip on YouTube
Spitting Image: Royal Family lose fortune in recession & move to council flat
She’s not going to retire and Charles’ not going to be reagent unless there’s a case of cognitive decline. Remember that the monarch has no power outside of cutting ribbons, everything they do with regards to governance is ceremonial. So yeah, a 90-something can do it. She’s going to die, sonner rather than later at this point and Charles will takeover when that happens. With a bit of luck (and a public push), he’ll be the last King. As Canadian, I’m certainly done with having Governors and all that useless pomp
Why does Charles always look SO red in the face? Alcohol? It’s really shocking.
It’s most likely something in the likes of rosacea. Skin conditions can affect anyone, royals included
See above, it is often caused by low stomach acid. His case is severe.
Rosacea is not ‘often caused by low stomach acid’, unless you have secret studies that say, the Mayo Clinic hadn’t seen
I’ve never seen anything that alludes to a drinking problem on Charles’s part. He may just have a derm condition. From all reports he is in very good health for his age.
Yeah, no, it’s not low stomach acid (the stomach is acid, otherwise, you couldn’t digest), rosacea is a multifactor conditions that has an inflammatory aspect to it (thus the dilated veins), genetics play a part. It’s nothing to be afraid or ashamed of and it has nothing to do with alcoholism, it’s just dilated vessels and it gives you a red face
It is low stomach acid, trust me. Not enough stomach acid causes a multitude of health issues, Google it. And acid-blockers make it worse. I have it myself, just not to that degree. It has everything to do with digestion and I was told by a doctor.
https://www.organicolivia.com/2015/03/are-your-symptoms-related-to-low-stomach-acid-the-truth-about-heartburn-acid-reflux-and-indigestion/
https://www.bookdepository.com/Why-Stomach-Acid-Is-Good-for-You-Jonathan-V-Wright/9780871319319
I also once worked with a girl that had rosacea chronically and she later died of stomach cancer, and they never linked the two conditions. Stomach cancer can result from low stomach acid. Ask a qualified naturopath and Google. It’s true. People have also had surgery to sever their stomach production glands, curing their heartburn, sure. But worsening their health severely because you desperately need your stomach acid. And … developed horrid cases of rosacea, like Charles. Google is your friend.
kelleybelle, sorry but you are talking rubbish. I have rosacea and at times have suffered from acid reflux. Show me one link to a real site confirming your view – you know like the NHS.
Finally I have been put on a long course of antibiotics which has for now cleared the rosacea beautifully and nothing to do with stomach acid, low or not.
@ kelly a qualified naturopath and Google??????????????? Every question has 1m different answers on google.
A “qualified naturopath?” HAHAHAHAHA! OMG I can’t stop laughing. What is it like to believe everything you read? How about you ask a real doctor. Medical schools, and the folks who study hard and graduate from them, are your friend.
I mean, I’ve studied biology, I work in immunology and inflammation and my bro’s a MD but sure, I’ll trust Google over peer-reviewed papers 🤷♀️
Loubie. Agree that the low acid theory is bunk. Those who think it is should have a look at a reputable source such as Mayo Clinic. Who’s the ‘naturopath’ accredited with? Give me a break. Incredible how gullible some folks are. Drinking alcohol can be a trigger for some folks with rosacea however you cannot assume that some has rosacea because they drink alcohol. SMDH
@Kellybelle and Madi: He’s not an alcoholic for God’s sake. He has rosacea. Furthermore it’s not caused by low stomach acid, there are a myriad of causes including side effects of high blood pressure medication. And what the hell are stomach production glands?! Methinks you’re getting your medical knowledge from the fairies.
I semi-agree that she is damaging the crown, but I really think it is more that awareness is spreading because the monarchy has outlived its usefulness. In these times, it’s easier to see all the ways it is unnecessary and/or harmful.
Agree with this. I think the way the British Royal Family views and conducts themselves is different from the other European monarchies. I think the other monarchies and adjusted and grown with the times (as much as a monarchy can!), while these guys are stuck in the colonial past.
I have a legit question as a non Brit who only cares for the Royals on the surface for the charade of it all – what do they actually DO for the country? Do they have any legit power? When was the last they were able to make actual political decisions? It seems silly to care who the Queen/King is when they don’t actually have a say in any country matters.
The usual reply is “they are great for tourism” – which is hilarious BS, propagated by people who have no idea how tourism actually works (and probably don’t go abroad much themselves). NOBODY goes to Britain to “see” the monarch or the “royal” family. Their palaces – yes; but those were built by monarchs who have been dead for centuries.
They are the ultimate Reality Family and as such, keep the UK in the public eye.
It’s not as if people are likely to choose the UK as a holiday destination because of it’s outstanding weather or it’s renowned gastronomic delights. They choose it because of the weight of it’s history and all of the symbols of said history, which includes Reality Family with a Crown.
^^ But France does just fine with tourism and even has the fancy castles & palaces without the royals!
@Beach Dreams: France also has a reputation for gastronomic delights and has a coastline on the Med with excellent weather for much of the year. Fashion. Wine and Champagne. Chic-ness.
The UK has fish and chips (served in newspaper no less), steak and kidney pie and beer. Summer in London lasts about a week, the rest of the time it rains.
I was just in London during the first week of December and I DID go to see all the palaces and the churches etc but I went for the actual history as opposed to the Royals. I know all about them in a reality show type of way so really just surface level. I think in terms of royals I was more excited about Versailles as opposed to Buckingham but it was also much nicer in terms of weather. It only rained one day! lol and the food was not my cup of tea 😉 but I did really enjoy myself. I wish the people were a drop nicer though.
Many folks would rather have them than for instance, a President Blair. 😆
It’s all branding. Whenever anybody says “The Queen,” you think of QEII, not the queen of Spain or Denmark or wherever. And they *are* great for tourism, or at least their palaces are. When I studied in London, Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London were always swarmed with tourists…people get excited shopping at Fortnum and Mason because it carries a royal warrant, etc. Hell, I got excited when i lived across the road from Kensington Palace and a friend of mine saw Harry buying underwear (boxers!) and socks in the Kensington High Street TK Maxx.
Plus the monarchy is used as a symbol of stability and continuity, a kind of gloss over the political turmoil within the United Kingdom. It has functioned in this way (with varying levels of success) for most of the last century. The problem now is that two crises are converging…the crisis of Brexit, and the crisis of Andrew. Brexit has created so much chaos and uncertainty, and the stakes are existential… now more than ever, the monarchy *needs* to show continuity, stability, etc as a way of convincing the world that the UK will survive its own crisis. But instead, a prince is caught out in criminal, despicable behavior and has shown no remorse, his accuser is extremely credible, compelling, and composed, there’s so much evidence he’s guilty. And still the Queen has refused to disown or repudiate him. Add to this the persecution and gaslighting of Meghan and Harry, and the long-standing problem of the Cambridges being waffling and lazy, and the monarchy looks just as fractured and ineffectual as the British government.
Queen Anne (ruled 1707- 1714; memorably portrayed by Olivia Colman in The Favourite) was the last British monarch to exercise any sort of real political power. She vetoed the Scottish Militia Bill of 1708, which was the last time any ruling monarch withheld assent to any parliamentary bill. Since then, the ruling kings and queens of Great Britain have been expensive ceremonial rubber stamps.
Thanks, that’s really what I wanted to know. So QEII never had any power? In The Crown they make it look like she has some sort of political power but it’s not 100% clear.
Hmnnn….Has anyone noticed that the Queen has been wearing less bright, more muted colors?
I’ve been wondering if Prince Charles will rule as King Charles III or if he will take another name. And if the latter, what name will it be?
Things didn’t go that well for the first two Charles as we all know but maybe he thinks third time will be the charm?
He’ll probably take another name since both Charles I and II were of the Stuart dynasty and Charles belong to another dynasty.
For years there was talk he’d take ‘George’ in honour of his grandfather. When W&K named their son George, they essentially took that option away from Charles. Now if he used George, he’d be accused of trying to trade off his grandson.
His other names are “Philip, Arthur and George”, there’s never been a King Philip of England that I am aware of & who knows if there was an actual King Arthur. So I suppose King George? Really though how many people have meaningful memory of King George VI? I don’t think it matters if Charles I and II were Stuart dynasty.
Looking toward the future of the british monarchy the future isn’t very bright with the lamebridges. I hope either Elizabeth or Charles will be the last British monarch.
I predict King William will be the last British monarch, because while the foundations are all crumbling now, the entire structure won’t actually fall until after Charles has passed. William will inherit a throne that no one believes in, and he will not have the wherewithal to imbue it with authority.
I will be shocked if the monarchy makes it to George. I think Charles is smart enough to have a last gasp, but once he’s out, I think it’s lights out. William and Kate will eventually be rich, titled, retirees in Norfolk.
Kinda blows my mind that she is still essentially the head of a couple countries (also the Queen of Canada) at her age. My great grandmother was hitting cars with zero recollection of it at 91 due to alzheimer’s. We had to put her keys in a safe place (where she could not reach) for other peoples safety. Great grandfather could not drive due to parkinsons and was begging us to hide them because he was worried she would kill someone.
Not all 90 somethings have severe health issues. My uncle is 92 and sharp as a tack plus physically fit and active. He still sails his boat at sea, cuts his own lawn, does daily RCAF exercises and walks a lot. He loves technology and is active with his ham radio plus uses his laptop (and has upgraded it himself) to keep up, email family plus he was an early adherent of Skype. I would love to see how he’d shape up the Royal Family if in charge.
My father is 98 and still watches MSNBC religiously every day. He reads incessantly and only has some minor memory issues. Cognitively he still quite good. Right now he is reading a book about Norman Lear, who is almost his age. His friend, a former heart surgeon, just turned 100 and is in excellent shape. They’ve both had major health issues in the past couple years and came through with flying colors. Everybody’s experience is different. I think the Queen is just occupationally clueless. She’s insulated and entitled, amongst other things. I think she’s sharper than many people give her credit for. That leaves the issue of character. All that said, I believe she needs to step aside sooner than later.
Charles being in charge would probably be better at this point, but he had better go carefully as he has a petulant man baby directly behind him in the line of succession and I could easily see Wills playing the same card on Charles. This family has proven in the last year that they are all a best of vipers.
If Charles authorized Jobson to write the biography, we can assume that, to a degree, he’s pushing a certain narrative that Charles wants out there. I don’t see how he can make claims of this type without losing access from the palace in response, if they weren’t true.
What makes me more curious about Jobson is how he got away with peddling that sick story about Meghan. People make a lot of noise about how Charles and Meghan get along. I don’t deny that at all. I think he cares for her deeply, and she in turn does like him and respect him a lot. But I have to wonder how Jobson could have spoken about the tiara story to the press without Charles getting on his case about it.