What’s good for one queen is not good for another. As soon
as Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands announced that she will abdicate in favor
of her son on April 30, 2013, people began speculating (again) about whether
Queen Elizabeth II would ever “retire” in the same fashion. I’ve some
well-informed discussions (like this one on
Marilyn’s Royal Blog) on the topic, but the bottom line is that it simply will
never happen in Elizabeth’s reign or in the reign of her son, Charles.
The Dutch Difference
The throne in The Netherlands has always had a much more
democratic tradition. Until 200 years ago, there was no monarch; the Dutch
nations were led by stadtholders, quasi-elected officials albeit usually
selected from the same families through the generations. However, it was not at
all unusual for the Low Countries to rebel against and replace their leaders if
they were unhappy with them. (This tradition is undoubtedly one reason Dutch
Prince William was just fine with a de jure takeover of the British throne from
his father-in-law King James II in 1688.) In the 17th Century, one
of these stadtholders, William of Orange, emerged as the most powerful and it
was his line that eventually regained control after Napolean’s brother, his
puppet King of Holland, was removed. Only then, in 1815, did a Prince of Orange
proclaim himself King of the Netherlands. Even then, however, the kingdom was
established as a constitutional monarchy.
 |
| Wilhelmina and Juliana |
Within a few generations, the dynasty ran out of male heirs
and his ten-year-old great-granddaughter Wilhelmina became the first Dutch
queen. It was she who set the precedent for regal retirement when she stepped
down after shepherding her people through two World Wars and nearly 58 years on
the throne. Her decision was based
largely on the stress of ruling in exile during the second war and sharp
decline in her health, which had led two brief regencies. Her only child,
39-year-old Juliana therefore became queen in 1948. Wilhelmina lived another 14
years.
Queen Juliana became the personification of the “bicycle
monarchies” of Europe. She regularly appeared among the public dressed like an ordinary
person, riding her bicycle and insisting on being addressed as “Mevrouw” (Dutch
for “Mrs.”) rather than “Your Majesty.” It was not at all for the queen to just
pop in without ringing first to schools and organizations around the country.
After almost 32 years as queen, she stepped down on her 71st
birthday, April 30, 1980. Over the next two decades, Juliana began to sink into
dementia and ill health. She passed away in 2004 just before her 95th
birthday.
The oldest of her four daughters became Queen Beatrix in
1980 at age 42. At 75, Beatrix has chosen to reign to a later age than her
mother and grandmother. Based on their lives, she could easily live another 10
to 20 years. Unlike her grandmother, she had time to enjoy being a child, a
wife, and a mother before becoming queen. By waiting until now, she has enabled
her heir to see his three little girls at least reach school age. But, the
decision also means that the new heir to the throne will be a 10-year-old girl,
Princess Catharina Amalia—a parallel to Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II who
suddenly became the heir when she also was only 10, as pointed out in this post on Royal Musings.
In keeping with the more democratic style of the Dutch
monarchy, they also do not crown their monarchs in an elaborate and deeply
religious ceremony. In fact, they do not crown them at all—Dutch monarchs are
inaugurated.
The British Tradition
 |
| Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip after her holy consecration as Queen in 1953 |
The British monarchy is steeped in much more ancient and
sacred traditions. Even if you reach back only 1,000 years to mark the “beginning”
as the Norman Conquest, after which King William I was anointed with holy oil
on Christmas Day in 1066, you have gone many times further back in history than
the Dutch crown. Over the centuries, British monarchs in both England and
Scotland and then the united Great Britain, have been selected by strict
(although sometimes revised) dynastic rules or by military conquest, but only
once by anything approaching popular decision (the aforementioned Glorious
Revolution by William of Orange and his Stuart wife Mary in 1688)—and that led
to another century of warfare between William and Mary’s Protestant successors
and Catholic claimants to the throne. The turbulent late medieval and
Renaissance crown was often characterized by competing dynastic claims and
religious strife. The close identification between the person of the monarch
and his/her role as head of the Church of England was firmly established nearly
five centuries ago by Henry VIII. All monarchs since then, except Edward VIII,
have not only been anointed in a holy right and taken kingly vows before God
but has been the official supreme leader of the Anglican church.
This long-established religious aspect of the British crown
is one of the strongest reasons the deeply faithful and observant Elizabeth
would never willingly step down as monarch. She would see it as breaking a
promise she made to God.
Elizabeth also would see it as breaking a promise she made
to the people of the United Kingdom and its old Empire, a vow she made
voluntarily on her 21st birthday when she announced that her “whole
life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great
imperial family.” The fact that it has been long, then, really has no bearing
on her willingness to continue to fulfill her sacred trust. Based on her own
mother’s life, she could live in relatively good health to be more than 100
years old. Even if she were develop serious illness, including dementia, it is
unlikely that anyone would require her to abdicate. Britain already has the
example of the relatively long regency of mad King George III’s son that could
be employed if the Queen really could not continue her duties.
 |
| Elizabeth's parents |
While the David’s brief reign as
King Edward VIII in 1936 is merely a historical footnote to nearly everyone else
on the planet it is an indelible scar on the heart of Elizabeth. His decision
to pursue his personal desires over his royal duties caused his 10-year-old
niece, who had so recently lost her beloved grandfather King George VI, to be
torn from her cozy family home in a London townhouse to the drafty, discomfort
of Buckingham Palace. It drastically reduced her time with her beloved and
doting parents. And, perhaps most importantly, it created deep bitterness in
her mother that was undoubtedly communicated to her Elizabeth. When the strain
of being king, especially through World War II, seriously weakened the health
of King George VI and contributed to his early death, Elizabeth’s mother was
lost and angry for many, many years. All of this made a huge impression on
Elizabeth: to not do one’s duty, in her mind, has serious and far-reaching
consequences.
_2.jpg) |
| William and Kate on their wedding day |
Plus, arguments that Charles will be too old to be
king likely make little sense to her. After all, her great-grandfather waited
60+ years to be king, too. And, as Edward VII, he was a much better king than
he was a Prince of Wales. Plus, the longer she reigns, the longer her beloved,
motherless grandson William can enjoy the less demanding status of
second-in-line instead of heir. It was for William and Harry’s sake that she
miscalculated the public’s anger against her in 1997. She thought to protect
them in the obscurity of the Scottish royal estate instead of expose them to
the paroxysms of grief that were choking London. If she thinks keeping William
#2 will enable him to enjoy more time with Kate and their growing little
family, that alone might be reason enough to stay on the throne until her very,
last breath.
