Queen Elizabeth II has reigned for what some might consider 62 glorious years, and the time has come for the old order to give way to the new. Events in European royal circles suggest the Queen must step aside for Prince Charles.
The debate about when the Queen should step down — and indeed whether Prince Charles would ever be king — was rekindled after Spanish King Juan Carlos recently became the third European monarch in 18 months to step aside for a younger generation. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and King Albert II of Belgium set the ball rolling, and now it could be the turn of our Queen.
In a telling interview to explain why he was stepping aside, Carlos was quoted as saying, rather unkindly: “I do not want my son to wither waiting like Prince Charles.”
There is a ring of truth in Carlos’s words. At 65, Prince Charles holds the dubious record as the oldest heir to the British throne in 300 years. The Queen has shown no inclination to hand over the throne to her son, but she should, because she has nothing else to prove.
From the time Elizabeth ascended the throne as a 26-year-old, she has reigned with class and distinction. She is a much-loved figure, revered at home and abroad, and there’s none more gracious.
She doesn’t have any airs about her, and those who have met her — as I did at Windsor Castle more than 30 years ago — come away feeling good about her.
Even when controversy and scandal convulsed the House of Windsor, she remained unscathed. The Queen has seen it all and done it all, and there is no compelling reason why, at 88, she should hang on to the throne.
Some thought she would not abdicate while her mother was alive, but any hope she might do so after the Queen Mother’s death in 2002 quickly evaporated. Several reasons have been given for her reluctance to give up the throne, but the key one appears to be her belief that being Queen is a lifetime commitment to service, and as long as she remains healthy, she must carry on.
Much is made of a promise she made to her people when she was much younger, that her 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.” Her sense of duty is admirable, but it should not tie her to the throne for life.
If she were to retire today, there is no way her legacy would be diminished or her sense of duty questioned. Even a pope, Benedict XVI, abdicated when he realized he was too old and frail to perform his papal duties. The pope and the retired monarchs are no less committed to service than Elizabeth, and she should follow their example.
It is time for a younger generation, bearing in mind Prince William will never bypass his father to take the throne.
According to the experts, Elizabeth will break the record of Queen Victoria — who reigned for 63 years — in the second week of September next year and become the longest-serving monarch in British history. Some speculate that until that record is broken, Charles will not ascend the throne.
There are indications, however, that a slow and deliberate transfer of power is taking place. Charles has assumed some of the Queen’s more onerous duties, and is expected to take on more responsibilities.
Still, voices in Britain, including the likes of former Labour deputy prime minister John Prescott, are calling on the Queen to “gracefully step aside” for Charles sooner rather than later. All good things come to an end. The Queen must bow to the march of time and go out at the top of her game.
Mohammed Adam is an Ottawa
Citizen columnist.
