---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote :
Re "But the queen will not "retire." Queen of England is not a position that you can retire from. ": What about Edward VIII's abdication (1936) - after his involvement with that woman Wallis Simpson? Different. He didn't want to be king. This was more of a running away, a protest even, an attempt to live a life he desired free from responsibility and public scrutiny. The Queen has proved herself capable and willing to perform her civic duties. If she were to step down it would be a kind of retirement. Edward was doing a runner. "Not a position that you can retire from" is what they said about popes, until Benedict XVI threw in the towel. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : I think it's long been an open secret that Prince William rather than Prince Charles will succeed to the throne. I don't think Charles wants to be king, and it would be much more exciting for everyone involved to have a younger man. Charles is already 67 or 68, I believe. But the queen will not "retire." Queen of England is not a position that you can retire from. No one except Edward VIII in 1936 has done it—and for an American divorcee, of all people! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : She looks fairly healthy for a woman in her 90s. She could outlive Prince Charles with her longevity and deny him the kingship. And would Prince William get the crown instead if she decides to retire? http://news.yahoo.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-set-become-longest-reigning-uk-071442845.html http://news.yahoo.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-set-become-longest-reigning-uk-071442845.html
