[twblalock]

The only recent abdication in UK history (and maybe the only voluntary one ever?) put her father and herself in line to the throne, dragged the monarchy and the rest of the UK's system of government through a major public scandal, and caused serious damage to the royal family. Because of all that, I doubt she would have considered abdicating herself.

[skissane]

That was all about the reason for that particular abdication though, not the act of abdication itself. I can't see why it would have caused any scandal or damage for the monarch to abdicate due to ill health or old age, and other European monarchs have abdicated for similar reasons without scandal.

(Spain is somewhat of an exception, but Juan Carlos' abdication was linked to corruption allegations over shady business dealings in Saudi Arabia; I very much doubt Elizabeth had any such skeletons lurking in her closets.)

[vintermann]

> I very much doubt Elizabeth had any such skeletons lurking in her closets.

Her son and heir has literally been accepting suitcases full of cash from middle east despots (nominally for his charity), and her other son was up to his neck in Epstein's dealings. I wouldn't be so sure.

[rdsnsca]

So just like many American politicians.

[concinds]

The idea is that another abdication, even if it wasn't driven by an underlying scandal, would have sowed a perception of instability in people's minds, associated the concept of "Royal Family" with chaos or drama, and might have led to the fall of British Monarchy. I genuinely think she didn't feel like that was even an option.

[skissane]

The Dutch monarchy has seen two abdications in recent decades (Juliana in 1980 and Beatrix in 2013), and I'm not aware it has caused any damage to the institution. I think they've even come to expect it – King Willem-Alexander is 55 now, both his mother and grandmother abdicated in their 70s, it seems likely in another 15–20 years he will follow their example, and pass the throne to Catharina-Amalia (who is only 18 now, but will be in her 30s by then).

So, if the Dutch monarchy can survive it, why not the British? I think you are probably right about her own attitudes to the topic, likely irreversibly marked by the events of 1936. But I'd be surprised if the same is true of her son or grandson.

[concinds]

Completely different. The risk with the British Royalty is that the Queen is Queen of many Kingdoms. While England may still be pro-monarchy, some of these kingdoms and territories are more split down the middle. You only need one to switch, and proclaim itself a Republic, and that would severely increase the risk of more proclamations, in a domino effect. Domestically you'd have comparisons to the fall of the British Empire, and opinion may shift more against royalty domestically as a result.

Note that this scenario may still happen, but she was extremely lucid to realize its salience:

https://time.com/6212004/queen-elizabeth-republicanism-anti-...

[vintermann]

> dragged the monarchy and the rest of the UK's system of government through a major public scandal, and caused serious damage to the royal family.

The damage in both cases were mainly to their pride. If that was all she risked, I'm not impressed. Her uncle Edward was a literal Nazi, and yet even he was willing to give up power to marry the woman he loved.

But it could of course be that she risked more than that. What keeps elderly rulers clinging to power is often the knowledge that they and their close ones has done some very bad things, and that the descent may not be so graceful if they let go willingly.