It is said that the Queen was 100% against the idea of monarchs retiring. I suppose that harks back to the abdication crisis, but also undermines the concept of royalty altogether.
If the Queen had retired, there might have been a little opportunity for a national conversation about what comes next. As it is, it would be seen as disrespectful to question the succession. The Queen is dead; Long live the King.
As for people preferring William to his father - I think if you give an inch to the notion that the public should have some choice over their head of state then the idea of a hereditary monarchy starts to look pretty absurd.
Reminds me of when when the rules of succession where changed so that the first-born child would inherit the title (rather than the first-born son). Any attempt to reconcile the monarchy with the concept of equality seems a kinda humourous to me.
Early on, the Swedish king was elected at the Stones of Mora. The Holy Roman Emperor was nominally elected by prince-electors (who most of the time elected a Habsburg).
And even withing a hereditary framework, there are other alternatives to retirement in addition to outright abdication. An elderly monarch could for all intents and purposes retire and a let the crown prince (and I suppose in current British succession order, crown princess) rule, appointing them as a co-ruler.
The biggest problem with this is that with modern medicine and the world class treatment the head of state receives, you are destined to end up with geriatric heads of state. For example, it would be unlikely to have a 40 year old King or Queen. Maybe that's okay, but there's something nice about the idea of a monarch starting their rule at a relatively young adult age.
