* Queen to become UK's longest-reigning monarch next month
* Friends, aides say no chance she will abdicate
* Other European monarchs have stepped down recently
By Michael Holden
LONDON, Aug 19 (Reuters) - After 63 years on the throne,
Queen Elizabeth next month becomes Britain's longest-ruling
monarch but there is little prospect of her stepping aside, as
other ageing European crowned heads have done, in favour of her
son, Charles.
Those close to Elizabeth - who on Sept. 9 takes the
long-service record from her great-great-grandmother Queen
Victoria - say the 89-year-old has no intention of succumbing to
the European fashion for abdication.
That means Prince Charles, 66, already a record-holder
himself as Britain's longest-serving heir apparent, will have to
wait longer still until he becomes king.
"I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be
long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service
of our great imperial family," Elizabeth said in a 21st birthday
broadcast to the nation in 1947.
The milestone of overtaking Victoria has already prompted
speculation as to whether Elizabeth might step aside.
When asked if abdication were a possibility, a senior palace
source told Reuters: "Life means life."
The religious overtones to a British coronation are deeply
symbolic for Elizabeth, who as queen is Supreme Governor of the
Church of England.
"The queen won't abdicate, she must not abdicate, there's
absolutely no reason for her to abdicate and indeed
constitutionally and religiously she cannot abdicate: she is an
anointed queen," royal historian Hugo Vickers told Reuters.
Margaret Rhodes, the queen's cousin and a friend since
childhood, believes she will never break her commitment to the
nation.
"The vows that she made on coronation day are something so
deep and so special that she would not consider not continuing
to fulfil those vows until the day she dies," Rhodes told the
BBC in 2006.
The abdication in 1936 of the queen's uncle Edward VIII -
for reasons of love rather than old age - proved traumatic
enough, plunging the monarchy into a constitutional crisis that
put her reluctant father on the throne.
In the Netherlands and Spain, long-standing monarchs have in
recent years given up their thrones saying they needed to pass
on the mantle to a younger generation.
"LIFE MEANS LIFE"
The Dutch Queen Beatrix announced shortly before her 75th
birthday in January 2013 that she would abdicate in favour of
her son Willem-Alexander.
"I am not stepping down because the tasks of the function
are too great, but out of the conviction that the
responsibilities of our country should be passed on to a new
generation," she said.
In June last year, Spain's once popular King Juan Carlos
abdicated at the age of 76 in favour of his son Felipe after a
series of corruption scandals in the royal family.
"A new generation is quite rightly demanding to take the
lead role," he said.
In Britain, though, there is little demand for Elizabeth to
go, nor any clamour for Charles to be king.
If anything, the opposite may be true.
Charles, who has been groomed from birth to one day be king,
is less popular than his mother: In a poll in April, 53 percent
said they liked him compared to 77 percent who liked the Queen.
Only 19 percent of Britons wanted a republic, compared to 70
percent who supported the monarchy.
Even keen republicans such as Labour member of parliament
Paul Flynn say the monarchy is safe while Elizabeth remains on
the throne but question its future under Charles.
"This one, I've come to terms with, it will be delayed for
little while. It is questionable whether the most likely end of
the monarchy will come with Charles," Flynn told Reuters.
KING CHARLES?
In contrast to the strict political neutrality observed by
Elizabeth, Charles has spoken out about issues from the
destruction of historical buildings to organic farming and
Vladimir Putin's annexation of Ukraine.
Critics said letters Charles had written to ministers, some
of which were published in May against the wishes of the
government and royal family, showed a desire to meddle in
everything from the supply of equipment for British troops
fighting in Iraq to the fate of the Patagonian Toothfish.
Supporters said the letters showed Charles was speaking up
on issues Britons cared about.
Professor Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of
Commonwealth Studies and an expert on the monarchy, said
Charles's view of himself as a "spokesperson for the common man"
was dangerous.
"The public may not tolerate that for very long and
certainly political leaders might not," he told Reuters.
Some commentators have suggested that only serious illness
could prompt Elizabeth to hand over to Charles, particularly if
she were to lose her 94-year-old husband Prince Philip, although
even then a regency is thought more likely.
"I don't think abdication is entirely off the cards," royal
biographer Robert Lacey told Reuters.
SKIP A GENERATION?
Some, like Flynn, suggest on the death of the queen there
should not only be a referendum on the monarchy but also on
whether the crown should pass to Charles's son Prince William,
who is 33.
"I think it would be a popular choice to have a referendum
on skipping a generation," said Flynn who dismissed the current
system for head of state as "first past the bed post".
Prince William and Prince Harry, the children of Charles and
Princess Diana, his first wife who died in a Paris car crash in
1997, are the most popular members of the family, liked by 79
percent of the British public.
Murphy said for many Britons, there were plenty of more
pressing concerns than reform of the monarchy.
"There's a sense of if it ain't broke, don't fix it," he
said.
As it stands, republicans or those wanting constitutional
change, will have a long wait. Asked in 2012 whether the queen
should abdicate or if the throne should skip a generation, Prime
Minister David Cameron replied: "I think both those things are
out of the question."