Abdications

[CyrilVladisla]

The farewell address of Queen Beatrix on the eve of her abdication
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmIP0yLP7Vg

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Napoleon I agreed to abdicate in favor of his son. Talleyrand protested that Napoleon's proposal would necessarily entail a regency. So, on April 14, 1814, Napoleon abdicated without this condition.

 

[Mbruno]

Well anyway, it's nice to know that if a British monarch wishes to abdicate it can be done without any fuss and in a straightforward manner.

On the contrary. A living British monarch cannot be replaced by another King or Queen unless an amendment to the Act of Settlement is passed and, because of the shared Crown, that may require legislation not only in the UK, but in other Commonwealth realms too.

The last time the succession law was changed, it took about two years for the Succession to the Crown Act to come into force because of delays in the legislative process in some realms. The process would probably be expedited in the case of an abdication, but we can’t know for sure.

 

[Mbruno]

IT does take a lot of co-ordination (rather than "fuss") but when necessary it can happen really fast (ie Edward VIII)

There were fewer Commonwealth realms back then and some of them, most notably Australia and New Zealand, had not adopted the Statute of Westminster yet, so no action was required on their part.

Again, if we use the Succession to the Crown Act as the most recent precedent, most of the delay was actually caused by Australia , where each state had to pass legislation authorizing the federal parliament to amend the Act of Settlement on their behalf. There is a very detailed timeline in the Wikipedia article on the Perth agreement.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Was it necessary that King Constantine I of Greece had to abdicate in 1917?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Was it necessary that King Constantine I of Greece had to abdicate in 1917?

Seeing the tumbling thrones in Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany, etc. by hindsight the abdication of Constantine I was a wise move. The same can be said about the abdication of Grand-Duchess Marie Adelheid of Luxembourg in 1919, which was just on time to save the monarchy.


An abdication (apart from the ones because the monarch him- or herself wants to retreat, like Charles V in 1555, or like Beatrix in 2013) always has a reason. Usually it is a result of a conclusion sinking in that a monarch does not have sufficient support anymore. This was the case with Constantine I and Marie Adelheid, amongst others.

 

[An Ard Ri]

And he was reinstated as king a few years later and abdicated again in 1922.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

And he was reinstated as king a few years later and abdicated again in 1922.

Yes, That is what is hard to understand. First, Constantine I is King. He abdicates. He is King again. Did the Greek Parliament have difficulty working with the monarch?

 

[An Ard Ri]

It was a very turbulent era in Greek history following the assassination of king George in 1913 .

 

[Denville]

THer is a lot of information on Wikipedia about Constantine's reign.. and how his dsiputes with the Prime Minister and the problems of the wars in the Balkans and WWI affected his tenure of the throne...

 

[Somebody]

Abdication (or not?)

I wanted to respond to the post below in the topic of CG and Silvia but as it relates to a general discussion pertaining to all royal houses, it made more sense to start a separate topic over here.

I hope this topic won't turn in to repeating discussions that certain monarchs will never abdicate (I am fully aware of that - and for some of them that is a deep held belief, so they should live by that) but hope it can focus on questions such as whether abdication is good for a monarchy or not; and what needs to be taken into account etc.

Unfortunately, this will be a common problem, as a lot of the senior European royals are over 70: QE2, Charles, Camilla, Queen Margarethe, Harald and Sonja, CG and Silvia.

Maybe this will in the end be factored in in decisions about abdication because only the countries that don't practice abdication have this problem: the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain are all fine. Their Sovereigns can continue their duties as 'ordinary citizens' (so, while applying the same rules as other adults).

While 65 might be a bit young for a monarch to retire, about 75 (this is also the retirement age for bishops in the Roman Catholic Church if I am not mistaken) seems to be an appropriate age. Most monarchs will be able to perform their duties relatively easily until that time; and, importantly (from my perspective), that will mean that the next monarch will probably be around 45 when he/she starts (assuming that the eldest child is born around the age of 30) - which to me seems quite ideal as well.

So, if I could write a recommendation for the royal houses (in this day and age when people, including monarchs, get older than in previous generations), it would be that they abdicate when they are in their 70's (75 sounds about right but if their health is frail they might decide to abdicate slightly earlier; or if the next generation needs a little more time because of young children it could be postponed with a few years); with the aim of having the next generation take over when they are in their 40s. That should give the next monarch sufficient time to prepare for the role while they are also still young enough to not be 'waiting forever' to take over but are in their peak years of being able to carry the 'responsibility'.

What do you think?

 

[Nice Nofret]

I'm totaly with you - but as with a lot of theories, the reality is often diffrent.

 

[Durham]

I understand why many modern monarchs have abdicated. It is a practical solution to the issues of aging & handing on responsibilities to a younger generation when the time is felt to be appropriate. It is in short efficient planning. 45-75 sounds like a very good idea.

However I hope firmly that this practise does not become part of the British monarchy. I attach a sermon from the Bishop of St Albans in which he talks about the importance of the religious service of the coronation. About the monarch being set aside for the rest of their life. About the crucial nature of anointing. About the deep symbolism of the ring.

The British (really English) monarchy is sacerdotal. If the British monarchy becomes one that abdicates then it will have to do away with the coronation service otherwise it would make no sense.

In addition the solemn nature of the ceremonies surrounding the death of the monarch would be replaced with something very different. The spectacle of the demise of the crown in all its awesome majesty would be lost. It is solemn high drama. It quietens a people.

https://www.stalbans.anglican.org/w...ons and speeches/BStAcoronationsermon2013.pdf

 

[xenobia]

I'm convinced that Carl Gustav will abdicate in favour of Victoria. Not this year, but eventually. Within the next decade, perhaps?

The queen (and king) has talked very much about how hard it was to travel so much when the kids were younger. Madeleine has also spoken openly about this from a childs perspective. Estelle is now 8, Oscar is 4. But in 10 years from now, they will be 18 and 14, and they don't need their parents at home in the same way. And the king will be 84. We'll see what happens, but I think an abdication is in the cards here.

 

[Somebody]

I understand why many modern monarchs have abdicated. It is a practical solution to the issues of aging & handing on responsibilities to a younger generation when the time is felt to be appropriate. It is in short efficient planning. 45-75 sounds like a very good idea.

However I hope firmly that this practise does not become part of the British monarchy. I attach a sermon from the Bishop of St Albans in which he talks about the importance of the religious service of the coronation. About the monarch being set aside for the rest of their life. About the crucial nature of anointing. About the deep symbolism of the ring.

The British (really English) monarchy is sacerdotal. If the British monarchy becomes one that abdicates then it will have to do away with the coronation service otherwise it would make no sense.

In addition the solemn nature of the ceremonies surrounding the death of the monarch would be replaced with something very different. The spectacle of the demise of the crown in all its awesome majesty would be lost. It is solemn high drama. It quietens a people.

https://www.stalbans.anglican.org/w...ons and speeches/BStAcoronationsermon2013.pdf

That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it. My main qualms are that at least queen Elizabeth believes the above with her whole heart (she was the one I was thinking about when I wrote that she should certainly live by her beliefs and not abdicate). I am not so sure about Charles (he might or might not) and I am quite convinced that William does not share this same view - if only because of his personal religious beliefs.

Moreover, I don't think it necessarily shows greater 'responsibility' to carry on compared to handing over; the latter might in some cases be the more 'responsible' behavior. For example, there was no way queen Juliana could have continued serving with dementia - I know, there is the 'regency' solution but that seems just a way to 'not abdicate' instead of do what is best).

However, in my view, it does matter how life after abdication is lived; still serving the country (but in a different capacity) - for example, that's what princess Beatrix and queen Sofia seem to be doing and what grand duke Jean did until his last days - or focusing (solely) on your own pleasures (king Albert, queen Paola and king Juan Carlos come to mind).

 

[Durham]

I agree with all of that.

Moreover, in truth the British monarch does not need to have a coronation. An enthronement ceremony would be a perfectly dignified alternative. I enjoyed watching that of HM The King of the Netherlands. Very regal & stately.

It's just that you can't have coronation services for monarchs who it is known will eventually abdicate as a matter of course. They are literally set aside for life during the anointing, hallowed in fact. It is not something that can be undone & it makes no sense to have more than one person living who has undergone the same process.

 

[Muhler]

In absolute agreement.

Royals are in their prime from around 40-65.
That's when they have the experience, the maturity, the energy and are still open to implementing reforms.
And it's also where they have the widest public appeal.
They are young enough to be relatable for the younger, and old enough to be relatable for the older.

Apart from that people live longer nowadays and in the future.
The current generation of young monarch and heirs can expect to live will into the 90.
Their children born in this millennium can expect to live past 100.

We may end up in the grotesque situation that the average age for heirs to sit on the throne is well past 70.
And that means we either have to reinvent the whole concept of the roles of the various royals or introduce a retirement age.
I.e. The King has retired, long live the King.

Just because there isn't a tradition for abdications or it has never been done before, it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Everything has to be done for the first time.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Had there not been the Noos Scandal in Spain, King Juan Carlos would probably not have abdicated in 2014 and could possibly still be king or have reigned a little longer though his general popularity was on the wane.

His wife is still however undertaking duties post abdication on a reduced scale and enjoys high popularity.

 

[Somebody]

That's why I like the word 'emeritus/emerita' (as is used for Juan Carlos and Sofia in Spain and apparently a somewhat similar word is used in Japan as well) - a word that is also used for religious leaders 'retiring' and for (full) professors at university. Their responsibility doesn't end when they 'retire' (in Dutch: 'go with emeritate' in these specific case - all others retire) but it's no longer there 'day-to-day' job.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Its quite common here in Ireland to have an archbishop emeritus, bishop emeritus after they reach the age of 75 ,the current Archbishop of Dublin has reached that milestone and has tendered his resignation to Vatican.

 

[Durham]

Looks like I'm the die hard traditionalist here

The king is dead long live the king!

 

[An Ard Ri]

From memory I an only think of two Swedish Monarchs who abdicated ,there possibly are more.

Christina, Queen of Sweden
Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden

 

[xenobia]

From memory I an only think of two Swedish Monarchs who abdicated ,there possibly are more.

Christina, Queen of Sweden
Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden

The latter one didn't really abdicate volountarily.
But Queen Ulrika Eleonora abdicated in favour of her husband, Fredrik I.

I still think that Carl Gustaf will abdicate in a decade or so. Just a feeling. We'll see what happens.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The latter one didn't really abdicate volountarily.
But Queen Ulrika Eleonora abdicated in favour of her husband, Fredrik I.

I've never quite understood the abdication of Queen Ulrika Eleonora in favour of her husband.

Was he in the Line of Succession to the Swedish throne?

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

I still think that Carl Gustaf will abdicate in a decade or so. Just a feeling. We'll see what happens.

CG has stated multiple times that he is not going to abdicate. Of course he might change his mind but I doubt that. And there hardly is any reason to abdicate anyway. One reason why he is relucant do that probably is that CG and Silvia want give Victoria more time to be with her children what her wouldn't has if she would be queen. CG was already king when Victoria was born and it caused such thing that the king couldn't see his children so often as he might had wanted.

 

[Durham]

That's interesting to hear about the King of Sweden. I wonder whether abdication is seen in such a negative light as it is in the UK.

In Scotland/England abdication has a negative history & not just because of Edward VIII of course. The other three abdicates (Richard II, Mary Stuart, James I/VII) were all forced off their thrones so abdication is associated with usurpation, revolt & revolution. In short it is linked with disorder & chaos or at the very least, in the case of James, with a not inconsiderable section of the population left feeling aggrieved & disloyal.

These three were also linked by the idea that there were not effective monarchs. So abdication also carries a taint of inferior kingship, the suggestion that only really inadequate monarchs abdicate.

Even in culture we have Shakespear's King Lear & the trauma & confusion that follows his abdication. Continuing with Shakespeare the Earl of Essex had watched a production of Richard ii before his ill fated revolt. Elizabeth was getting old some thought, maybe she should be "encouraged" to step aside for someone younger.

In everyday language we have the phrase "to abdicate one's responsibility". It is deserting or abandoning your obligations or commitments.

I wonder what other realms have such negative histories of, & cultural aversion to, abdication?

 

[An Ard Ri]

I wonder what other realms have such negative histories of, & cultural aversion to, abdication?

There were no abdications in France until after the French Revolution.

In the 19th Century
Charles X : in August 1830
Louis Philippe: I in February 1848
Napoleon III : in September 1870

 

[Durham]

There were no abdications in France until after the French Revolution.

In the 19th Century
Charles X : in August 1830
Louis Philippe: I in February 1848
Napoleon III : in September 1870

And all of those non voluntary with the last following defeat in war (then exile) like Kaiser Wilhelm II.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Indeed and Louis XVIII went down in history as the last French monarch to die while still reigning!

 

[victoriaalix]

Speaking of abdications, what's the chance that Prince Charles would abdicate in favour of his son, William?

In the British Royal Family fandom, there's been a debate over that considering that the Queen might get to live for another five years and by the time Prince Charles would ascend to the throne, he'd be way older than he already is.