Abdications


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
NGalitzine said:
Even with ill health there would be no need for abdication, a regency could be put in place with QE2 still the reigning monarch and the POW as regent exercising the powers of the monarch.
Click to expand...


A Regency can only be put in place if the monarch is mentally incapacitated or too young. It would take a medical decision to take away the powers from the Queen and Charles would then become Regent.
 
Sigh. The attempt to hijack the thread into a "Charles should abdicate and take Camilla with him" argument has been removed.

Warren
Administrator
 
Iluvbertie said:
A Regency can only be put in place if the monarch is mentally incapacitated or too young. It would take a medical decision to take away the powers from the Queen and Charles would then become Regent.
Click to expand...

I agree, but wasn't the suggestion that her health no longer allowed her to fulfill the role. Otherwise it would just be a case of Charles and others taking on more and more of the monarchs public role and the Queen merely signing legislation as needed.
One of the elements of the British monarchy is its ability to make adaptations to work around situations when necessary.
 
With the abdication of Queen Beatrix, I'm wondering if other monarchies, that have no traditon of abdication, will start following this example.

I'm thinking maybe not the current generation of monarchs, but the next generation will start with it.
And in time it might become part of the 'modern monarchy'.
 
Grandduke Jean of Luxembourg abdicated in favour of his son, grandduke Henri.
 
God I hope not. Why do other monarchies have to change there traditions just because the Dutch do it? :whistling:
 
It's personal choice and entirely down to the monarch.
 
From reading the boards, it seems like this topic comes up from time to time, but from my observation, the DRF and Luxembourg RF seem to be the only 2 that have a tradition of abdicating. Is that so. I know King Leopold of Belgium abdicated, but I feel that was an isolated circumstance.
I guess there tends to be speculation from time to time that others will abdicate, but it seems that we only regularly see it in the Netherlands and Luxembourg?
 
I can see Henri doing the same in favor of Guillaume (20 years?). And imo it´s a good alternative, I don´t get why so many think it´s disgraceful (one even said it´s disrespectful :rolleyes: ).

Just a question: Is it right that Hans-Adam gave the official duties to his son and is just the head of the state on paper?
 
Last edited:
cdm said:
With the abdication of Queen Beatrix, I'm wondering if other monarchies, that have no traditon of abdication, will start following this example.

I'm thinking maybe not the current generation of monarchs, but the next generation will start with it.
And in time it might become part of the 'modern monarchy'.
Click to expand...

Dutch monarchs have been abdicating for a long time, and with the exception of their cousins in Luxembourg, it has never really caught on with the other families.
 
cdm said:
With the abdication of Queen Beatrix, I'm wondering if other monarchies, that have no traditon of abdication, will start following this example.

I'm thinking maybe not the current generation of monarchs, but the next generation will start with it.
And in time it might become part of the 'modern monarchy'.
Click to expand...

I think it is certainly possible that more reigning monarchs would look upon their reign as their "job," thus, might want to spend their dotage doing other things. I don't see anything wrong with it, it's just that the word "abdication" has such negative connotations since Edward VIII gave up the throne in 1936.

QBea's abdication cannot be compared to the abdication of Edward VIII.
 
I think that all the monarchies will eventually adopt the abdication as the way of transfering powers.

The old saying "The King is death, long live the King" was appropriate until 20th century, when people died young and from fatal illnesses that they could come down with while being perfectly fine.
So it wasn´t uncommon that a King who was healthy and able to fulfill his role suddenly got sick and died.

Nowadays people live very long. Who wants a King/Queen 90 or more years old? Even if he/she is still mentally capable, or physically, that´s a sad image and certainly not the way of living your last years.

And who wants princes who become kings at 60? I wish all them long, stable reigns started when they´re still young, have many proyects in mind and can leave their imprint in their country´s history. I don´t think that would be so possible if they reach the throne at an old age, being tired and just wishing to continue what has been always done.
 
:previous: Agree. I think it's time for a change.
 
ANNIE_S said:
I
Nowadays people live very long. Who wants a King/Queen 90 or more years old? Even if he/she is still mentally capable, or physically, that´s a sad image and certainly not the way of living your last years.

QUOTE]

Wow, being just a little bit agist aren't we!! Why should not a 90 year old who is mentally and physically fit carry on working, no matter if they are king, parliamentarian, school teacher or cobbler. Working probably keeps them mentally and physically fit, and frankly I think sets a damn good example that you are never too old to contribute to society.......no matter what younger people may think.
Click to expand...
 
Oh, there is nothing to hinder a 90 year old from working.

I just believe it will be healthy if a new heir takes over, before he or she gets too old.
It's in the 30's, 40's and 50's too that you have the drive, will and energy to do things differently from your predesessor.
With all due respect for the older generation, once you are past 60, the drive is vaning and your contact with the young is perhaps not that close anymore. And there is a tendency to keep doing things like they have always been done at that age. It's a natural stagnation and conservatism that comes with age.

At 40 or 45 you still have the energy to change things, to start your own little revolution and if you have children and not least teens you get an immediate and direct input from the young generation.

A society dominated or run by elderly has a tendency to be very conservative and even stagnate.
People are not getting redundant, just because younger people are taking over. In fact it might be somewhat selfish not to.

The monarchies are dependent of the public view on them. If the monarchs won't abdicate I believe it's crucial that the heirs get a much more pronounced role and have much more influence than today.
To have heirs waiting for 50, 60 or 70 years before they can put their marks on things is not beneficial for the monarchies in the future.
 
I think The Prince of Wales has shown that the heir's role can be an extraordinarily active and influential one. Charles has been able to dig in and make a difference in many segments of British society; in some ways, he's much less constrained now then he will be when he becomes monarch.
 
:previous: Agree, of course.

Most people in Europe are retired before 80 whatever their jobs are, so I don´t see what´s the problem with monarchs doing the same.

The renovation and refreshing of the institution is one advantage, another one is the paceful and calm years they get before they die. For us normal citizens I like to see that like a "reward" for all the hard years of work, and the same goes for a king.
 
I think monarchs tend to enjoy their highest popularity/affection when they are young and when they are elderly. It is in their middle age, when their own children are marrying and looking new and glamorous, that things get a bit more difficult for them as they can be overshadowed by their children.
I am quite thankful that the Dutch tradition has never really caught on. Popularity rises and sets like the sun, it is much more important to be respected and admired by the people.
 
My opinion is that The Queen will never abdicate. If feel that King Charles III will abdicate for William. He will be a great advisor ti William. Queen Beatrix will be seen as a great advisor for her son, The King. Charles will only have his mother's diaries, and she would be a great help to him. She had the benefit of having a mother understood what was expected of her as a monarch
 
ANNIE_S said:
I think that all the monarchies will eventually adopt the abdication as the way of transfering powers.

The old saying "The King is death, long live the King" was appropriate until 20th century, when people died young and from fatal illnesses that they could come down with while being perfectly fine.
So it wasn´t uncommon that a King who was healthy and able to fulfill his role suddenly got sick and died.

Nowadays people live very long. Who wants a King/Queen 90 or more years old? Even if he/she is still mentally capable, or physically, that´s a sad image and certainly not the way of living your last years.

And who wants princes who become kings at 60? I wish all them long, stable reigns started when they´re still young, have many proyects in mind and can leave their imprint in their country´s history. I don´t think that would be so possible if they reach the throne at an old age, being tired and just wishing to continue what has been always done.
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting conversation particularly for the UK and Spain . . . I think
 
I think it cheapens the whole idea of monarchy and adds an air of artificiality to the whole thing. A monarch can just as easily delegate more responsibilities to the heir (or if necessary, making the him or her regent) without totally calling it quits.

Abdications should only occur when the monarch breaches the trust of the people (illnesses can be dealt with through regencies) such as in the case of Edward VIII and Leopold III.

It will be sad if this spreads and I am hoping that HM's (soon to be HRH, unfortunately) abdication blows over quickly and people go on. It would certainly be disappointing to lose the other European monarchs and the collective wisdom they bring under artificial circumstances. (it will certainly be disappointing when it happens under "natural circumstances, but that's for another day.)
 
I would love to witness someone going up to Queen Beatrix and telling her that her decision to abdicate has cheapened the Dutch monarchy and made it artificial! There is no doubt that they would be torn off a strip!

I think it is really very important indeed to realise and understand that each monarchy has its own traditions and rules and that not all monarchies work in exactly teh same way. For instance, one cannot equate or compare the Dutch custom of abdication with the British custom of reigning for life. Each custom or system will work well for each country's individual circumstances.

The idea that somehow the system of abdication will spread (as if it should be seen as some kind of spreadable disease) shows that we do not have faith nor understanding of how monarcny works in most places and that at a whim the rules and customs can somehow be changed at any given moment!
 
BBC News is chatting abdication this morning, and most people say no when asked, however a lot of people say IF Elizabeth abdicates and Charles within the same day or week, and William was King people would accept that.

We have a Dutch Royal Correspondent on the news who explains that the word 'abdication' means something totally different in Holland than in the UK.
 
Lumutqueen said:
BBC News is chatting abdication this morning, and most people say no when asked, however a lot of people say IF Elizabeth abdicates and Charles within the same day or week, and William was King people would accept that.

We have a Dutch Royal Correspondent on the news who explains that the word 'abdication' means something totally different in Holland than in the UK.
Click to expand...
That clearly shows it's not the idea of abdication at a certain age itself which people dislike. I think in the UK the problem is the heir who is already old and not very popular and married to a woman who many don't want to see in this position. If Charles died tommorrow and William was the heir IMO many people would say: 61 years are enough, Lizzy. Take a well deserved rest. :flowers:

And I think the abdication of Edward VIII is something out of history books for most and can't at all be compared with abdication due to age after a dedicated reign.

Regarding "cheap popularity contest": The "Charles" problem again. Willem-Alexander is not more popular than his mother nor was Beatrix more popular than her mother Juliana when she took over the throne.

Btw, out of all the other monarchies I could imagine that Norway might follow the Dutch example. They seem more modern than others.
 
Last edited:
Cheap popularity contest - isn't that already in full swing, with lots of folks wanting Charles to step aside for William? Why would it not be OK for HM to abdicate, but it would be OK for Charles to do so? Sounds like a popularity contest to me.
 
To me this isn't (and it shouldn't) be a popularity contest.

I believe it would be sensible if the next generation of monarchs start to abdicate around the normal retirement age in their respective countries.

If say the current CP's, who are on average around 40-45, abdicate when they are around 75. I.e. on average about 35 years from now.
Then their heirs will be around 40-45 when they get on the throne, giving them about 35 years to reign, before they are replaced by their own children.

The considerable increased lifespan we can expect in this century, will mean that most heirs will be old before they will get on the throne. We may eventually see monarchs reign for 60-80 years on average, before they die of old age. With heirs who face the daunting prospect of not knowing whether they will have to wait most of their lives before becoming a monarch themselves. Is that healthy or beneficial?
By systematically abdicating, the heirs will ascend the throne when they are in their prime, health and energy wise and with enough maturity to cope with the job.

From a more human point of view, it would also provide a more gradual transition and the heirs will avoid the dreaded: the king is dead, long live the king tradition, where they will be monarchs alright, but at the same time have lost a parent.

Wouldn't it also be a benefit if you as a new monarch can go to your abdicated parent and ask for guidance or simply to unload?
 
Last edited:
Well this is the 4th Dutch abdication and so far the other European Kings and Queens haven't really taken to the idea. I see no reason for them to decide now to change how they look at their positions. This debate happens every time a Dutch monarch decides they want to retire, the same endless stories about how this queen or that king should step aside and let the younger generation take over, blah, blah , blah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
512
Tatiana Maria
T
iceflower
Denmark : Abdication & Accession Day - January 14, 2024
13 14 15
Replies
431
Views
89K
Somebody
Somebody
D
Hello & looking for royal ancestry biography & research book collectors
Replies
1
Views
562
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
C
Monogram help please?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Curryong
C
Janet H
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2 3
Replies
78
Views
9K
Janet H
Janet H

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom