Abdications

[Jacknch]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

If you abdicate in favor or a younger person (40-45), you end up with young children of the monarch who take 2nd or 3rd place after their parents’ duties. Princess Anne and Prince Charles both talked about being overlooked during their mother’s early years as Queen.

People are marrying later & having children in their 30's & 40's so small children of the King and Queen may look cute but behind the scene the kids might not be getting the attention they deserve.

I can see what you are saying, but I don't really agree completely with it. I can't imagine the Princess of Orange or her sisters will ever feel overlooked, not with the fantastic and dedicated parents they have. Nor, I imagine, would William & Harry have felt like that had Charles come to the throne when they were young.
With regard to Charles and Anne's childhood, I would put that down more to do with the British way of doing things in those days. Royal life in the 30s, 40s and 50s certainly seems to have been more fun in Denmark and the Netherlands for instance than it did in Britain.

[Ish]

I definitely wouldn't say that Charles and Anne suffered as children because they were the children of the monarch. They suffered as children because the British Royals have a history of not exactly being the best parents (particularly when their children are young). If you read biographies of KGVI, KEVII, Victoria, etc, they all have tales of kind of miserable childhoods. This isn't because of parents being monarchs, but just a general issue in the approach that their parents took to parenting.

I will say, though, that a grandchild of a monarch is likely to get a bit more privacy and more freedom to grow up than a child of a monarch. Look at William and Harry - they have both been allowed to be part-time royals and lead more private lives throughout their 20s than their father had at that point in his life. There's already demand for William to take up more royal responsibilities, and I would expect it to be an even greater demand were he the son of the monarch instead of the grandson.

[carlota]

i actually like the idea of abdications. i think when reaching a certain age, it's just better to leave your place to someone who's younger, understands much more the current population and can basically do a better job because his ability to act is less hindered by age. for example, i found it admirable what pope benedict did, when he felt he no longer could fulfill his responsabilities to the excellency they deserved. i think that's admirable and by no means "disrespectful" as some people qualify it.

plus, we get to see the new monarch in full glory, happy to take on the challenge rather than a sad new king or queen in mourning because of the death of his/her predecesor. and add all the glitter that goes with it and the fantastic ceremonies that we have just seen!

[Jacknch]

Without setting King Edward VIII's abdication as a precedent (the circumstances were unique and not overly positive), how would a British monarch's abdication work - do we know what would happen and how it would be done?
We all know the technicalities of Dutch abdications by now, but how is it done in Luxembourg?

[NGalitzine]

In the UK it takes an Act of Parliament for the monarchs abdication to have legal effect. Similar legislation is needed in other Commonwealth realms.

[Warren]

Yes, many people believe that Edward VIII announced his abdication via radio broadcast ["...I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility..."], signed a document, and walked away.

Not so simple. Edward VIII was King by virtue of an Act of Parliament (The Act of Settlement 1701) and only the Parliament could undo it. Firstly he gave written notice, witnessed by his three brothers, then the British Parliament (followed by the Dominion Parliaments) gave his abdication legislative form by passing a Special Act ("His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936"). The abdication took legal effect the moment Edward VIII gave Royal Assent, after which time he was free to leave the country and regularly hound his younger brother for money.

[Ish]

That's not entirely accurate.

When James II fled from England during the Glorious Revolution his flight was later taken to be an abdication. He did so completely of his own volition, and after the whole issue of a constitutional monarch had already been firmly established within the realm. His abdication was only later confirmed by Parliament. Had Edward VIII simply refused to be monarch he could have - and he wouldn't have been the first person to renounce his succession rights, nor the last one, he's just be the highest person up the ladder to do so.

Edward's abdication is often considered to be a voluntary one, as if to suggest that he for some reason didn't want to be king. That's not entirely true - he may not have wanted the work that came with being king, but he certainly enjoyed being a member of the family and the benefits that came with it, and likely would have ended up in a similar role to some of the other playboy kings had he stayed on. However he was presented with a choice - woman he loves or the crown. Ultimately, it was Parliament that forced the abdication, not Edward, and that's why he didn't just throw down the crown and walk away. It was legislated before he walked away because he was forced into abdicating, simple as that.

He also wasn't necessarily a constitutional monarchist. He was a constitutional monarch, but that doesn't mean that he himself supported a constitutional monarchy. Look at QEII - for all we know she could long for the days where the monarch held all the power and wasn't simply a figurehead. We don't know - she's never spoken about her political beliefs. We can probably safely assume that she's not a republican, but we have no evidence to say that she's a monarchist of the constitutional variety, nor any evidence to say that she's a monarchist of the absolute variety. She is simply a constitutional monarch, and one who has largely played it safe in not revealing her deeper political beliefs all that much.

[Iluvbertie]

James II's 'abdication' though was before the Act of Settlement and so different rules applied to his 'abdication' than to Edward's.

[Warren]

Quite. The only relevance to the two situations is that the 1688 deposition of James II led directly to the Parliament legislating the Act of Settlement. Under the terms of this Act Edward VIII was the rightful and lawful King, requiring the Parliament to legislate him off the Throne.

[Ish]

Well, clearly then my point is completely wrong.

[Jacknch]

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.

[Iluvbertie]

There would need to be a lot of fuss involving multiple nations as the monarch would have to have legislation passed in all the realms as well as in the UK.

[cepe]

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

[CyrilVladisla]

When Napoleon I abdicated on April 4, 1848, he named his son Napoleon Francois as Emperor.
However, the coalition partners that had defeated Napoleon I refused to acknowledge Napoleon Francois as successor.
Napoleon I was forced to abdicate unconditionally.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

When Napoleon I abdicated on April 4, 1848, he named his son Napoleon Francois as Emperor.
However, the coalition partners that had defeated Napoleon I refused to acknowledge Napoleon Francois as successor.
Napoleon I was forced to abdicate unconditionally.

Which is why when Napoleon I's nephew came to reign he took the name Napoleon III, retroactively acknowledging Napoleon Francois as having been a ruler/pretender.

[CyrilVladisla]

King Edward VIII was pushed off the throne.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th0o-ZyuL2k

[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]

Originally Posted by Jacknch

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]

Originally Posted by cepe

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?