Abdications

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

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]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

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...

[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.

[Curryong]

I don't have any doubt in the world that Charles will be King Charles III in his turn and could well reign for quite a number of years when you look at the ages of several recent Windsors, including his own parents. There's no way, after waiting to reign for all his adult life, that Prince Charles would opt to hand over to his son straight away. That would happen only if he was incapacitated, just like the present Queen.

[Alison H]

If the Queen can do an excellent job of reigning in her 90s, which she does, there's no reason why Prince Charles can't do an excellent job of reigning in his 70s ... and hopefully his 80s and 90s too.


Unless there are health reasons, which hopefully won't happen, Charles won't just step aside and become the King Who Never Was, after being heir to the throne all these years, and I think William would prefer not to become king until his children are older.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Prince of Wales can not abdicate from a position he is not in. With other words: he needs to be King himself, to abdicate the kingship.

Du moment the Queen passes away, the Prince of Wales is the lawful King, no matter his age.

In 1901 the almost 60-years old Prince of Wales became King Edward VII. For the UK general life expectancy of 1901, he was very old. He nevertheless became King and reigned for almost a decade (which is longer than two USA presidential terms, to make a comparison).

[Marengo]

In 1932 King Albert I of the Belgians wrote that he would soon abdicate in favor of his son Leopold (III) and that he would retreat into to his villa Haslihorn in Switzerland. He added that a retired priest should not remain in the parish. His early death sadly prevented this.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Marengo

In 1932 King Albert I of the Belgians wrote that he would soon abdicate in favor of his son Leopold (III) and that he would retreat into to his villa Haslihorn in Switzerland. He added that a retired priest should not remain in the parish. His early death sadly prevented this.

That would hard to imagine: Queen Wilhelmina, Grand-Duchess Charlotte, Queen Juliana, Grand-Duke Jean, Queen Beatrix, King Albert, King Juan Carlos, Pope Benedictus XVI, Emperor Akihito, all moving to a foreign country. I think the current practice of keeping a low profile works well.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by 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.

If the queen dies in five years, Charles would only be 76 going on 77. There is no reason to believe he wont live well into his 90's like both of his parents, and his grandmother lived over 100. He would have a good 20 years to reign before he died. One cant argue that Charles cant be a good ruler in his 90's, considering his mother and the role she still serves.

Prince William as the new POW would just step up and do more of the travel and duties like his father currently does. That's the natural way of things in the BRF.

[Marengo]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That would hard to imagine: Queen Wilhelmina, Grand-Duchess Charlotte, Queen Juliana, Grand-Duke Jean, Queen Beatrix, King Albert, King Juan Carlos, Pope Benedictus XVI, Emperor Akihito, all moving to a foreign country. I think the current practice of keeping a low profile works well.

It does but perhaps it would not have worked in 1932, when Albert I wrote the letter. The Duke of Windsor obviously settled abroad while Queen Wilhelmina retreated to the background and considered herself 'dead'. She was seldom seen in public - supposedly somewhat inspired by Charles V. Leopold III's long shadow and overbearing presence during the early years of his son's reign were not a great help to the monarchy. The more recent examples you mention show indeed that it does not have to be a problem.

[Jacknch]

Please note that several posts have been moved to the https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...itles-258.html thread.

[Somebody]

If Carl Gustaf would consider abdication; 2023 might be a good year to do so, he will be 77 year of age, can celebrate 50 years on the throne (on September 15) and probably at that same day hand over the throne to the new Queen Victoria (46) and prince (consort) Daniel (who turns 50 that day) with crown princess Estelle (11) and prince Oscar (7).

[Somebody]

Continuing the discussion about abdication that started in the Future of the Danish monarchy thread.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Abdication does not mean: disappear altogether. Princess Beatrix, Grand-Duke Jean and Grand-Duchess Joséphine-Charlotte, King Albert and Queen Paola, King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía, all of them are (or were) visible.

The idea should be that an abdication can be a benefit for the monarchy. No one can deny that a King Felipe or a King Philippe have brought a new spark of energy into their monarchies. In this era of ever advancing ages, an abdication should not be seen as "negative'.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The title of an abdicated King is not always a free choice. In my country the Royal House Act enforces that the King who has abdicated reverts to the titulature held before the kingship.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I respectfully disagree somewhat: now you bring up the Pope, imagibe that the late Emeritus still was the reigning Pope in all thse years of declining health, in the end nearly blind.

The message can also be: being a King means nothing, after all an ailing gerontocrat can that job.

Originally Posted by ronald biver

All the old kings & queens of today should really retired and let the younger generations of crown princes in this case CP's Haakon (Norway) & Frederik (Denmark) to become kings of their countries, like the ones from The Netherlands, Belgium & Spain, that is my opinion.

Originally Posted by Denville

why? I suppose you would wish for Charles who has just become King, to abdicate as well?

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The King seems to be in excellent health but imagine he matches his mother's stamina and will continue to live until nearly 100 years of age: the best and the most promising years of the Prince and Princess of Wales would then calmly pass by, until they, as sixty-something yearls olds, finally become King and Queen, with a young and fit George waiting for his turn.

Imagine that the ailing Emperor Akihito, or the barely mobile King Juan Carlos, or the almost deaf King Albert II, or the almost blind Pope Benedict XVI have not resigned.

We would not have seen the new energy, the rejuvenation, which was brought by Philippe & Mathilde or Felipe & Letizia, etcc. now for almost 10 years...

I wish Queen Margarethe many, many happy years. Be it as reigning Queen, or in another role.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

It is not a question of thinking that wheelchairs or crutches are derogatory. Many countries have compulsory retirement ages for example for judges, university professors, teachers, or civil servants, just to name a few public workers. If society does not think it is appropriate for a person to be teaching or presiding over a court when he or she is over 75, shouldn't a similar standard be applied to the Head of State?

Personally I am not in favor of a rigid abdication age as there are examples of people in their 80s who are capable of performing the role of Head of State such as President Biden or Queen Elizabeth II when she was that age. However, when aging starts to compromise one's ability to do the job fully, then I think the Head of State, especially monarchs, who, by definition, have an unlimited term of office, should be sensible enough to step down for the good of the country.

Originally Posted by Silverpot

Being a Constitutional Monarch means being your countrie's top diplomat, and to be that it's preferable that you've grown wise and thoughtful. And can give good advice to the youngsters in the Government.
Margarethe has been there, done that, she knows the world, just like her collegues in the Scandinavian countries. There is nothing wrong with their brain capacity.
Juan Carlos and Albert abdicated because of the scandals they created, not because they got old. Only Beatrix retired, but then that's a tradition in the NL.

Originally Posted by Somebody

Don't forget Jean: he also abdicated, just like his mother did before him - and Henri will surely abdicate as well (sooner rather than later if Maria Teresa is to be believed; it seems she cannot wait for that time to come).

Each tradition has to 'start' at some point. In the Netherlands, it was queen Wilhelmina... and given that she had reigned from a very young age, she didn't need to worry about a short reign either. So, especially those that ascended the throne at a young age (in Scandinavia that would be both Margrethe and Carl Gustav) are probably at a better position to abdicate as they still have had more than enough time to leave their mark. It would be much harder for someone who ascended the throne when much older as that would mean a short reign (just a 'footnote' in the history of their country - although being the first to abdicate might ensure their place in the history books ) - to ensure that the next generation(s) will reign when in their prime years.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Frederik, Haakon and Victoria are in the prime of their life. For me it is a sort of waste if they have to wait a dozen of years or more. The days that being a King was a sort of divine right are long gone.

And abdications are by no means a modernity. In her own autobiography Lonely, but not alone Queen Wilhelmina wrote that she felt very much inspired by the solemn abdication in front of the assembled States-General of the Netherlands in Brussels (1555) of Charles V of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Spain, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy.

Charles V concluded his Abdication Address by mentioning his voyages: ten to the Netherlands, nine to German lands, seven to Spain, seven to Italy, four to France, two to England, and two to North Africa. His last public words were, "My life has been one long journey."

This to underline that abdications are no dishonours but can be a wise and rational decisions indeed.

Originally Posted by Prinsara

"Short reign" doesn't necessarily equate to footnote. Neither Henry V nor Edward VII made it to a decade, and British history certainly hasn't forgotten either of them. It's what you do with the time you have while you're there that counts.

As there isn't much in the way of agreement between the pro-abdication and pro-reign camps, I don't know why posters keep making the same arguments over and over again for both sides coming from different cultural traditions or rationalizations. No one is getting convinced. Each royal family does things differently and doesn't necessarily need to change.

Originally Posted by Silverpot

I wouldn't necessarily think that people in their 40/50s are in their prime. Physically yes, but they still have a long way to go towards experience and wisdom. I think we have seen some examples of younger monarchs making not so wise decisions in their private lives an older one wouldn't make.
I can only speak for my country of course, but I don't want to see Victoria on the throne just yet.

In terms of their prime: physically, that definitely wouldn't be people in their 40s/50s but more likely in their 20s/30s. In the corporate world, you would normally see that senior management includes primarily people in their (late) 40s and 50s - so, that seems to be an age in which you've sufficient experience as well as sufficient brainpower to take on such a responsibility.

And while I would hope that most people further mature with age, they also typically slow-down and are less flexible (more stubborn), for example, king Juan Carlos seemed to make much better decisions when in his 40s than in his 70s.

[Silverpot]

There are a few reasons for Victoria to not step up in a near future, one is that her children are still too young. At least Estelle needs to have come of age before she loses her mother to the State. :-)


I hope our King lasts for another 10 years.

[Friedrich Karl II]

Originally Posted by Silverpot

There are a few reasons for Victoria to not step up in a near future, one is that her children are still too young. At least Estelle needs to have come of age before she loses her mother to the State. :-)


I hope our King lasts for another 10 years.

IIRC one of major reason why CG refuses from abdicate is just that Victoria could spend time with her children. But I am not sure if this is true or is that just one theory.


In other hand abdication of Swedish monarch is extremely rare. But it is rare in many other monarchies too. I think that only Dutch monarchs have abdicated pretty often when they have became old and their heir are ready to take response on state issues.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Silverpot

There are a few reasons for Victoria to not step up in a near future, one is that her children are still too young. At least Estelle needs to have come of age before she loses her mother to the State. :-)


I hope our King lasts for another 10 years.

Actually, the Princess of Orange was the same age as Estelle is now and the Princess of Asturias was only 8 years old. But i also hope that King Carl Gustaf remains on the Throne.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Friedrich Karl II

In other hand abdication of Swedish monarch is extremely rare. But it is rare in many other monarchies too. I think that only Dutch monarchs have abdicated pretty often when they have became old and their heir are ready to take response on state issues.

For now abdication has become a tradition in the Netherlands where three successive monarchs have abdicated and in Luxembourg with the monarchs. Actually in Luxembourg there have also been three abdications, but one was because of political reasons