Abdications

[Marengo]

. 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.

I can not imagine such a debate happened in other countries when the previous Dutch monarchs abdicated.

King Willem I abdicated in 1840 as he was disappointed with the loss of Belgium, parlament was fed up with him, and because he wanted to conduct a morganatic marriage to a catholic countess from his former territories.

Queen Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948, as one of the first monarchs since emperor Charles V (whose reasons for abdicating inspired her) to do so voluntarily & without pressure.

Queen Juliana abdicated in 1980 when most monarchs were in the prime of their lives & had young heirs (except in Norway).

So I doubt there was much debate in other countries to presure their monarchs to follow the Dutch example.

However, since it is a simple fact that demography has changed over the decades and the average age in (Western & Southern) Europe is around 84, it means that most monarchs will succeed around 64, which should be around the average retirement age in Europe. To ask some questions about the logic of that isn't that odd. I find the situation far from ideal TBH.

 

[NGalitzine]

I believe in the 80s there was the usual blah blah blah in the UK at least about how nice it would be for QEII to retire and let the glamourous Prince and Princess of Wales take the throne because they were young and popular etc.

 

[LadyK]

I think it had less to do with what the queen may or may not have thought about Princess Diana (and let's not speculate on that), but more to do with this quote:

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 to which we all belong.

Princess Elizabeth's 21st Birthday Address

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

I see King Albert II abdicating in favor of the Duke of Brabant in a near future. So we'll have this three Monarchies (The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium) with the abdication tradition.

But, the other Monarchies will not follow this example.

 

[Zonk]

I've deleted off topic and speculative posts regarding the Diana/Charles divorce...since the Queen didn't abdicate, their divorce adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[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.

 

[padams2359]

I think they are making a great correction to ages. The monarch needs small grandchildren, not children. Williams's children not having a parent as a monarch until they are in there 20's or 30's will be great for them.

 

[cdm]

It's never too late to learn something about your own monarchy

Apparently in Belgium a King cannot decide on his own to abdicate. The government has to agree.

As 2014 is a big election year in Belgium, it is expected that if Albert would ever abdicate it will certainly not happen before those elections and formation of the new government (and that can take a really loooooonnnngggg time).

 

[vkrish]

So we'll have this three Monarchies (The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium) with the abdication tradition.

if i am not wrong, the last belgian monarch who abdicated was forced to do so for political reasons (pl. correct me if not). So is it really a "tradition" there?
So it leaves only the Netherlands, where "Kings/Queens" abdicate..

 

[Lumutqueen]

The one and only Belgian abdication was Leopold III who was forced to abdicate after he surrended to Nazi pressure in WWII. I wouldn't count one abdication as a tradition.

 

[cdm]

Leopold III didn't abdicate under Nazi pressure.
He abdicated in 1950 after a political crisis known as the Royal Question and under pressure of his own people.

I would place that abdication in the same rank as that of Edward VIII: exceptional circumstances.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Leopold III didn't abdicate under Nazi pressure.
He abdicated in 1950 after a political crisis known as the Royal Question and under pressure of his own people.

I would place that abdication in the same rank as that of Edward VIII: exceptional circumstances.

I have altered my post accordingly,

 

[Jacknch]

Has the Prince of Wales ever made a declaration such as the one the Queen made on her 21st birthday?

 

[vkrish]

I dont think so..But his dedication and commitment is no less compared to his mother. Just that hers is very passive (just sit tight, never put a foot wrong), so there's nothing to find fault with, while his is very active (do as much as you can for the people) so there is always a division of opinion..

 

[Jacknch]

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]

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