The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne

[Countessmeout]

Lichtenstein is an interesting issue. While their sovereigns don't abdicate, they do have a history of stepping down from every day power (they hold a significantly larger amount of power more than most European monarchs).

Hans Adam took over from his father in 1984, when a 78 year old Franz stepped down from the every day running of the country. He didn't become head of state till his father's death in 1989, but ran the every day power. In 2004 Hans Adam at the much younger age of 59 handed over the every day running of the country to his son Alois. Alois holds the power of the sovereign prince but wont gain the title until Hans dies.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by wyevale

As I understand it.. The Monarch can only abdicate for themselves, not for their living Heirs. So IF the William abdicated, he could not do so for George, who [if still a minor], would become King with a Regent, presumably Prince Harry [Catherine having been disbarred by her husbands abdication.

Michael I of Romania was removed from the throne at age 8, Nicholas II of Russia abdicated for his son, Alexei, Simeon II of Bulgaria was removed from the throne when he was 9, Puyi of China was 6 when he abdicated...

It's not common but it's happened. And within the Commonwealth systems, the monarch reigns at the will of Parliament. If it was William and Catherine's position that they wanted to remove him and their underage children from the succession, it would be within the powers of Parliament to remove them from it.

That said, abdications aside, Catherine is not now nor has she ever been a candidate for being her son's regent. The Regency Act establishes that in the event of there being a regent - either because the monarch is not of sound mind and/or body or because they're not of age - the regent is the next adult in the line of succession. If George were monarch as a child that person would be Harry.

[Skippyboo]

However, parliament can pass a new regency law if William is King with a underage heir to make Kate the regent just like they did in 1952 to make Philip the regent not Margaret if something happened to the Queen while Charles was underage.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[Curryong]

I know that Parliament has the last say ultimately on succession laws in Britain. If however, William removed himself and George and Charlotte for some reason, and Parliament agreed and passed such an Act into law, couldn't George (or Charlotte for that matter) come back at 18 or 21 and say the action was unjust? If they fought to be reinstated would they have a case?

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by Curryong

I know that Parliament has the last say ultimately on succession laws in Britain. If however, William removed himself and George and Charlotte for some reason, and Parliament agreed and passed such an Act into law, couldn't George (or Charlotte for that matter) come back at 18 or 21 and say the action was unjust? If they fought to be reinstated would they have a case?

Interesting questions. I cannot think of an analogous situation right now, or a precedent, but my gut reaction is that neither the UK Parliament, nor the parliaments of the realms, would pass legislation depriving minor children of their rights in this way. I they did, I consider that George and Charlotte would have a good claim in due course. I do not imagine that such legislation would be held to be in the interests of the children.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

However, parliament can pass a new regency law if William is King with a underage heir to make Kate the regent just like they did in 1952 to make Philip the regent not Margaret if something happened to the Queen while Charles was underage.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I hope Parliament would not pass such a law again. I don't have any problem with the spouse being the child's guardian and making decisions about the upbringing of the underage monarch but the spouse (Diana, Camilla, Kate) are or were not Royal and simply married the title. The regency and the functions of the monarchy, IMHO, should be held by the person who is next in line to inherit the throne.

[Iluvbertie]

As there are 16 realms involved the rights of minors in all separate realms has to be considered and only if it is possible to deprive minors of their birthrights in all the realms would it be possible to do so in any of them.


I don't think it is possible without just cause - and simply because 'daddy says he doesn't want to do it' or 'daddy wasn't up to it' would be 'just cause' in many, if not all of those realms.


To deprive the Old Pretender specific legislation was brought in that included religious clauses - as he had been baptised that included that implication - that a child who had been baptised Roman Catholic was ineligible. This was as much to deprive him and his father of their rights as to ensure a protestant future monarch.


IF William really wanted out (or anyone else for that matter) there is a simply way - convert to Roman Catholicism and they would be immediately removed with no need for further legislation as all the relevant realms have already passed that legislation in the Succession to the Crown Act but that wouldn't remove any children.


In Scotland - when Mary, Queen of Scots was removed from the throne her son was kept and raised as a protestant King.


It is likely that if William were to walk away he and Kate would also loose custody of George and possibly Charlotte.

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Much of this has been discussed several times in this thread:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...t-8545-50.html

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

It is likely that if William were to walk away he and Kate would also loose custody of George and possibly Charlotte.

1 - William will never walk away from the throne.

2 - We must remember that we live 2015/16. I can therefore assure you that they had not lost custody of George and Charlotte.

Originally Posted by Sweden

The British Royal family has been one of the few monarchies that has abdicated fewer times than others. For example, King Felipe of Spain and Queen Letizia obtained their titles by having the previous King and Queen abdicating. Same for other Royal families. I have noticed royal family's estate with younger heiress apparent or a heir presumptive, are the families who have abdicated Kings or Queens. There seems no possibility of the Queen abdicating (I hope not) but we never know!

1 - Will the Queen abdicate? No she will not, as I and others have said several times before.

During the Coronation in 1953 she pledged to govern the countries where she is head of state - a promise which she said she would "perform and keep. So help me God."

The Coronation Oath, 2 June 1953
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBro...2June1953.aspx

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

The Christmas Broadcast 2002
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBro...dcast2002.aspx

Fortified by this and the support you have given throughout the last twelve months which has meant so much to me, I look forward to the New Year, to facing the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, and to continuing to serve you to the very best of my ability each and every day.

The Queen's Diamond Jubilee message
http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsan...eemessage.aspx

In this special year, as I dedicate myself anew to your service

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

In his recent memoir, former foreign minister Bob Carr provided insight into why. He related a conversation between the Queen and Australia’s outgoing high commissioner to London, the former South Australian premier Mike Rann, that touched on the abdication of Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands.“It’s not something we do here,’’ Elizabeth said.

Letter to The Times, published Wednesday 4th February 2015, from the Principal Private Secretary to TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall
Our view

His Royal Highness has always preferred not to comment on matters which relate to a future whose date is unknown, and would arise only after the death of his mother.

These are just some of the statements/evidence that show us that she will never abdicate. Former Prime Ministers, former staffers etc have said the same. And the fact that the Queen will never abdicate has nothing to do with Charles popularity. She had not abdicated regardless Charles being popular or not.

2 - Should the Queen abdicate? No she should not, as I and others have said several times before.

As I've said before on others threads, The monarchies in the UK, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway remains popular, and some polls have shown record high support the last four years. This is not going to change unless we get some very very major scandals, which is unlikely.

Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent ~70% support for the continuation of the Monarchy. And Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 82%, others at around 70 to 76%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 66 to 70%.

To abolish the British monarchy will be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it.

And it will be very difficult in The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway too:
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the parliaments for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.

The vast majority of the population in these countries will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity etc.

I don't think we will see a republic in Sweden or Belgium either, and I hope that the Spanish monarchy will survive.

So all these monarchies (with the exception of Belgium and Spain) are safe for at least the next 100 years.

Abdications in the The Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and possibly Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

The Netherlands:
Abdication is a tradition there, it has taken place since 1948.

Spain:
Juan Carlos had repeatedly said that he would not abdicate, but because of his stupidity, he had no choice.

Belgium:
Albert was frail and did it for health reasons, but look how he have behaved towards his son after he abdicated.

Norway, Denmark, Sweden:
If Harald, Margrethe and Carl Gustaf decides to abdicate, they can do it without any problems and it will not hurt the monarchies.

But we can't compare these monarchies with the British monarchy.

As far as UK is concerned, I actually think it is the safest Monarchy in the world, along with the Japanese, but an abdication can destroy it, and this is why:

Even if the Queen's vow that her whole life would be devoted to service and her view on the coronation oath hadn't been so important to her as it is, she wouldn't have abdicated, and this is the reason. The Queen is head of state of 16 countries and head of the Commonwealth, if she decided to abdicate each country would have to pass a bill approving the abdication as the demise of the crown legislation only accounts for a monarch's death not abdication. When Edward VIII abdicated, the UK could perform the necessary paper work for the Dominions...it cannot now. It would be too much of a legal headache and open debate about the monarchy, and not forget the Commonwealth.

If the Queen had abdicated it would have (as Ish said) created major problems for Charles and led to a fierce debate about the monarchy's future.

The republicans, the press (especially the mirror, the guardian, the independent and of course the mail/fail) would have gone absolutely crazy and they would have done what they could to dig up dirt about Charles.

It is better that Charles takes over when the Queen dies. It will go quietly without much debate, because people / media will be very occupied by the Queen's death. That will be a remarkable and very sad event.

The longer she reigns the better it is for Charles, in my opinion.

This was brilliantly written by EIIR (a former member here) in 2012.

Originally Posted by EIIR

When it comes to Charles acceding the throne I feel people miss the point. There is likely to be a huge outpouring of national grief when The Queen passes away. It's important not to underestimate how powerful that will be. Hundreds of thousands of people queued for days in order to file past the Queen Mother's coffin. The level of mourning for the Queen is likely to be a great deal deeper - the Queen is not only a much loved head of state, she's an international icon.

That national grief will, naturally, lead to a great deal of sympathy flowing to the RF generally, and Charles as the next in line.

There will also be a certain fascination in having a new monarch - the vast majority of Britons have only ever known one monarch. The process of new stamps, notes, coins, not to mention a coronation to look forward to. There's also the fact that Charles' reign is likely to be relatively short and William and Catherine will be closer to the throne while also having their own children who will, no doubt, fascinate us all in much the same way their parents have.

This is all a rather long winded way of saying I really don't believe that there will be any significant change to the British monarchy when Charles takes over. I think Charles will be a surprisingly popular King; he'll be at the 'sweet old man' age rather then in middle aged no mans land. It's an unfortunate fact of life nowadays; we see the young as interesting and cool, and the elderly as sweet and wise. It's the in between stage where people just aren't that interested.

And why on earth should she abdicate at the age of almost 90. Had she wanted to abdicate, she would have done it long ago.

It is being busy that keeps The Queen in good health.

If she becomes too frail to carry out her constitutional duties, a regency will be created.

This post has become very very long.

[Rudolph]

The 'abdication' of Edward VIII was a one off. Everyone knows the circumstances surrounding it.

The Queen will never abdicate nor will any of her heirs and successors. There is always the Regency Act if it comes to health reasons but our dearly beloved Sovereign will die in office, as will Charles and William.

[Curryong]

^^ It wasn't the Queen's abdication that was being discussed really, (or the likelihood of a British republic) but a theoretical discussion on the rights of minor children like George and Charlotte if they were ever taken out of the line of succession by their father (without their informed consent, obviously.)

[Rudolph]

The instant George was born he became third in line to the throne. The instant Charlotte was born she became fourth in line to the throne. Their place in the line of succession is secured regardless of what happens above them.

If Charles abdicates, William is moved up. If William abdicates, George is moved up and so on.

But as British monarchs don't abdicate its really a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Skippyboo

However, parliament can pass a new regency law if William is King with a underage heir to make Kate the regent just like they did in 1952 to make Philip the regent not Margaret if something happened to the Queen while Charles was underage.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The regency mechanism as outlined in the Regency Act applies to the UK, but does the Regency Act extend to the other Commonwealth realms ? In other words, if Charles became regent in the UK, would he automatically be regent also in Australia, Canada or New Zealand for example ? My understanding is that he would not, but maybe someone here can shed more light on this topic.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The regency mechanism as outlined in the Regency Act applies to the UK, but does the Regency Act extend to the other Commonwealth realms ? In other words, if Charles became regent in the UK, would he automatically be regent also in Australia, Canada or New Zealand for example ? My understanding is that he would not, but maybe someone here can shed more light on this topic.

Regents are not required for other realms as the Governor Generals already fill that role.

[TheRoyalCourtisane]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The regency mechanism as outlined in the Regency Act applies to the UK, but does the Regency Act extend to the other Commonwealth realms ? In other words, if Charles became regent in the UK, would he automatically be regent also in Australia, Canada or New Zealand for example ? Maybe someone here can shed more light on this topic.

No he doesn't automatically becomes king here in Canada according to a law passed in The Canadian Throne Act(Bill C-53) if I may remember in 1982 and revised in 2013 stares that whomever becomes king or Queen in the United Kingdom doesn't automatically becomes king or Queen of Canada. Will have to search more about the bill and post it here.

Edited:
Over the last half a century when Her Majesty visited Canada she was referred to as Queen of Canada thereby creating the Canadian Crown which has grown both legally and royally into its own separate status makes the Queen of Canada different from the Queen of the United Kingdom.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Ish

Regents are not required for other realms as the Governor Generals already fill that role.

Can a Governor General appoint for example a new Governor General (i.e. his/her successor) without the assent of the Queen or a regent ? What about the mechanism still in effect (though not used) in both the Australian and Canadian constitutions under which the GG can "reserve" a bill for the significance of the Queen's pleasure and the Queen can actually disallow a bill that has already been assented to by the GG within a certain period of time ? Who would exercise those powers if the Queen is incapacitated and there is no regent ?

In fact, if the GG can do everything the Queen or a regent could do, one wonders why there has to be a Queen at all for the realms.

[TheRoyalCourtisane]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Can a Governor General appoint for example a new Governor General (i.e. his/her successor) without the assent of the Queen or a regent ? What about the mechanism still in effect (though not used) in both the Australian and Canadian constitutions under which the GG can "reserve" a bill for the significance of the Queen's pleasure and the Queen can actually disallow a bill that has already been assented to by the GG within a certain period of time ? Who would exercise those powers if the Queen is incapacitated and there is no regent ?

In fact, if the GG can do everything the Queen or a regent could do, one wonders why there has to be a Queen at all for the realms.

Here in Canada a GG is appointed by the Prime Minister and refer to The Queen. He is basically her representative on a Federal level, provincialyrics we have Lieutenant-General who have been appointed by provincial Premiers to both GG and The Queen. GG can't appoint her successor that's the Federal parliament in accordance with Provincial parliament that does the job. What he does is signed passed bills with consultation with Her Majesty and the Prime Minister

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by TheRoyalCourtisane

Here in Canada a GG is appointed by the Prime Minister and refer to The Queen. He is basically her representative on a Federal level, provincialyrics we have Lieutenant-General who have been appointed by provincial Premiers to both GG and The Queen. GG can't appoint her successor that's the Federal parliament in accordance with Provincial parliament that does the job. What he does is signed passed bills with consultation with Her Majesty and the Prime Minister

My understanding is that the GG is legally appointed by the Queen acting on the advice of the PM, i.e. the PM nominates the GG to the Queen, but it is the Queen who appoints him or her and the federal parliament is not involved at all in the process.


From Wikipedia:

The position of governor general is mandated by both the Constitution Act (previously the British North America Act), 1867, and the letters patent issued in 1947 by King George VI.[15] As such, on the recommendation of his or her Canadian prime minister, the Canadian monarch appoints the governor general by commission issued under the royal sign-manual and Great Seal of Canada. That individual is, from then until being sworn-in, referred to as the governor general-designate.

In fact, if the Queen is incapacitated and there is no regent, who would dismiss the GG if the need to remove him/her from office ever arises (keep in mind the GG serves at the Queen's pleasure) ?

[TheRoyalCourtisane]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

My understanding is that the GG is legally appointed by the Queen acting on the advice of the PM, i.e. the PM nominates the GG to the Queen, but it is the Queen who appoints him or her and the federal parliament is not involved at all in the process. In fact, if the Queen is incapacitated and there is no regent, who would dismiss the GG if the need to fire him/her ever arises ?

From Wikipedia:

Whomever is Prime Minister that year does the firing it could the current or a new one.

[Ish]

The PM does not do the firing. Or the hiring. Not officially at least.

The PM may decide whether or not the GG's term will be extended, but it is the monarch who extends it. The PM may decide who the monarch is going to be, but the monarch appoints him/her.

Mbruno, you bring up a good point in this regards. The simp answer is that I don't believe at this point there is any legislature in place covering who would fill that role in the event of a regency. It would be a minor role, as the basic functions of the monarch are carried out by the GG, but it is a necessary one.

[TheRoyalCourtisane]

Originally Posted by Ish

The PM does not do the firing. Or the hiring. Not officially at least.

The PM may decide whether or not the GG's term will be extended, but it is the monarch who extends it. The PM may decide who the monarch is going to be, but the monarch appoints him/her.

Mbruno, you bring up a good point in this regards. The simp answer is that I don't believe at this point there is any legislature in place covering who would fill that role in the event of a regency. It would be a minor role, as the basic functions of the monarch are carried out by the GG, but it is a necessary one.

Wait I heard from sources on the Hill that former PM Steven Harper extended GG'so term for another 2 years i