The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne

[ElisaR]

The Queen will be comming to Melbourne to open the Commonwealth Games next year, and I'm hoping to see her. I doubt I'd actually get the chance to meet her, but there'll probably be some chance for the public to see her.

Good luck!

 

[Aussie Princess]

Thanks, I may need it!
If you ever hear where she's making an appearance, let me know yeah?
I'd love to see the Opening ceremony, as those sorts of things are really exciting and interesting, but I didn't even try to get tickets. They are just in such huge demand, and they are charging crazy prices! you have to go into draws and lotterys....sports madness here!

 

[Von Schlesian]

sports madness here!

Hmm, quite! I sometimes despair for how the world looks apon Australia. We're only ever really mentioned if one of our sporting celebrities does something amazing, divorces, is diagnosed with a something awful, or wins another medal/championship...

I'm sure there'll be plenty of opportunities to see Her Majesty about Melbourne and other capital cities. A friend of mine was successful in his audition to be one of those playing the part of the mascot, I believe he'll get the chance to be rather close to the official party.

 

[amadeus]

I live in China.We don't vote for a president, nor the Congress,we vote for people's delegates who will vote for everything.
Totally democracy is only a utopia.No matter where you live,you face one problem or anoter.Just think about us,you feel you are much more advanced,but that is opposite of what Marxism said.

 

[Elspeth]

Welcome to the forum, Amadeus. I hope you enjoy posting here.

Please note that this forum doesn't permit political discussions. We're trying to keep this thread on the topic of monarchy, not to digress into a discussion about the relative merits of democracy and Marxism.

 

[KathyMoore]

What's the official procedure for a British king/queen to give up the throne?

What's the official procedure for a British king/queen to give up the throne?

Does he/she send some sort of abdication letter to the parliament, the prime minister, or the next in line?

Thanks!

 

[Avalon]

Though there were Monarchs in Britain, who were forced to abdicate or were removed from power, there is no provision in the British law for the sovereign to abdicate.
The Monarch, after ascending the Throne, must reign until death. They are not allowed to unilaterally abdicate. The only Monarch, who voluntarily abdicated was Edward VIII (in 1936). He did so with the authorisation of a special Act of Parliament, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936.
His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 was and Act of the British Parlament that allowed King Edward to abdicate the throne and passed the succession to Prince Albert, Duke of York (King George VI).
The Act was passed through the both Houses of Parlament in only one day, with no amendments. The Governments of the British Dominions (Australia, New Zeland, Union of South Africa and Canasa) gave their permission for the Act to apply in their realms (a requirement of the Statute of Westminster 1931); the only exception was the Irish Free State, to which the Act did not apply, and which instead passed the External Relations Act, which recognized Duke of York as King.
There were 2 reasons, that made the Act neccessary.
First of all, as I have said before, there is no provision in British Law for the sovereign to abdicate. The Act of Settlement (1701) ensured that the senior descendant of Electess Sophia of Hanover was sovereign in England. The Acto of Union (1707) confirmed this for Great Britain. This means that the senior descendant of Electress Sophia is the Sovereign, regardless of their wishes. If the Sovereign decides to abdicate, however, an Act of Parlament is required to give it a legal power.
Then, the Act ensure that the throne was passed to Prince Albert but ut did not exclude other descendats of the Electress Sophia from the line of succession. However any future descendants of Edward VIII would not have a claim to the British Throne.

 

[Queen Katherine]

Remember when Edward VIII abdicated and he gave that speech. I wasn't alive of course but the speech has been played numerous times. So that might be part of the procedure.

 

[selrahc4]

Remember when Edward VIII abdicated and he gave that speech. I wasn't alive of course but the speech has been played numerous times. So that might be part of the procedure.

No speech was necessary. It wasn't part of the procedure.

 

[Royal Fan]

Was that his own Idea , What happens when a Monarch Passes Away Like if (God Forbid) E II R Passed on lets say August 10th what would happen who would be notified first and things like that ect and when would Charles most likely come to the throne?? sorry im just so curious about all this especially since I Think itll be in my lifetime.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Was that his own Idea , What happens when a Monarch Passes Away Like if (God Forbid) E II R Passed on lets say August 10th what would happen who would be notified first and things like that ect and when would Charles most likely come to the throne?? sorry im just so curious about all this especially since I Think itll be in my lifetime.

Charles would instantly be king on the 10th August - 'the Queen is dead - Long Live the King'.

Depending on how the Queen died it is possible that Charles would be with her at the instant he became king - this was the case in 1936 when George V died and Edward VIII succeeded. If, like Elizabeth, he wasn't there when the Queen died, he would be notified ASAP.

The PM would have to be notified but after Charles.

At some time after the death of the previous monarch an Accension (sp) Council would be called (the same day or the next - depending on the time of death - usually). At this Council Charles would announce his regnal name and accept the oaths of the various people who need to make such an oath - e.g. William possibly and the PM.

After the Accension (sp) Council there will be a ceremony at St James' Palace declaring Charles (using his regnal name) as the rightful monarch. A similar declaration would be made in Scotland.

 

[Royal Fan]

So Charles will be informed first would Harry be at the Accession Council. what role would Camilla play in all this and the rest of the family and who out of the current British Establishment would Attend the Coronation

 

[Oppie]

wiki has a copy if his Instrument of Abdication along with other information on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_abdication_crisis


RoyalFan here is more info about what happens for an accession http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4945.asp

 

[branchg]

The ascension of the new Sovereign is automatic upon the death of the current Sovereign and there are no formalities necessary. Under the Act of Settlement, Charles is automatically King when his mother dies as the next eligible descendant of the Electress Sophia.

As his wife, Camilla automatically becomes Queen Consort as the wife of the Sovereign. Whether Parliament will later pass an Act allowing her to assume the style and title of Princess Consort (which is required to make it legal) remains to be seen.

The ceremonies that follow, including the Coronation, are not necessary for a new Sovereign's reign, but are very important parts of the tradition of the monarchy.

 

[Royal Fan]

I See , this is all very interesting to me its Amazing how much happens if the Monarch Dies or Abdicates.

 

[Lord_Yucel]

Prince Ann

I wish Prince Ann would be Queen Or Prince Charles as king But Absolutely not Prince Harry or Prince William.Those boys do not deserve THE CROWN.I was just shocked when ı saw them on the paper drinking and having fun with common pub girls.Disgusting...

 

[wymanda]

Thankfully some of us more enlightened souls take the view that "Boys will be Boys" and that Wills & Harry will grow out of their wild ways. Perhaps if Harry were to distance himself from the, IMO, dreadful Ms Davy then he might grow up a little quicker.

 

[Empress]

And what pray tell do you mean by "common" pub girls. I imagine you are then of Royal or Noble blood and would consider yourself not "common"?

Furthermore, I think that it is fantastic that they are out and about with those that will one day be their subjects.

 

[hayz64]

I agree with Empress...they should indeed mix with all sorts of backgrounds to give them a much closer relationship with all people of the british public!

 

[HRH Mims]

I think that time when royals played role of desirabled by God is definitely past and royals have right now other role: help to poor people, represent their monarchies and make famous people. And I agree with Empress and Hayz too.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I disagree. Harry and William should stick to their own kind. If they go cavorting with their future subjects then the whole point of Monarchy is lost. When Royals begin acting like commoners, the lines are blurred when they try to assert their superiority in the future, they'll be painted in a bad light and as people who somehow changed their views. The idea of Monarchy is to be a constant. They can't dance with the paupers today and expect to be treated like Princes tomorrow.

 

[hayz64]

I think that this would just result in people labelling the Royal Family as snobs who don't want to know their own people because of the places they are from.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, a snob is someone who is regarded as arrogant and annoying and puts an emphasis on class and I don't think that the Royal Family have been snobs for the past 200 years when the rest of society was very snobbish. They have no reason to be snobs because they're at the top. There is a difference between being friendly and personable and wrapping your arms around a girl from Balham. The Royal Family are supposed to be higher than the rest of us, that is their role. If they act like common people then surely they become common people and they lose their role?

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Royal Family are supposed to be higher than the rest of us, that is their role. If they act like common people then surely they become common people and they lose their role?

Hm, I agree with you that the Royal Family should be something special. But alas, neither my idea about human equality and the information you could get about their behaviour of the last years clues me into what this "special" actually is.

IMHO it's important to have someone who is constantly there "on the top", one who has access to all necessary means and information in order to give advice to politicians whose position change according to the system of democracy. I really believe that the queen is a much more important person than I am. She works harder, she has much more duties, has done more for others than I ever will do. The same for the current Royal head of states. But does that necessarily mean that the grandson of such a Royal personage is "better" than my own grandson? Mind, I don't have one yet!

The point for me is that it's not heritage alone that counts but heritage and what you do to deserve the place in society you inherit. There is an old German saying about fortunes, wealth and influence: "Grandfather wins it, son keeps it, grandson looses it". We've seen plenty of that!

And I'm convinved that the future of all monarchys will in the future be a person-to-person struggle. A struggle with slight advantages for the next generation as people tend to view the children of beloved personages with friendly eyes but still it will be a struggle to stay there at the top.

Britain may be a bit behind the "trend" when it comes to that but I believ the signals from Scandinavia have reached the people of Britain, too. With "signals" I mean the fact that only the heir/heiress of the heir is a "Royal Highness" while the siblings are only "Highnesses" (Norway), that the grandchildren (and future nephews/nieces) of the monarch are not longer Royal Highnesses, but only "Highnesses" like in Denmark or Counts/Countesses like in the Netherlands etc.

The idea behind this is that the Royal "House" consist only of the members immediately involved with the Crown and the service for the Crown while the others are still considered part of the Royal family but with no Royal privileges. The idea of the "Royal family" of the Uk is still much broader but the reorganization of the civil list has shown that the idea started to take root in GB as well as in the other monarchies.

To come back to the topic of Princess Anne: if you see in which way HRH The Princess Royal has helped the monarchy in the Uk while at the same time
refusing to accept a title for her children and you compare that to HRH The Princess Pushy (aka Princess Michael of Kent) and the way the public reacts to both ladies, then you might be able to see what I mean.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think that it just shows how other Royal Families are seen by their people. In Britain, whatever they've done or haven't done, we see the Royal Family as being a higher entity and that should be the case. If we don't, then they're just like us and they cease to be Royal and that's when the system ends. I adore Princess Anne but when she refused those titles for her children, I think she made a grave mistake. Princess Michael has her moments but she's what a Royal should be. She's above us, she has the breeding, the style, the glamour, the elegance and the wit. Princess Anne has those things too but she sometimes seems to forget her place and she forgets hers, how can we possible remember ours?

 

[Australian]

But does that necessarily mean that the grandson of such a Royal personage is "better" than my own grandson? Mind, I don't have one yet!

The point for me is that it's not heritage alone that counts but heritage and what you do to deserve the place in society you inherit.

I very much agree with this Jo. It has to be earned, in my opinion. I mean, the grandson of a royal person could have all the titles and blood etc, but could be the biggest jerk you have ever known and does nothing with his royal status. So does that make him 'better' than a grandson who is a true gentleman so to speak and a grandson of a commoner who does good work for the community? No way.

 

[Iain]

I think that it just shows how other Royal Families are seen by their people. In Britain, whatever they've done or haven't done, we see the Royal Family as being a higher entity and that should be the case. If we don't, then they're just like us and they cease to be Royal and that's when the system ends. I adore Princess Anne but when she refused those titles for her children, I think she made a grave mistake. Princess Michael has her moments but she's what a Royal should be. She's above us, she has the breeding, the style, the glamour, the elegance and the wit. Princess Anne has those things too but she sometimes seems to forget her place and she forgets hers, how can we possible remember ours?

It's very easy to fall in to the situation of forgetting that Britain is not a country but a state made up of different countries and that each those countries have different ways of looking at things. Scotland and England have always had different concepts of monarchy. The Scots never believed in the idea of "the divine right of kings." The monarch was the father of the nation and held to be the first among equals. If it was felt that he wasn't doing his job properly then the people could remove him and put another member of the royal family in his place. Scots kings and Queens walked among their people and were accessible to them. They were not some remote figure who's every whim was to be obeyed. In fact one article I read said that the Scandinavian style of monarchy started in Scotland. Most Scots prefer royality to be down to earth. Princess Anne is very popular in Scotland because she is down to earth and, like the Scots, she speaks her mind. Queen Elizabeth is seen as being too aloof and out of touch but on the other hand, Queen beatrix is very popular in Scotland.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I don't see what the Scots have to do with it. It's Westminster that makes the decisions, not Edinburgh. If the Scots don't like our Queen then they can always dispense with her services but I'd like to see the Scots carry on without us.

 

[Skydragon]

It's very easy to fall in to the situation of forgetting that Britain is not a country but a state made up of different countries and that each those countries have different ways of looking at things. Scotland and England have always had different concepts of monarchy. The Scots never believed in the idea of "the divine right of kings."

This is the official description of a country "an area of land that has its own government, army, etc:", which as you can see means that Britain is a country whilst Scotland is not. Scotland is a region of the UK.

I think you should also bear in mind that not every Scot hates the English, so no they don't all have different concepts of monarchy.

 

[Iain]

I don't see what the Scots have to do with it. It's Westminster that makes the decisions, not Edinburgh. If the Scots don't like our Queen then they can always dispense with her services but I'd like to see the Scots carry on without us.

It was you who mentioned Britain and as Scotland is part of Britain it does have something to do with the Scots. I was only pointing out that there are differences in the way the two nations view things. As for Scotland not being able carrying on without England, what makes you think we couldn't?