Abdications

[An Ard Ri]

I hope the media will now respect his decision to reign until the end of his life, and not haunt him with the same questions over and over again…

Everyone quickly accepted and respected Queen Margrethe’s decision to abdicate… I hope the same accept and respect will be shown to monarch’s who have landed in a different decision too!

hear, hear!

I wholeheartedly agree with your post

 

[Sister Morphine]

Good on Harald! A true blueblood who knows being a monarch is not something one does but something one is. You can’t just give it up. Not many of his breed left.

One could phrase that sentiment in a way that doesn't insult monarchs who, for whatever reason, have chosen to step down. Margrethe is no less a "blue blood" than Harald. Perhaps she wanted to see her son become King and not have it shrouded in mourning. We don't need to resort to value judgments.

 

[Izzie]

One could phrase that sentiment in a way that doesn't insult monarchs who, for whatever reason, have chosen to step down. Margrethe is no less a "blue blood" than Harald. Perhaps she wanted to see her son become King and not have it shrouded in mourning. We don't need to resort to value judgments.

Thank you!! Also, maybe Margrethe, after reflection decided to put the monarchy before herself and decided that for the sake of moving the monarchy forward, the best for it would be to step aside and allow the younger generation to take over. I applaud her for making that selfless decision, which could not have been easy.

 

[tommy100]

Each to their own, I respect Harald's decision as much as I respect Margrethe's. I hope he won't be asked all the time about it now.

 

[ricarda]

Is this oath he has given the usual oath on the constitution? Because in that case I don't quite see why abdicating would mean breaking his oath. He can still respect the constitution.
Or is there a special oath in Norway which includes that he has to stay King until death?

 

[Muhler]

During a visit to the Norwegian Press House in Oslo today, King Harald and CP Haakon gave a press conference, which was the first time the media had met the King since it became known that QMII would abdicate.

And when a reporter asked if the King had changed his mind about abdication after the news from Denmark, the King (with Haakon sitting loyally beside him) said the following:
''Jeg fastholder det jeg har sagt hele tiden; at jeg har avlagt en ed til Stortinget, og den varer livet ut.''
''I stand by what I have said all along; that I have taken an oath to the Storting, and that it lasts for life.''

VG-article (link). Google translation (link).

I find that question in very poor taste.

Everybody in Norway are aware of the special situation the NRF are in, in regards to Mette-Marit and in regards to Ingrid only being at the beginning of her education.
The NRF can, at present, simply not be compared to any other European royal family.

And what on earth did they expect King Harald to say?!?

 

[Mbruno]

Is this oath he has given the usual oath on the constitution? Because in that case I don't quite see why abdicating would mean breaking his oath. He can still respect the constitution.
Or is there a special oath in Norway which includes that he has to stay King until death?

In the oath, the King swears that he will "govern the Kingdom of Norway in accordance with its Constitution and Laws". He cannot govern the Kingdom as promised if he abdicates.

Also, I am not sure, but doing an automatic search in the English translation of the constitution, it appears that the words "abdication" or "abdicate" are not included therein.

 

[Somebody]

In the oath, the King swears that he will "govern the Kingdom of Norway in accordance with its Constitution and Laws". He cannot govern the Kingdom as promised if he abdicates.

Also, I am not sure, but doing an automatic search in the English translation of the constitution, it appears that the words "abdication" or "abdicate" are not included therein.

I don't think that prevents abdication. If he would abdicate, there would be a new king who will 'govern the Kingdom of Norway in accordance with its Constitution and Laws". The current Constitution recognizes that the King might not always be able to govern ('conduct the government') due to being abroad or ill, so in that case the heir already steps in (and takes the following oath once: «I promise and swear that I will conduct the Government in accordance with the Constitution and the Laws, so help me God, the Almighty and Omniscient.»)

I assume political officers, for example the prime minister, also need to take a somewhat similar oath, while they are on a fixed-term.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Is this oath he has given the usual oath on the constitution? Because in that case I don't quite see why abdicating would mean breaking his oath. He can still respect the constitution.
Or is there a special oath in Norway which includes that he has to stay King until death?

It is the King’s own interpretation of the oath that it is a promise to govern until the end of his life.

There is no wording in the actual oath that says ”I promise to govern until i die”…
It is how King Harald himself interpretes it, that it is a lifelong promise.

There is nothing in the norwegian constitution that would have prevented him from abdicating should he have wanted to.

 

[polyesco]

I find that question in very poor taste.

Everybody in Norway are aware of the special situation the NRF are in, in regards to Mette-Marit and in regards to Ingrid only being at the beginning of her education.
The NRF can, at present, simply not be compared to any other European royal family.

And what on earth did they expect King Haakon to say?!?

King Haakon? not yet

I hope everyone's decisions are respected. and yes let's stop asking Harald or Carl Gustaf for that matter. Life and health can change in an instance, their intention may well be to be monarchs till death, but if they do have to make the hard decision then I hope it is respected. I dont think anyone takes it lightly.

 

[Prinsara]

No one is really asking CG because genetics have seemingly placed him where he is till he’s 90 or so.

I would not like to be the one who bugs Harald about this. Sweet, laid-back and empathetic he may be, but his own genetics are not too bad and he comes from an absolutely iron-veined short line of monarchs.

 

[Annine]

It seems the journnalists also does not like asking this question as he replies that "it was not ment as critisism..."

NRK tried to have a hard hitting debate about abdication last week, and it was the tamest debate that has ever been on that program, because everyone all the time said they love the King, and the King is great and so on, and those in the debate who asked for younger generation, ended sounding a bit ageist.

King Harald has now been asked this since Princess Ingrid was quite smal, I hope they now stop, he is his own person and holds the view he does on his vow to Stortinget, and he also gives his son the space he needs. He has said that when Haakon has been regent he does not interfere in any way.

In the NRF the men gets old and its the women who has died prematurly, King Olav spent all his time as monarch alone, King Haakon almost 20 year. King Harald is lucky to have a super sporty Queen by his side his whole reign.

 

[Mbruno]

King Haakon? not yet

I hope everyone's decisions are respected. and yes let's stop asking Harald or Carl Gustaf for that matter. Life and health can change in an instance, their intention may well be to be monarchs till death, but if they do have to make the hard decision then I hope it is respected. I dont think anyone takes it lightly.

As far as health is concerned, if King Harald becomes incapacitated, but is still alive, there can be in theory a regency under Haakon until the King dies with no legal requirement of an abdication.

The situation in Sweden is slightly different. If Carl Gustaf becomes temporarily incapcitated, the Instrument of Government says that Victoria, or, in her absence, the next available adult in the line of succession (i.e., currently Carl Philip), assumes the role of head of state as regent ad interim. However, the Instrument of Government also says that, if the King fails to fulfill his role for more than six consecutive months (which would be the case if he became permanently incapacitated), the government must notify the Riksdag (the unicameral Swedish Parliament), which can then decide if the King is deemed to have abdicated. It appears to me that the intention of legislator with this particular wording was that, if a regency ad interim extended for more than 6 consecutive months, there should be a change of reign.

 

[royaljul73]

I respect the decision of every Monarch to abdicate or not to abdicate, but in my opinion an abdication has mostly if not only advantages for every party directly or indirectly involved:
1. The King / Queen who abdicates can proudly watch his/her daughter or son succeed and carry on the tradition. And can enjoy his / her last years without the burden and responsibility to be King / Queen.
2. The new King or Queen can come to terms with his / her new role and changing life without having to mourn his / her father or mother.
3. The countrymen of the new King or Queen can celebrate their new sovereign(s) without the touch of sadness that comes with the dead of a (former) head of state.

 

[Mbruno]

I respect the decision of every Monarch to abdicate or not to abdicate, but in my opinion an abdication has mostly if not only advantages for every party directly or indirectly involved:
1. The King / Queen who abdicates can proudly watch his/her daughter or son succeed and carry on the tradition. And can enjoy his / her last years without the burden and responsibility to be King / Queen.
2. The new King or Queen can come to terms with his / her new role and changing life without having to mourn his / her father or mother.
3. The countrymen of the new King or Queen can celebrate their new sovereign(s) without the touch of sadness that comes with the dead of a (former) head of state.

I am sympathetic to the idea that a head of state should not hold on to his or her office at an advanced age, let's say, into his/her 80s or 90s. On the other hand, I think that there is a risk that the act of abdicating, which was once confined only to monarchs who were forced to step down from the throne, might now become trivialized.

In fact, voluntary abdications, once restricted mostly to the Benelux countries, now seem to be slowly becoming the "new normal", see recent examples in Japan, Denmark and Spain, besides Belgium and the Netherlands (although it is debatable to what extent King Juan Carlos I's abdication is Spain was voluntary or not).

In most of those cases, however, I suppose that there could be an alternative to abdication, which would serve the purpose of replacing an aging head of state while at the same time preserving the life-long nature of the position of monarch, which distinguishes it from that of a president. I am referring specifically to the option of setting up a permanent regency under which the monarch gives up the exercise of the role of head of state while remaining nominally the king or eqivalent, i.e., no succession to the Crown takes place.

The obvious difficulty is that regency laws, as they are currently in force in many countries, do not provide for the possibility of a regency being normally used as a proxy for a monarch's "retirement". On the contrary, the law normally only allows for a regency to be established when an adult monarch is patently incapacitated, either physically, mentally, or both, as in being literally unable to discharge the duties of his/her office.

Of course there is some room for flexibility, depending on how the law (or the constitution) is interpreted. The challenge is, however, that, if you make regency rules too broad or too flexible, there is a risk that an able and young king may be vulnerable to being removed from his office at the discretion of the government or Parliament, i.e., the monarch doesn't have any real constitutional guarantees. Conversely, if regency rules are too narrow and limited, the possiblity that I suggested of using a regency as an alternative to abdication for an aging king or queen is severely restricted unless, as I said, the monarch is truly incapacitated.

Personally I think that being a regent for an aging father or mother is a good experience for a crown prince or crown princess, as it gives them practical training in the role of head of state without the burden of assuming the full dignity of a monarch. I suspect that many of the kings who ascended the throne in their 40s or early 50s in Europe recently, as a result of abdications, would have been satisfied with, or might have preferred the option of being a permanent regent instead, if they had that option (as Hereditary Prince Alois in Liechtenstein for example).

 

[royaljul73]

I am sympathetic to the idea that a head of state should not hold on to his or her office at an advanced age, let's say, into his/her 80s or 90s. On the other hand, I think that there is a risk that the act of abdicating, which was once confined only to monarchs who were forced to step down from the throne, might now become trivialized.

In fact, voluntary abdications, once restricted mostly to the Benelux countries, now seem to be slowly becoming the "new normal", see recent examples in Japan, Denmark and Spain, besides Belgium and the Netherlands (although it is debatable to what extent King Juan Carlos I's abdication is Spain was voluntary or not).

In most of those cases, however, I suppose that there could be an alternative to abdication, which would serve the purpose of replacing an aging head of state while at the same time preserving the life-long nature of the position of monarch, which distinguishes it from that of a president. I am referring specifically to the option of setting up a permanent regency under which the monarch gives up the exercise of the role of head of state while remaining nominally the king or eqivalent, i.e., no succession to the Crown takes place.

The obvious difficulty is that regency laws, as they are currently in force in many countries, do not provide for the possibility of a regency being normally used as a proxy for a monarch's "retirement". On the contrary, the law normally only allows for a regency to be established when an adult monarch is patently incapacitated, either physically, mentally, or both, as in being literally unable to discharge the duties of his/her office.

Of course there is some room for flexibility, depending on how the law (or the constitution) is interpreted. The challenge is, however, that, if you make regency rules too broad or too flexible, there is a risk that an able and young king may be vulnerable to being removed from his office at the discretion of the government or Parliament, i.e., the monarch doesn't have any real constitutional guarantees. Conversely, if regency rules are too narrow and limited, the possiblity that I suggested of using a regency as an alternative to abdication for an aging king or queen is severely restricted unless, as I said, the monarch is truly incapacitated.

Personally I think that being a regent for an aging father or mother is a good experience for a crown prince or crown princess, as it gives them practical training in the role of head of state without the burden of assuming the full dignity of a monarch. I suspect that many of the kings who ascended the throne in their 40s or early 50s in Europe recently, as a result of abdications, would have been satisfied with, or might have preferred the option of being a permanent regent instead, if they had that option (as Hereditary Prince Alois in Liechtenstein for example).

I can see your point Mbruno and admit that a regency might seem a good alternative. And I certainly agree that it is a good training for the heir(ess). But I think that you have mentioned the reason that speak against a permanent regency as alternative to a (voluntary) abdication yourself: the risk of making the rules too broad or too flexible. The life-long nature of the monarch's position stems from a time and age where life expectancy was much shorter than today and therefore I believe that concept should be modernized. Moreover, I think either you are king / Queen or you aren't - and that's why I think that a regency should be restricted to the cases where a regent is truly incapacitated.

 

[Somebody]

I agree that a regency is a good solution for a temporary situation (for example the short regencies of Juliana at the end of Wilhelmina's reign) but Liechtenstein shows exactly why this proposal of a prolonged regency doesn't work for me: in Hans-Adam's case his true reign as the Sovereign Prince has been shorter than the period he has officially been the head of state while he son is fulfilling all duties as regent...

And I am quite sure the monarchs that ascended the throne in the last 15 years after an abdication far more prefer truly being the monarch than taking on all responsibilities without having the formal position. I am not sure what the additional burden of being the monarch is, in fact, I'd say it would be more of a burden to be the acting head of state instead of the real one.