The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne

[muriel]

This is an old thread to be re-activated again but after discussions about the BRF came up the other day, a question was asked about William. If William decided that he did not wish to become Prince of Wales and then King in the future, he could then in theory remove himself, I believe.

However, I don't think that, unlike King Edward VIII and his (non-existent) children, heirs and successors he could also remove George, Charlotte and future descendants. Others disagreed.

I'm not suggesting in the least that William would ever wish to renounce his claim to the throne, by the way, but has there ever been a case in a European royal house where an heir has renounced the throne for himself and for his existing children, apart from Tsar Nicholas and Alexei in 1917?

Thanks for asking this I have been thinking what would happen if William just said enough I want out ? Like you I don't think he ever would but I would be interested to know the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I think it would take an Act of Parliament for William (or any specific individual) to be removed from the line of succession.

I also think it is highly unlikely that George and Charlotte would be removed from the lines of succession unless they were at least 18 years of age.

 

[Rudolph]

Yes an Act of Parliament is required to remove anyone from the line of succession. William being removed does not remove his children

This questions gets raised with Harry supporters quite a bit on various blogs who hope William will 'abdicate' along with his children and make Hazza the king.

 

[Marty91charmed]

You guys are raising an interesting point! BTW what has Harry to do with this topic once again??? Ah what people do to promote their "idols" is to discredit others Sigh.

I've always asked myself (forgive my absolute lack of knowledge) what would the effects be on George in case of an abdication... I think ti would be totally unfair for him to lose hir ascension rights... But what if William would abdicate with his son still underage? Who would get a regency? I 've read conflicting reports about that

 

[Rudolph]

Because if William and his children are removed from the line of succession by an Act of Parliament then Harry is king, that's what he has to do with it.

 

[Marty91charmed]

Because if William and his children are removed from the line of succession by an Act of Parliament then Harry is king, that's what he has to do with it.

Yes but why is there is need to be sarcastic and all? Anyway, don't worry, it is very unlikely it will happen...

 

[Rudolph]

Edward VIII is the only British monarch in history to have 'voluntarily' abdicated and parliament gave him no choice. William will become King the instant his father passes.

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks for asking this I have been thinking what would happen if William just said enough I want out ? Like you I don't think he ever would but I would be interested to know the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The order of succession is determined by law and, therefore, can only be changed by law. Changing the law on the other hand requires the "advice and consent" of the Lords and Commons of the United Kingdom in parliament assembled. Neither Charles nor William can unilaterally renounce their succession rights.

 

[Rudolph]

Britain does not allow unilateral abdications. "In a monarchy, succession to the throne is a matter not of choice but of duty." (The Monarchy and the Constitution, by Vernon Bogdanor, Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Britain does not allow unilateral abdications. "In a monarchy, succession to the throne is a matter not of choice but of duty." (The Monarchy and the Constitution, by Vernon Bogdanor, Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)

Aren't abdications always uniltateral?



It was Edward VIII whom abdicated, it was Jean of Luxembourg whom abdicated, it was Beatrix of the Netherlands whom abdicated, it was Pope Benedictus XVI whom abdicated. All these were one-sided (unilateral) decisions.

Yes, but the Dowager Queen wasn't Queen in her own right. There was no official monarch at the time.

There was. Alfonso XIII. Even when he was not born yet, he already was the King. His mother was Regentess for the child.

 

[Curryong]

Let me please make this clear. Although I like Harry very much I neither want William to renounce his position nor do I believe that the thought has crossed William's mind.

What does interest me is though, theoretically if William did do such a thing would he ever be able to renounce the throne for his heirs George and Charlotte, or would they be 'in limbo' so to speak until they reached the age of eighteen? What if Charlotte wished to remain in the direct line of succession at eighteen but her brother did not?

What would be their position as minors during the reign of King Charles? Would William be able to take them out of the country? Would a legal guardian have to be appointed by the royal family? What if a third child was born?

Once direct heirs to the throne are born, are with us here and now, it's very different from the hypotheticals that arose in the case of Edward VIII (as I believe that Wallis was probably infertile.)

 

[Rudolph]

Aren't abdications always uniltateral?



It was Edward VIII whom abdicated, it was Jean of Luxembourg whom abdicated, it was Beatrix of the Netherlands whom abdicated, it was Pope Benedictus XVI whom abdicated. All these were one-sided (unilateral) decisions.

The Act of Settlement 1701 is clear. The Throne is to go to the Electress Sophia and the heirs of her body. Parliament requires the Throne to go to the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia and to nobody else.

For a British monarch to give up the throne requires both the will of the Monarch and for Parliament to remove the heir from the line of succession.

Really its moot because British monarchs don't just walk of the job like some of their European counterparts.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Act of Settlement 1701 is clear. The Throne is to go to the Electress Sophia and the heirs of her body. Parliament requires the Throne to go to the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia and to nobody else.

For a British monarch to give up the throne requires both the will of the Monarch and for Parliament to remove the heir from the line of succession.

Really its moot because British monarchs don't just walk of the job like some of their European counterparts.

Unilateral or not unilateral, du moment that Elizabeth II, Charles III, William V or George VII informs the Prime Minister about their intention to abdicate the kingship, the PM will initiate a Declaration of Abdication Bill. It is hard to see that when Elizabeth II or a Charles III informs the PM to abdicate, that then Mr Cameron or his successor will refuse.

Also in Spain a vote is needed about an Act of Abdication. In the Netherlands and Luxembourg an abdication is part of the royal privilege. It is the only one public, constitutional, act by the Sovereign which needs no Bill, Royal Decree or even a ministerial contraseign. In Belgium the Act of Abdication is unilateral too but there is no automatic King. The Parliament has to proclaim a new King. (That is why in Belgium Philippe is "King of the Belgians", by right of the people (Parliament), and not "King of Belgium" by territorial right).

 

[Rudolph]

We don't know what Parliament will do because it has never happened in Britain. Edward VIII was the only sovereign in British history to declare he wished to voluntarily cease to be king and that was only after the prodding of the government and Dominion PMs.

Even in the Instrument of Abdication of 10 December 1936, Edward VIII did not say "I abdicate", but said it was his desire to stop being king, and it was his desire that appropriate legislation be enacted.

Edward VIII didn't abdicate on his own. What he did do is state his wish to voluntary cease being king, and, once legislation was put into place, be allowed by Parliament to do so.

The British constitution requires both king and Parliament to participate in an abdication, and an abdication cannot take place without either king or Parliament.

 

[Al_bina]

This is an old thread to be re-activated again but after discussions about the BRF came up the other day, a question was asked about William. If William decided that he did not wish to become Prince of Wales and then King in the future, he could then in theory remove himself, I believe.

However, I don't think that, unlike King Edward VIII and his (non-existent) children, heirs and successors he could also remove George, Charlotte and future descendants. Others disagreed.

I'm not suggesting in the least that William would ever wish to renounce his claim to the throne, by the way, but has there ever been a case in a European royal house where an heir has renounced the throne for himself and for his existing children, apart from Tsar Nicholas and Alexei in 1917?

Is there any reason for Prince William to step down? It will have a ruinous effect on the institution.
On a different note ... if Prince William, due to some serious circumstances, decided to remove himself from the succession line, he should also renounce his children's right to succeed the throne. Prince Henry would make a good monarch, and his children should continue the Windsor bloodline. It would be the right thing to do. However, the legal side can be diametrically opposite. TRF members from UK can clarify the legal side of the situation better.

 

[muriel]

Is there any reason for Prince William to step down?

Not that we are aware of. As far as I know, this is just a theoretic discussion.

 

[Al_bina]

In my very personal opinion...


It is inappropriate to have such discussion, even if they are theoretic.

 

[Skippyboo]

Is there any reason for Prince William to step down? It will have a ruinous effect on the institution.
On a different note ... if Prince William, due to some serious circumstances, decided to remove himself from the succession line, he should also renounce his children's right to succeed the throne. Prince Henry would make a good monarch, and his children should continue the Windsor bloodline. It would be the right thing to do. However, the legal side can be diametrically opposite. TRF members from UK can clarify the legal side of the situation better.

I don't understand why George and Charlotte should lose their birthright.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] It will have a ruinous effect on the institution. [...]

Why?

The abdications of Grand Duchess Marie Adelheid of Luxembourg (1919), King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (1938), Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1948), King Leopold III of the Belgians (1951), Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg (1964), Queen Juliana of the Netherlands (1980), Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg (2000), King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia (2004), Emir Saad Al-Abdullah Al-Salim Al-Sabah of Kuwait (2006), King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan (2006), Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (2013), Pope Benedictus XVI (2013), King Albert II of the Belgians (2013), Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar (2013) and King Juan Carlos of Spain (2014) all showed that a new generation followed them and that it never had a negative effect on the monarchy. On the contrary I would say.

[...]
On a different note ... if Prince William, due to some serious circumstances, decided to remove himself from the succession line, he should also renounce his children's right to succeed the throne. [...]

That is not possible. Following your logic that is the same as saying: when the Prince of Wales decides to remove himself from the line of succession, then Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Henry are also out of the line of succession....

 

[Mbruno]

Edward VIII didn't abdicate on his own. What he did do is state his wish to voluntary cease being king, and, once legislation was put into place, be allowed by Parliament to do so.

The British constitution requires both king and Parliament to participate in an abdication, and an abdication cannot take place without either king or Parliament.

I believe James II was "deemed by Parliament to have abdicated" without personally declaring that he wanted to abdicate (which, in fact, he did not).

 

[Al_bina]

Why?
The abdications of Grand Duchess Marie Adelheid of Luxembourg (1919), King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (1938), Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands (1948), King Leopold III of the Belgians (1951), Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg (1964), Queen Juliana of the Netherlands (1980), Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg (2000), ... [snipped]

The British like to emphasise their uniqueness in this respect. As pointed out in the appropriate threads, King Albert II and King Juan Carlos were forced to abdicate. So it remains to be seen whether or not Queen Elizabeth II abdicates and what effect it may have on the institution in the UK.

That is not possible. Following your logic that is the same as saying: when the Prince of Wales decides to remove himself from the line of succession, then Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Henry are also out of the line of succession....

Prince Charles has never said that he is unwilling to ascend the throne or has doubts about his future position. Moreover, Prince Charles is highly unlikely to abdicate. I am not sure what Prince William did or said to prompt such discussion.

 

[Rudolph]

I believe James II was "deemed by Parliament to have abdicated" without personally declaring that he wanted to abdicate (which, in fact, he did not).

Yes you're absolutely right. I meant British Monarch since the Act of Settlement 1701.

James II was deemed by a Parliament meeting on 28 January 1689 to have abdicated on 11 December 1688

 

[Iluvbertie]

An additional wrinkle to the British situation that doesn't apply to those other places is that it isn't one parliament now that has to pass the legislation.


In 1936 the British parliament could pass the laws with the consent of the dominions but now those 'dominions' which are now 'other realms' have to also pass that legislation themselves and that would take time.


The easiest way for William or anyone else to take themselves out of the line of succession is to convert to Roman Catholicism as the monarch can't be Roman Catholic.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] King Albert II and King Juan Carlos were forced to abdicate. [...]

Nonsense. King Albert II and King Juan Carlos both abdicated because of their advanced age, which has brought setbacks on their physical condition. That is visible for everyone. The Belgian King is almost deaf, has difficulties walking and suffers a tremor. The Spanish King has a very poor health and only can walk short distances with the help of a stick or with support from his escorts. Both Kings felt they could no longer fulfill the kingship according the standards they demand from themselves and from others. That is why they felt it was time for a new generation to take over. That is honourable and anyone seeing King Albert II and King Juan Carlos these days know that their abdications were wise and understandable. The same counts for Emeritus Pope Benedictus XVI who has a very, very frail appearance these days. Imagine he was still the Pope... No, there is nothing dishonourable in abdicating and no one of these three was forced.

 

[padams2359]

Juan Carlos and the Pope abdicated more so for the things that they did, or didn't do rather than their health.

 

[Sweden]

British Royal Family and Abdications

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!

 

[Sweden]

Yes, the Queen is your head of state. but your government is independent from the control of the queen. the queen doesn't control it. so the queen is more like a national symbol.

I agree with that fully. One reason why I am pro monarchy is having a monarch is a symbol for the country. It created tradition, a unity of the country, and common ground. The Queen is a symbol of the country, and represents Britain's desires.

 

[tommy100]

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!

IMO once one Sovereign abdicates it can set a precedence for their successors to do so. In the UK Edward VII abdicated because he wanted to marry someone deemed unsuitable. This could have started a precedence but I think the strong determination of his brother and Elizabeth to carry on for their entire life has made it clear this was not to start a tradition.
Look at Luxembourg and The Netherlands, rightly or wrongly there is now a tradition that sovereigns abdicate when they reach an older age and hand down to the younger generation. I think some monarchs feel this is the right thing to do whilst others feel it sets up a precedence whereby once a monarch seems to be little bit old the question of whether they abdicate or not starts getting asked.
Once a precedence has been set its hard to go back on it, thats why IMO we won't see a British abdication anytime soon.

 

[Ish]

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!

I wouldn't necessarily say that. True, there have been few abdications in British/English/Scottish history, but they have happened.

Britain's had 1 modern abdication, Spain's had 5 (4 of which were because of revolt and revolution), Belgium's had 2 (1 because of revolt), Sweden 1 (revolt), Monaco 1, Luxembourg 3 (1 roughly because of revolt), the Netherlands 4. Norway, Denmark, and Liechtenstein have had none. So... really, Norway, Denmark, and Liechtenstein have had the fewest abdications, Spain and the Netherlands have had the most, and the rest are kind of in between.

The circumstances of the abdications are all varied, and most of the countries that have had them haven't really had many entirely voluntarily abdications - in Britain and 1 of the Luxembourg abdications it was done under the pressure of the government, in most of Spain's, Sweden's, and 1 of Belgium's it was done because the people pushed the monarch of the throne. Only the Netherlands has a strong history of the monarch voluntarily abdicating, although there is a trend in Luxembourg now. It really remains to be seen whether or not there will be future abdications in Spain or Belgium, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it - they may have been voluntarily abdications (or at least presented as such), but there were still extenuating circumstances.

As for QEII... I wouldn't bet on her abdicating. Not simply because of what's seen as her views on abdication, but also because I think Britain is one of the few modern monarchies where an abdication could be really destabilizing to the institution of monarchy. If QEII were to abdicate it would open up the possibility of Charles abdicating in favour of his more popular son - and it could also open up the possibility of William removing himself and his children from the succession. I don't think William ever would do so as it is now, but I often get the sense from him that if it were his choice he would. And I do think that if the Queen were to abdicate there would be a huge push from people for Charles to do so as well... at which point, things could really crumble and end up creating a republic.

 

[wyevale]

open up the possibility of William removing himself and his children from the succession.

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.

 

[padams2359]

I think QE2 should be, and will be queen until she draws her last breath. If need be, Charles will be a fine Prince Regent. He has probably had more training than any other prince in history, and people should give him a break. Unlike many hits of the past, more people know what he thinks, how he thinks, and what is important to him. Someone needs to worry about the environment, why not him?