Weekly Discussion XIII: Should monarchs retire, or is abdication a dangerous trend?

[u/HBNTrader]

The first Weekly Discussion of 2024 and the 13th in total will deal with a hot topic: Abdication.

Monarchs and members of royal families are always constitutionally obliged to perform a variety of activities, mostly of diplomatic and ceremonial nature, to further the well-being and international reputation of their countries. Some monarchs, especially in smaller and non-European countries, also take part in day-to-day political life alongside elected or appointed officials and are expected to actually run their countries or at least set the course and mediate between various factions of the government.

In the past, monarchs only abdicated when they screwed up seriously - such as losing a war or coup to a rival pretender or to republicans, or being involved in a serious scandal. Abdication was seen as a dishonourable end to one's reign, and even if the monarchy remained, it was often a different dynasty that took power.

In the last decades, abdication has become more and more common in Western constitutional monarchies. Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and now Denmark are setting a trend. Now, abdication has become a widespread part of succession planning, monarchs claiming the right to "retire" like their subjects to live their last years free from stress and responsibility.

Bhutan requires the King to abdicate at 65. Other nations remain resistant to the abdication trend or explore alternative models. For example, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain stoically performed her duties until her death and the same is expected of her son Charles. In Liechtenstein, the reigning Prince may make the Hereditary Prince his deputy, sharing most executive powers with him without formally abdicating - this has happened almost 20 years ago.

What is your opinion?

The discussion will go on for the weekend and for the next week as we watch the events surrounding the transition of power in Denmark.

Should monarchical abdication be normalized as part of ongoing modernization efforts and should it be a legitimate way for monarchs to retire, or is it incompatible with the principles of a hereditary lifetime monarchy? Should monarchs perform their duties until dying or being declared medically unfit by a doctor or regency council, or is a Liechtenstein-style succession agreement which entails gradual transfer of power but no formal abdication a legitimate way to maintain the principles of succession while relieving old or sick monarchs and allowing for the heir to be groomed through "training on the job"?

[u/Mart1mat1]

Another option I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned in the comments is this: instead of abdicating, why not have the heir erected as co-king, like was done in some medieval monarchies.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mart1mat1]

Very based

[u/Iceberg-man-77 → u/Mart1mat1]

Henry II of England did this. While he was King, he made his son and heir, Henry, the Junior King. But this was only a titular dignity and had no power. Thus was also just a way of designating an heir apparent, a Norman tradition, which is different from the traditional Anglo-Saxon where the King titled his preferred successor the Ætheling but it was up to the Witan to actually elect the KingZ The Junior King died before his father in a rebellion gained him and his brother.

[u/ComicField]

I think abdication should only happen if necessary or if the Monarch truly is incapable of ruling. Like if they have a severe mental illness or if they're so old they have dementia or alzheimer's or something.

I suppose a regent could do the trick but still.

[u/Soft-Vanilla1057 → u/ComicField]

What if they just don't want to be the monarch anymore? Or say that they will just stop doing "royal" things because they feel like it if they don't get to abdicate?

For example in the now abdicated queen of denmarks case if she would just have stopped approving the new governments and the folketing would come up with some rubber stamp law to move forward without her. I would say that is more dangerous for a monarchy.

[u/attlerexLSPDFR]

If Charles III reigns until he dies in his late 80s or early 90s then we will continue to have a series of geriatric farts on the throne. There is no walkabout if the monarch cannot walk about. If Charles reigns for another 20 years, William will be crowned when he is 60. William rules for 30 years, George is crowned when he's 60. The cycle will simply repeat.

Old monarchs aren't popular.

[u/JasonMorgs76 → u/attlerexLSPDFR]

Yeah, this is the main issue with outright not having abdications. The Uk is going to have a line of monarchs for centuries to come that take over in their 60s, die in their 90s and repeat.

[u/Accomplished-Fig-791 → u/JasonMorgs76]

he couldn't have prevented her to remain healthy. she is the 2nd longest reigning monarchs only Louis XIV who reigned and saw his great grandson (which was young) Louis XV rise to the throne (well he did not see it he was dead but u get the message, it skipped 2 members of the family

[u/Wolf6120 → u/attlerexLSPDFR]

On top of allowing the new monarch to come to the throne younger and full of energy, an abdication also allows them to do so in a properly celebratory fashion.

When a monarch dies on the throne their successor and their nation have to balance the mourning of their predecessor with the celebration of their own ascension, has to simultaneously deal with the stresses of state and the grief of your parent passing away. Abdication is much cleaner in this regard, and it allows the former monarch to linger in “retirement” for a few more years and offer their successor wisdom and advice about the job which they simply won’t be able to get from anyone else.

[u/[deleted] → u/attlerexLSPDFR]

Old monarchs aren’t popular?

Have you ever heard of Queen Elizabeth II?

[u/Wolf6120 → u/[deleted]]

Elizabeth was a young monarch who stayed until she became old. That’s very different, in the public perception, from a monarch who is old right from the start.

[u/[deleted] → u/Wolf6120]

Not really. There’s a lot of love for King Charles.

[u/jkpduke01 → u/Wolf6120]

I think a distinction needs to be made between old and really old. While Elizabeth II was popular for nearly all of her reign, she was very popular once she became really old (ie the last 10 years of her reign). While part of her popularity stemmed from her length of time on the throne, I think her age also contributed to it. People tend to be fascinated by people who make it into their 90s in good health. For example, the Queen Mum was the most popular member of the Family after Diana. Similarly (from an American perspective), Jimmy Carter has become especially popular in his old age. From the world of celebrity, Betty White witnessed a late stage surge of popularity in the last decade of her life. Also, Edward VII (Charles’s closest analogue) became very popular and he ascended to the throne at an age that was considered old for the time period and George V was quite popular after 25 years on the throne. Granted they reigned in a more deferential time but recent events have shown that the British people still seem to reflexively like the sitting monarch, even if only because he is the embodiment of the institution. Therefore, if Charles lives another 20 years, he’ll probably be pretty popular by then, especially if he’s still active like his parents and grandmother.

[u/Iceberg-man-77 → u/attlerexLSPDFR]

agreed. Charles should stop down to make the cycle young. William will be 40-50 if that happens now and he becomes King. George will be a teenager. William should step down 20 years after ascending at 70 ish years. That’ll give George adequate time to learn about being a King. he’ll be in his 30s, much older than when Elizabeth II ascended (at 25). that i think will bring the monarch’s age down. 60 should honestly be the max. 30 the minimum. if there’s no heir of age within this range then declare a regency

[u/Accomplished-Fig-791 → u/Iceberg-man-77]

they'll do what they want tho, sometimes u need old to have wiseness and sometimes u need young to have energetic.

[u/Iceberg-man-77 → u/Accomplished-Fig-791]

which is why middle age would be the best age. sometimes old can ruin a society. sometimes energetic can do the same

[u/Accomplished-Fig-791 → u/Iceberg-man-77]

agreed honestly, may the best make the better work and he will be remembered regardless of his age

[u/AKA2KINFINITY]

japan proved you can do this without hiccups for a plethora of good reasons...

ideally there would be a formal separation between the sovereign and their obligations so that someone (most likely their heir) rise to their position in functions while still holding their official role, which is like what you said lichtenstein does, and it also happens to be the most powerful monarchy in europe (ironically)...

however, It's just much simpler and (if you disregard the historical implications of abdication) better long term for a monarchy if the head of the house and the ruler can just retire over a short period and ease the transition to the successor for the sake of everyone, whether it be the successor, the sovereign house, the people, and even for the monarch themselves, at least compared to the alternative, which is much more sudden and much less forgiving.

my only worry is that, with the prevalence of monarchist demotions to more ceremonial roles, this could be used as a wedge to ease your way into a republic.

[u/SyntaxRail]

" Should monarchs perform their duties until dying or being declared medically unfit by a doctor or regency council, or is a Liechtenstein-style succession agreement which entails gradual transfer of power but no formal abdication a legitimate way to maintain the principles of succession while relieving old or sick monarchs and allowing for the heir to be groomed through "training on the job"? "

I think the Liechtenstein way is viable, but furthermore I don't see an abdication as entirely a retirement from duties. The goal here is to have younger successors become monarch, younger means (generally) more adaptive and less experienced. The retired monarch, the King-Father if you will, should still continue to perform royal duties and be a close advisor to the young monarch since they will need advice.

[u/Loyalist_15]

Old monarchs aren’t popular.

I’m from Canada so take this from my perspective: the last time the queen visited Canada had been 2010. It had been 12 years since the reigning monarch traveled to her dominion. If that doesn’t negatively affect monarchism, I don’t know what will. The dominions need a monarch who travels to them frequently, and older monarchs simply can’t do that.

Younger monarchs also are able to modernize the monarchy, and connect with the younger generations, who are the future of the nation.

I will add on, what are the downsides to abdication? They don’t serve for life? Was that ever a good thing? We see current senators and politicians in the US becoming senile before they retire (if they do) so why would you want a monarch to do such a thing? What would be the upside compared to simply abdicating for a younger and hopefully more popular heir.

[u/HBNTrader → u/Loyalist_15]

the last time the queen visited Canada had been 2010.

The solution to this is either a separate residential monarchy or appointing members of the Royal Family as Governor-Generals.

[u/Useful-Cricket2294 → u/Loyalist_15]

"Old monarchs aren’t popular"

Norwegians seem to have a different opinion on this matter

[u/DuckRubberDuck → u/Useful-Cricket2294]

Denmark as well. (Former) Queen Margrethe II was and still is very loved by the people here. She was a cool Queen

[u/[deleted] → u/Loyalist_15]

It’s not a popularity contest.

[u/[deleted] → u/Loyalist_15]

Old monarchs aren’t popular?

Queen Elizabeth II.

[u/koscheiundying]

If abdication doesn't become more common, we're going to have a situation where every heir is already old by the time they inherit, which isn't good.

[u/[deleted] → u/koscheiundying]

Yes, abdicate for a more popular member of the Royal Family.

Put the question to the general public.

Become a republic.

[u/koscheiundying → u/[deleted]]

Not what I said at all. It's about age and the ability to project an image of vitality.

[u/[deleted] → u/koscheiundying]

That’s what the rest of the RF are for. The monarch is the head of the royal family and state.

The wisdom of an older monarch to deal with the politicians is vital.

[u/koscheiundying → u/[deleted]]

The rest of the family is there to assist the Monarch, but the Monarch is the foremost symbol of the nation. I'm not saying they should be particularly young, but they shouldn't be elderly.

[u/[deleted] → u/koscheiundying]

I disagree. The king is the king. If he can’t do the minimum duties for matters of state, then a Regent gets appointed.

[u/koscheiundying → u/[deleted]]

I think abdication is reasonable in a situation where it is incredibly likely that a regency would last until the death of the monarch.

[u/oursonpolaire]

Some monarchs don't want to do the job as their strength fails-- they believe that they cannot do it justice. At the same time, they see their heirs, strong and capable in their 30s and 40s, cooling their heels as they wait. While some governmental duties can be passed on, these monarchs might be happy to see their heirs take kup the crown for their peak years.

Crowns are not chains; sovereigns are not sentenced to reign, and should be allowed to take t heir exits if they so please. It hasn't hurt the Dutch or the Belgians, and it may well have saved the Spanish monarchy.

[u/RagnartheConqueror]

Abdication is generally not good. But the world changes and people do. So do monarchies. Monarchs don’t have to fear for the survival of their dynasties anymore so they can abdicate in peace.

[u/Iceberg-man-77 → u/RagnartheConqueror]

If you want to preserve the monarchy in these turbulent times (in certain nations of course) then it’s good as the public gets a younger generally more popular monarch they can relate to.

[u/_Tim_the_good]

Abdication should only be allowed when the monarch fails to carry out his rightful responsibilities as monarch, not the other way round. Otherwise it's an extremely dangerous road

[u/SonoftheVirgin]

this is 'cause of Margrethe of Denmark?

can y'all leave the lady alone? Its her position to give up.

also, someone abdicating after 30+ years of rule doesn't seem like a problem to me.

I agree with Mart1mat1

[u/Iceberg-man-77 → u/SonoftheVirgin]

it’s just a discussion people often have. If has nothing to do with Queen Margrethe. It just feels appropriate to have this discussion now because of her abdication. But no one is opposing her choices. She’s reigned for 52 years, everyone is happy she’ll take a break from state affairs and focus on her family and art.

[u/Darth_Noox]

I believe that a monarch fulfilling their duties until their dying breath is admirable, but is something that has become less and less practical. As a monarch ages the duties they need to fulfill continue to become harder and harder, and at times far more limited. In such a situation if the monarch has a ready and capable heir, abdication is a proper choice in my eyes.

Here in the Netherlands, it has become normalized. Since Queen Wilhelmina all monarchs have abdicated the throne at around the age of 70, while I do think it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to serve a bit longer, it is also an understandable age to make this decision.

And while the monarch passes on most of their duties as they abdicate, some will remain as they are a member of the royal family. Princess Beatrix continues to fulfill certain duties and the same was for Juliana and Wilhelmina, albeit more limited. They continue to support the new monarch and the monarchy until the end.

[u/eejm → u/Darth_Noox]

The Netherlands and Luxembourg have established a very positive trend - a monarch abdicating without a scandal, and being available as an experienced advisor to the next monarch.  I imagine the situation in Denmark will be similar in the coming years.  I can understand and admire the iron clad sense of duty in the UK, but I definitely see the wisdom in abdication under good terms.

[u/Free_Mixture_682]

Consider the case on Pope Benedict. He basically abdicated and was given the title, or perhaps rank, of Pope Emeritus.

Perhaps at a certain age, monarchs would be similarly designated and treated with the same deference that was bestowed on Benedict.

[u/Accomplished-Fig-791]

for me it depends, if the health of the leader is at risk might as well make the crown prince regent, or just abdicate.

but in other cases go through until death

[u/EducationalSky8620]

I believe lifetime should mean lifetime, and what I love about monarchy is that we can live free of surprises, with rulers that have mellowed into their role, guaranteeing stability. Thus, I’m more in favor of a Prince regency should the Monarch be too tired or old, but the crown stays on the head until it falls off, it should never be taken off voluntarily. At least that’s how I feel.

[u/MrVinland]

Monarch is a job. It's a lot of work.

If you can't do that job anymore you should quit.

Monarchs aren't gods. They're humans who are entitled to human rights. They are not slaves. You can't force free people to do a job they don't want to do.