The great abdication kerfuffle

Your constitutional commentary and education is exceptional. Thank you.

I just ran across your channel by accident. I can see it will rapidly become a favourite. I've been fascinated by the constitution ever since I read 'Laws and Flaws: Lapses of the Legislators' by Edward Iwi when I Was a boy some 65 years ago.

Very interesting. I suspect a Regency here in 🇬🇧 in likely however, say within 10 years or so. Presumably the office of governor-general would remain unaffected in those circumstances.

Thank you Professor Twomey, might I ask, have you ever discussed the laws of succession to the British crown, requiring a child to have been born of the body, meaning the naturally conceived & carried to term by the wife of the husband. It’s an aspect of law few know of and when the topic arose a few years ago most had no idea. If you haven’t, when you have the time would you please consider doing a video on that?

I notice that you did not mention that South Africa has not been a rhealm since 1961.

Thank you, that was interesting, though I don't agree that the Act of Settlement allows a monarch either to abdicate or to be passed over as successor to themself. Debatably, it (and amending legislation such as the various Succession to the Crown Acts that followed the Perth Agreement) say that such and such a person is the monarch, with no choice in the matter. I'd just like to add that for the King to abdicate because of age or ill health is not only of arguable legal possibility (perhaps requiring enabling legislation), but also unnecessary . The provisions of the Regency Act (1937) allow the King to declare himself "not available for a definite cause" or even infirm in mind of body, whereupon his duties and responsibilities as monarch would be transferred to a regent (in the current situation, the Prince of Wales). That is, the law makes a provision for the King to retire in ill health or infirmity that does not require an abdication.

Thank you for another very interesting video!

Thank you very much for your presentation. You made it very easy to understand and I enjoyed it.

If the throne passes to the King pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Settlement, I'm unclear on how the King could simply decide not to abide by the legislation and for that decision to be sufficient. In the absence of a statutory mechanism providing for abdication, wouldn't the law remain in effect until a further legislative act essentially changed the line of succession? Or is inheriting the throne more akin to a 'right' that can be waived, rather than an 'obligation' that can't be set aside without some further legislative amendment? It seems to me that the safest route, for the removal of doubt, would be to amend the Act of Settlement, with similar legislation passed in each of the King's realms. I imagine, both to put an abdication beyond legal doubt, and for the optics of each Realm asserting their separate and sovereign status, this would be the most likely approach in the unlikely event that the King decided to abdicate.

In the event of abdication, does the Crown pass automatically to the next in line (as if the sovereign had died) or does there need to be some sort of active acceptance on the part of the new sovereign? In the example of the Edward VIII abdication, if the then Prince Albert did not want to succeed Edward VIII or was found unsuitable by Ministers to do so (as is sometimes claimed), would he have become King George VI regardless upon the signing of Edward VIII's abdication and have then needed to then abdicate himself (and presumably on behalf of the then Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret) after a reign of seconds/minutes so that the then Duke of Kent could become King? From memory William III and Mary II were formally offered and accepted the Crown by Parliament but that is not a particularly relevant example to the House of Windsor in 1936 or 2024.

Until the first minute had elapsed, I thought you had come into possession of a DeLorean.

That was very interesting thank you

Smashing!

The practical reality is that if the king has been murdered, run away, or otherwise no longer available or prepared to be the King, then some formalesque proceedings will be found to accommodate that. I agree that Charles would never abdicate, despite that it would have been much better for the institution for him to never be King in the first place, and pass on the baton at the time. He is plainly as steeped in the British traditions as anyone could be.

If it's necessary that abdication would require legislation (and constitutional legislation at that) to make it effectual in all the realms, as a West Indian, what's the likelihood that the other realms in the West Indies who don't need a referendum to become republics would take the opportunity to abolish their Crowns given it'd be the same amount of effort legislating the abdication vs becoming a republic?

I'm genuinely curious as to what would happen if a referendum were held in Australia and the populous states voted yes and the rest voted no. Would Australia break apart then, or would it become a weird diarchy with both a King and President as co Heads of State...

You would think that if he was to step aside for the day to day role, it would be just a regency situation and there is no need to abdicate. Sounds like the Australian media is jumping at shadows again.

I thought I had already commented! and then checked and was like"huh i thought i had already " anways i was just thinking of the fiji coup when you uploaded this because I was in a library and came across some books about the queen. I think the palaces instience on secrecy screws them there.The Queen abdicitng in protest of racism and some of her other actions such as in grenada would make the monarchy look good if more well know IMO. you know better then me[and probably everyone who doesnt work or has never worked for the monarchy and a good dealof them too ] of course and im probably wrong but I disagree on the abdication process you outlined needing to name all the realms. The new tuvlau consitution enacted in 2023 states that "the royal majesty of the united kingdom " is there head of state and so in tuvalu him abdicting as king of the UK would automatically make Willam King of Tuvulu. As well it is my understanding some of the realms in 2011 preferred to simply state that as there monarch is automatically the same person as the monarch of the UK they didnt need to do anything. althrough i think this was probably also a political decision. Thank you for the excellent video as always!

You missed out the abdication of an absolute monarch in modern times, the abdication of pope Benedikt XVI. in 2013. The catholic church had simply to accept his abdication and Franciscus had been elected in usual course as the new pope. Any non-constitutional monarch may simply maintain that god advised him to abdicate and therefore everybody else in his state has no choice but to accept it. In other words: An absolute monarch could abdicate because he could do whatever he likes to do. I am waiting for a "common" constitutional monarch to make a claim on human rights e.g. to abdicate or (more likely) to marry a partner of his own choice. Some monarchs in Europe need to gain approval of parliament or government for their future husband or wife. I think every constitutional monarch enjoys human rights as most European countries enshrined them more or less in their own constitutions and as they signed for in international treaties. In result every constitutional monarch can abdicate because nobody must do forced labour. When Elizabeth II. stopped to be head of state of Fiji we have no special problems because it is similar to loose control over another country in the course of a military defeat. She saw that her case did have no chance to prevail there so he accepted the inevitable to avoid damage to her tenure as a constitutional monarch. Just my 2 cents.

What do you think are the chances of the realms become republics on the next succession?