From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I'd really appreciate it if others who have worked on this would add their references to the References section. I almost randomly stumbled on this; I have no clue what references have already been fully exploited, and it would be a real waste to duplicate someone's research. -- Jmabel 07:01, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Most of the current monarchs of Europe are expected to resign sometime in the future. The era in which monarchs ruled until death may be over soon. Can we have some references or even justification for this remark? -- Perey 21:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't work it out either. Queen Elizabeth II and the Pope will almost definitely not abdicate. I'm not sure of a precedent for Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Bhutan, Nepal, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman. Belgium doesn't have a recent precedent either (Léopold was an exceptional case, just as Edward VIII was an exceptional case in the UK). Jacques Chirac will not resign as co-prince of Andorra (though I don't know about the Bishop of Urgell). On the other hand, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein and Cambodia do have recent precedent, as does one of Swaziland and Lesotho (I can't remember which) and there have been rumours that Prince Rainier III of Monaco may abdicate in favour of Prince Albert. So I make the W-L-? result 14.5-5-1.5. Time for that remark to be consigned to oblivion, methinks. Also the paragraphs preceding it are a load of claptrap too:) jguk 21:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions[edit]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abdication article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abdication}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why only Crowned Heads?[edit]

Hi. From your list of abdicated persons it is clear that abdication refers to a crowned head of state. But in the text it is not so clear. We don't speak of the abdication, but resignation, of the head of a republic. Maybe this could be tidied up. And maybe someone could find out out when the word came to apply only to monarchs (and Popes too). Cheers.--Gazzster 01:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph says (and has said for some time), "The term commonly applies to monarchs. A similar term for an elected or appointed official is resignation." How can we be clearer than that? - Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I made the distinction on (Abdikation vs. Rucktritt) and was smacked down because it's held to be implicit that only the crown can abdicate and there's no need to mention that it's resignation otherwise. Abdication is implicit when the monarchy is abolished unless there is a challenge from the crown in which case it becomes a pretender. In the recent case in Nepal the crown signed an instrument of abdication several days after the monarchy was abolished without pretense. (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not be seen as an abdication unless it was formally done PRIOR to a monarchy being abolished. If it was done after the fact, it would be seen as legally pointless and only effect members of the former royal family should it ever be restored. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Edward II[edit]

Should Edward II be included on the list? He was forced to abdicate, like Richard and others. DanTrent (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

Although the pope is a monarch, he is an elected one, and canon law and Vatican documents uniformly refer to resignation rather than abdication. (And indeed, our own article is called "papal resignation".) Hence, I think it's inappropriate to list Benedict XVI or other popes as having abdicated, the same way we wouldn't say Richard Nixon abdicated. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an arguable point. He resigned the See of Rome. Canon Law deals with the office of Bishop of Rome and makes no mention of the temporal state. Therefore he could be said to have abdicated the government of the Vatican State. Being an elected makes no difference. There's little comparison to Nixon, as the President of the US governs in the name of the People and is democratically accountable to them. The Pope claims to govern in the name of Jesus Christ and is accountable to no-one,Gazzster (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that this matter needs further discussion. Up until 1870 Head of Church was also Head of Church State in Italy, after 1870 Pope is not a monarch per se - as he is only a head of organized religion. I don't think that if for example (randomly chosen example not meant to offend anyone) Dalai Lama will resign it will be referred as abdication (even that he was a head of state in Tibet and remains it in exile). Migatu (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that, in modern times, popes primarily hold spiritual power, and their temporal power exists mostly in the form of being the head of an organization, the church. The popes acting as heads of state is, for most purposes, a technicality. I think Migatu's analogy with the Dalai Lama shows this well. Gazzster mentions that the pope does not govern in the name of the people and that he is not accountable to anyone, which I suppose is true--but does that make it an abdication? The Emperor of Japan "deriv[es] his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power."[1] but we'd call it an abdication if he stepped down, wouldn't we? I don't think ruling in name of the people or being accountable to someone is what distinguishes a person who resigns from a person who abdicates. It is worth noting, though, that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses the two terms interchangeably: "Abdication, ecclesiastically considered, is the resignation of a benefice or clerical dignity."[2]. We've already decided the terms are not interchangeable in the context of this article, though. Knight of Truth (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is compounded, I suppose, by the fact that the Vatican City is a sovereign state and is internationally recognised as such. It is true that the temporal sovereignty is inextricably linked to a spiritual office. Gazzster (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The Vatican City is a sovereign state, yes, but I think we have to look at a person's primary role. For example, the President of France is also a Co-Prince of Andorra. Resigning the presidency therefore implies abdication of the co-princedom, but we'd still call it a resignation and not an abdication, because the French president's primary role is, well, being the French president. When we look at the Pope, do we primarily see a head of state? I see a spiritual leader of Roman Catholics first, an administrator of the Roman Catholic Church second, and a head of state of Vatican City only a distant third. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Benedict XVI & Beatrix[edit]

We should wait until these people abdicate, before adding them to the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly reasonable to include people who have unconditionally announced that they will abdicate at a specific date in the near future. An authoritative announcement does not fall under WP:CRYSTAL, as long as we treat it as an announcement and not a fait accompli. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. There's no hurry to add them to the article. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
No hurry, no. But what is the harm in adding them, if it is noted that the abdication has been announced but not taken effect yet? We don't need to rush, but there is value in staying up to date. (Additionally, once the date comes and goes, any well-meaning editor can remove the note that it is merely an announced abdication. If the person is left off the list entirely, someone with knowledge of the subject will have to notice it is missing and add it.) Knight of Truth (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's best we wait. More accurate that way. GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning. Surely, it's more accurate to include information on a scheduled abdication than to omit such information entirely? We can throw in a few reliable/accurate sources, if you want. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
We can throw them in on February 28 for Benedict XVI & on April 30 for Beatrix. There's no hurry. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You're just restating your argument. There's no hurry, but earlier is better, in the absence of good reasons not to include them. Knight of Truth (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The reason is that this article is named Abdication, not Pending Abdication and Abdication. Only those who've abdicated, should be included. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems perfectly normal to me, for an article on topic X to discuss future developments on topic X, provided they can reliably sourced. Knight of Truth (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The only way I could see having Benedict XVI & Beatrix on the List right now, would be to make a sub-section called pending for them. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you want to do that, that's fine by me. Though wouldn't adding a parenthetical remark on the list, or perhaps a symbol and a note below the list, be simpler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight of Truth (talkcontribs) 04:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No, excluding them entirely (until the actually abdicate) would be simplier. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Simpler, but not more informative. Knight of Truth (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain[edit]

Spain's King Juan Carlos doesn't belong in this article's list, as he hasn't abdicated. Juan Carlos merely announced his interntions to abdicate. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Does it really belong in the " list of important abdications"? What indication is there that it's important? I'd also suggest that of several of the other most recent ones, too. I concede Pope Benedict XVI, since it's the first in a very very long time, and his successor seems to be making changes to the Vatican, but few of the most recent abdications strike me as important; more like a case of WP:RECENTISM (or, in the case of Juan Carlos, WP:CRYSTAL, merely guessing that the abdication will turn out to be important, once it occurs). TJRC (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Bix ibid verification needed[edit]

This edit added the wording

"After the defeat of Japan in World War II, many members of the imperial family, such as Princes Chichibu, Takamatsu and Higashikuni, pressured then Emperor Hirohito to abdicate so that one of the Princes could serve as regent until Crown Prince Akihito came of age."

and added a reference

"Bix, ibid, pp. 571–573."

the problem is that ibid must have been copied from a source that had previously referenced the volume and used ibid, this does not meet the requirements of WP:CITE however, exactly the same citation was used in the Wikipedia article Takahito, Prince Mikasa and in that case the full volume was included as:

So I am going to include that in this article. If someone has the source and it proves to be a bad guess then please correct it. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)