Some Americans imagine that George III was so disappointed by the loss of America, that he considered abdication. As proof of this, they look at the timing of his first threat to abdicate, which took place when the North government fell, after the surrender at Yorktown. What caused that particular threat of abdication was not the loss of America, but the fact that Lord North and Charles Fox combined to force themselves on the king, making George feel like "a kind of slave."

King George used the threat of abdication as a pressure tactic, at a time when the parliamentary system of party politics was still in its formative stage. After his first bout with porphyria, the king often hinted that he might have another episode of madness if his ministers gave him any trouble. Once the ministers quarreled with his son and heir, it became an effective deterrent. Princes, however, are raised from birth with a sense of duty that makes abdication unthinkable. The heir to the throne is raised from birth to serve as monarch, so there is no alternative for the heir to reigning. However, the strongest evidence against the idea that George III seriously thought of abdication is the fact that even after it was established that he was suffering from a mental condition that incapacitated him, he still reigned until the day he died.

America's republic was born through the destruction of the ancient American kingdom, so it is part of the mythology of republican politics that it is just a matter of time before the British monarchy will fall. The myth that George III seriously contemplated abdication is another facet of American wishful thinking, projecting a republican view of the world on an institution that is still going strong. The fact is that the republic is only a couple of centuries old, while the monarchy was founded so many thousands of years ago that there is no date, because it was lost in the mists of pre-history. The delusion of republicans is that they can change a royalist society by erecting a republican veneer over its surface. The truth is that "the king never dies," as the common law states, and the love of the people for the institution of the monarchy also, never dies.

The following article relates to British law regarding abdication, from the FAQS of the alt.talk.royalty newsgroup.

Can the sovereign abdicate?

Britain does not allow 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)

Parliament sets the conditions under which the monarch reigns. Parliament, when it passed the [113] Act of Settlement in 1701, included language that states the Throne is to go to the Electress Sophia and the heirs of her body. Parliament did not say, in that Act, that the Throne is to go to the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia only if the said heir of the body wants it. Parliament requires the Throne to go to the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia and to nobody else.

In the case of King Edward VIII, he succeeded because he was the heir of Electress Sophia of Hanover, and Parliament made her the heir in the 1701 [114] Act of Settlement. Parliament, in 1936, altered the [115] Act of Settlement by removing Edward VIII and accelerating the succession of George VI. Up until that point, Edward was the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia. Not until he died could someone else be the heir of Electress Sophia. Therefore, to make someone else king before Edward VIII's death required a modification of the [116] Act of Settlement.

Were Edward VIII to have actually quit, to have unilaterally declared that he refused to reign, that he was walking off the job, then he would have been acting in defiance of the will of Parliament, as expressed in the Act of Settlement. As a constitutional monarchist, Edward VIII was more respectful of the wishes of the Legislature. King Edward VIII was the only sovereign in British history (since the reign of William the Conqueror) to declare he wished to voluntarily cease to be king. He did not abdicate.

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 ("I declare [...] My [...] determination to renounce [...and] that effect should be given to this"). The next day, 11 December, 1936, Parliament drew up and passed the "His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act".
This Act had four legal consequences:
- one, that there was a demise in the Crown by giving statutory effect to the Instrument of Abdication
- two, that the next person eligible to succeed to the Crown would do so (this was HRH Prince Albert, Duke of York)
- three, that His Majesty and his descendants were no longer eligible to succeed to the Throne under the terms of the [117] Act of Settlement
- four, that the [118] Royal Marriages Act of 1772 would not apply to His Majesty and his descendants.

Even so, Edward VIII still remained King. He remained King until he gave Royal Assent to the Parliamentary Act that same day (11 December, 1936). N.B.: this Act could be passed by Parliament (the House of Lords and the House of Commons) but it would not have any legal effect until Edward VIII gave it his assent. After all, the king is part of Parliament. Therefore, Edward VIII didn't abdicate. 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 complete text of the Instrument of Abdication Act and of the Instrument of Abdication can be found at the following URL: [119] http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/abdicate.html

SOURCE: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) for alt.talk.royalty
"British Royal and Noble Families"
Author: Francois Velde <velde@enteract.com> (3/29/99)