Arms of abdicated persons

[Ryan Shuflin]

2013 has been a year of abdications, with four heads of states stepping down. One, the Emir of Qatar, I don't think has personal heraldry, and I know that Queen Beatrice has reverted to her arms and style as princess. So I wonder, what of other abdicated persons? Not only those who abdicated this year, is there a rule or general practise?

[Chris Green]

The only relevant British abdication would be the Duke of Windsor who abdicated as King Edward VIII in 1936.



As you will see he bore the Royal Arms differenced with a label of three points the centre point bearing an imperial crown proper. His achievement also has the crown of a royal duke.

[GSelvester]

Pope Benedict retains his coat of arms as he used it when he was still in office. He has not received some other rank (as did the Duke of Windsor). He is still a pope just not the pope.

[Jonathan Webster]

No; no general rule, just as there is no general rule as regards cadency. Beatrix reverted to the Arms she bore prior to 1980 as a Princess (as did former Queens Wilhelmina and Juliana), not sure about the Arms presently borne by the formerly reigning King Albert. The Arms of the State and also Emirital family of Qatar (it is in fact a round shield) are not differenced for members of the family.

[Jonathan Webster]

What about Albert II of the Belgians?

[JMcMillan]

The only relevant British abdication would be the Duke of Windsor who abdicated as King Edward VIII in 1936.

Not so. As we old-school Whigs know, James II of England abdicated in 1688. Parliament said so in the Bill of Rights: "whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant..."

Of course, like Benedict XVI, James continued to use his pre-abdication coats of arms.



By contrast, James VII of Scotland, although the same man, did not "abdicate." There he "forfeited his right" to the throne by failing to take the prescribed oath and violating many other provisions of Scottish law. This according to the Scots Parliament's Claim of Right Act 1689.

[Chris Green]

The only relevant British abdication would be the Duke of Windsor who abdicated as King Edward VIII in 1936.

Not so. As we old-school Whigs know, James II of England abdicated in 1688. Parliament said so in the Bill of Rights: "whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant..."

You will note that I said "relevant". James II did not abdicate of his own volition.

[JMcMillan]

The only relevant British abdication would be the Duke of Windsor who abdicated as King Edward VIII in 1936.

Not so. As we old-school Whigs know, James II of England abdicated in 1688. Parliament said so in the Bill of Rights: "whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant..."

You will note that I said "relevant". James II did not abdicate of his own volition.

Ryan asked about the arms of people who have abdicated. I don't see the word "voluntary" anywhere.

[Chris Green]

Ryan asked about the arms of people who have abdicated. I don't see the word "voluntary" anywhere.

But James II did not abdicate (at least in the commonly accepted sense of the term now in general use - a voluntary and legal relinquishment of the throne to the next in line), he was deposed after fleeing. Semantically one could say that by fleeing he abdicated his royal responsibilities, but he never signed an instrument of abdication. As far as he and the Jacobites were concerned he was still King. Few people (outside Northern Ireland) are more pro-King William III than I, and you might think therefore that I would accept the ruling of the English Parliament: "that King James II having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people, and, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant." The Scottish Parliament's solution, a decree of forfeiture and deposition, was in my view a more accurate legal stance.

If one accepts that James II abdicated, then one should logically add King Richard II to the list, as he was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke (King Henry IV), but on 29 September 1399 Parliament stated that he had abdicated, though without producing any evidence for this supposition.

As far as this thread is concerned, Ryan's original intention was as I recall to discover what heraldic consequences there were to the recent abdications that had occurred in the European royal houses. As far as James II was concerned, whether he fell or was pushed, the heraldic consequences as Mr McM rightly illustrates were nil (at least as far as he and his supporters were concerned). As for Richard II, I do not suppose that King Henry's heralds got round to making any ruling on what arms ex-King Richard should bear if any. The College of Arms did not then exist, so it is very doubtful if, a) any ruling was considered, and b) if it was, recorded for posterity.

[Edward Hillenbrand]

I will add one foot note here: when Benedict's Papacy officially ceased his Papal ring was to be smashed and he was going to revert to being addressed as "Your Eminence", the salutation reserved for Cardinals. Francis changed the latter part; I doubt he changed the destruction of the Pope's Seal -- THAT could cause all sorts of havoc if it were in the wrong hands.