Could the abdication of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark set an example for Charles III?

The surprise abdication of Denmark’s Queen Margrethe II had particular resonance in the United Kingdom, where some began to imagine that the barely crowned but already 75-year-old Charles III might follow suit. On the evening of December 31, 83-year-old Margrethe II announced during her televised oath that she was stepping down in favor of her son, Prince Frederik of Denmark. He will become king on Sunday at the age of 55. Polls show that more than 80% of Danes support the sovereign’s decision.

Other European monarchs have abdicated in the past decade: King Juan Carlos of Spain in 2014, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and King Albert II of Belgium, both in 2013.

“Legal (…), but not to death”

As for Charles III, he became king in September 2022, following the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, at the age of 96. He is the ruler of fourteen other countries in the world, a legacy of Great Britain’s colonial past. Her age has raised the inevitable questions about how long she will reign, especially since the heir to the throne, 41-year-old Prince William, is far more popular than she is.

For everyday The Guardian:One of the few British media to be critical of the royal family, Margaret’s abdication is “a sign of a sensible constitutional monarchy” and of a country that is able to keep its institutions “fit for purpose”. Charles III is “certainly entitled to a substantial reign after waiting so long. But not to the point of death,” the newspaper judged.

According to biographer Phil Dampier, an expert on the monarchy, Charles could be swayed by Margret’s departure, especially if it helps protect the institution’s future. “One wonders whether in five or 10 years’ time King Charles might consider doing the same if his health declines, or if he feels the time is right to hand over power to William and (his wife) Kate while they are still young.” “, he said. said Daily Mail: .

For royal commentators, Charles III may want to stay on the throne to continue his work on the environment. This is when the British monarchs should not interfere in the political field. Unlike his mother, Charles seems to have a “more dynamic” style of moving heads of state into action, according to royal family historian Ed Owens. “He’s still in good health, from what we know, and I think he’s aiming to push his plan forward in the first years of his administration,” he said when questioned by AFP.

Charles before the scandals

Since his accession, Charles III has closely followed the scandals that have plagued the royal family. His younger brother, Prince Andrew, was accused by a woman of sexually assaulting him when he was 17 years old and under the influence of accused American financier Jeffrey Epstein. The case ended in a financial settlement that avoided an embarrassing trial, but Prince Andrew is now stripped of any official role and can no longer use the title of His Royal Highness.

Charles’s ties to his son Harry, who has been highly critical of the monarchy and is in exile in the US with his wife Meghan Markle, are also under scrutiny. “Andrew clearly did significant damage to the monarchy, but Charles is responsible for the royal family,” condemned Graham Smith, head of the anti-monarchy group Republic, for whom the institution is “on borrowed time.”

However, according to a YouGov poll published in September, 55% of Britons have a positive opinion of their new head of state, up from 44% last year. For Ed Owens, there is a “high probability” that Charles will reign until his death, just like his mother, who saw being queen as a lifelong mission. But the king, according to him, will be wise if he puts an end to his reign. “In the long run, it would make sense to try to bring in new blood, as several European royal families have done.”