Abdication, the resignation of an office, generally the office of ruler or sovereign, is rarely due to pure preference of a private station, but is generally the result of vexation and disappointment. It was from being wearied with dominion, that Diocletian abdicated (305 A.D.). Christina of Sweden retired from the throne (1654) out of preference for the freedom of private life, but wished still to exercise the rights of a sovereign. Charles V. laid down the crown (1556) chiefly from ill-health, but partly, too, because his great schemes had failed. Philip V. of Spain did so (1724) in a fit of melancholy, but resumed it on the death of his son. Louis Bonaparte resigned the crown of Holland (1810), because he would not consent to treat that country as a province of France. Charles-Emmanuel of Sardinia retired from the throne in 1802, not finding himself equal to the crisis; and the same was the case with Victor-Emmanuel in 1821. William I. of the Netherlands resigned (1840), as his policy had become impossible from the turn of affairs in Belgium. Foreign force compelled the abdication of Augustus of Poland (1704), and later, that of Stanislaus Leszczynski (1735) and of Poniatowski (1795); as well as that of Charles IV. of Spain (1808), and of Napoleon (1814 and 1815). Insurrections have been a frequent cause of abdications. In England, we have the compulsory abdication of Richard II. (1399); in Scotland, that of Mary at Lochleven (1567). Modern times have seen Charles X. (1830) and Louis-Philippe (1848) retire before the storm of revolution, without the conditions they made being regarded; have seen, too, the abdication of Ferdinand of Austria (1848), of Louis of Bavaria (1848), of Charles-Albert of Sardinia (1849), of Amadeus of Spain (1873), of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria (1886), and of King Milan of Servia (1889).
In some countries, the king can abdicate whenever he pleases; but in England, the constitutional relation between the crown and the nation being of the nature of a contract, the king or queen, it is considered, cannot abdicate without the consent of parliament. It is, however, said that the king does abdicate, or, to speak perhaps more correctly, an abdication may be presumed and acted on by the people, if his conduct politically and overtly is inconsistent with, and subversive of, the system of constitutional government, of which the qualified monarchy of his office forms part. Thus, in the case of James II., it was disputed whether the king had 'abdicated' or 'deserted.' At the conference between the two Houses of Parliament previous to the passing of the statute which settled the crown on William III., it would appear that the word 'abdicated' was advisedly used instead of 'deserted'—the meaning, it is presumed, being that James had not only deserted his office, but that by his acts and deeds, of which the said desertion formed part, he had, in view of the constitution, ceased to have right to the throne. From this it may be inferred that abdication was considered to have a twofold political signification, involving maladministration as well as desertion. The Scotch Convention, however, more vigorously and distinctly resolved that King James 'had forfeited the crown, and the throne was become vacant.'