Absolute rulers that willingly abdicated

[LightSpectra]

What are some "enlightened despots" (if that's an appropriate term) in history, that had or could have had absolute power but chose to secede some of that control for the freedom of his people? Such as Cincinnatus.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Do you mean pressured into doing so? Or did so completely willingly?

As far as I know, Cincinnatus, and the Roman Republican dictators, are the only ones to do so willingly. No despot would ever willinginly relinquish power.

 

[LightSpectra]

Willingly.

Another example I can think of, to a lesser extent, is George Washington. The Presidency in the 18th century could have been much stronger if he had not limited his own actions.

 

[holy king]

King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, king of bhutan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ut19.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/19/ixworld.html

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Sulla, but i doubt that he can be called as an enlightened one .

 

[Tee Kay]

Diocletian abdicated pretty much on his own terms.

 

[Arwon]

Juan Carlos didn't abdicate but he reformed the Franquist system where he held pretty absolute power (inherited from Franco) into one where he's a symbolic figurehead in a constitutional monarchy.

 

[Cutlass]

Willingly.

Another example I can think of, to a lesser extent, is George Washington. The Presidency in the 18th century could have been much stronger if he had not limited his own actions.

Didn't he also turn down the offer to be king?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Didn't he also turn down the offer to be king?

Yup. He said something along the lines of "we didn't fight off one monarchy just to make another," though I'm sure it was far more elegant than my uncultured tongue can produce.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Many Anglo-Saxon kings would retire late in life.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Many Anglo-Saxon kings would retire late in life.

How "absolute" were they? I am no expert but I seem to recall that a lot of power was held by those under them.

 

[Yoda Power]

Constitutional monarchy was peacefully established in Denmark, although the kings were (and is) still there.

 

[Arwon]

Eran's right, absolute monarchy didn't really exist between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginnings or even middle of the Modern Age. Feudalism was far more decentralised than that.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

I think Amadou Toumani Toure comes quite close.

 

[Cutlass]

A ruler who retired in favor of a successor wouldn't count as abdicating power. Just passing it on.

 

[Swedishguy]

Eran's right, absolute monarchy didn't really exist between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginnings or even middle of the Modern Age. Feudalism was far more decentralised than that.

Absolute Monarchy did exist in Sweden during the renaissance.

 

[Plotinus]

The Renaissance came after the Middle Ages.

Anglo-Saxon kings typically had pretty much dictatorial power; they simply didn't rule large enough territories to have many powerful nobles in their kingdoms. You still wouldn't really call that an absolute monarchy, though, because their power was ephemeral and remained only for as long as they were the most powerful warrior (or commanded the loyalty of the most powerful warriors) around. Being an Anglo-Saxon king was much like being a mafia boss. You were completely in charge, but only for as long as your charisma, ruthlessness, or other personal qualities kept you at the top.

I suppose that towards the end of the Anglo-Saxon period, when they were ruling most of what is now England, that was not so much the case. Still, a feudal system as we'd recognise it from the high Middle Ages wasn't really present until after the Conquest.

 

[Swedishguy]

The Renaissance came after the Middle Ages.

I responded to:

or even middle of the Modern Age

 

[Plotinus]

Ah, silly of me. Still, I would class the Renaissance as early modern.

 

[Sharwood]

Thomas Cromwell abdicated willingly, and his father repeatedly attempted to hand power back to Parliament, but had to keep dissolving it when it made foolish decisions.