Like most who have commented here, I was shocked this morning when I heard the news.
I am a bit torn about abdication.
On the one hand, I hate to see this old tradition of staying till the bitter end die. (pardon the pun) However, we must remember that when it came into being, average life expectancy was about 55. Now people can live to a very great age.
I fully expect that Queen Elizabeth II can possibly go on for another 10 years. Not quite so sure about Queen Margaurite II because she is a heavy smoker.
Also, abdication can be seen as a very humane gesture to your child. They are not waiting for you to die to achieve their purpose in life. I recall Princess Victoria once saying with incredulity that a reporter had asked her if she looked forward to the day she came to the throne. She said "Don't they know they are talking about my father dying?"
If one is not abdicating in a cloud of controversy (and I am not implying this is the case...I don't know enough about the circumstances), it can allow the succession of the next in line to be a fully joyous occasion, not a time of mourning and some feelings of guilt. JMO.
Ana
To me I think some of the "staying until the bitter end" aspect of it is because of the oaths they take and the religious aspect. It's not so much because once upon a time monarchs were expected to die younger (there are a good number of monarchs who lived fairly long, and many of those who didn't were either warriors or lived unhealthy lifestyles), but because they had been chosen by God and anointed as King. This issue comes up fairly frequently in the history of usurpation and abdication in English history, as even the people who had pushed out the previous king often weren't okay with killing an anointed king.
Look at Elizabeth II. She was raised to believe that it was her God given duty to be royal and be the monarch. She was taught that the worst thing she could do was abdicate - and to do so was to accept living in exile, without her home or family. Even she before she was monarch she publicly vowed to dedicate her life to serving her people, and in her coronation she did so before both her people and her God. This isn't something that she's likely to take lightly or really reconsider, given how she was raised, her dedication, and her strong religious beliefs.
In the Netherlands it's different. The monarchy is younger and they don't have the history of monarchs reigning until death. 4 out of 6 monarchs (excluding WA) have abdicated, and of the 2 that didn't it's easy to see how circumstances prevented them from doing so (one being rather young when he died, the other being older but having a 10 year old heir). The Dutch monarchs don't vow to serve for life before God, so when they chose to abdicate it has very different implications.
I feel for JC, as well as Albert and Benedict before him, since they've all essentially been forced into doing something that goes against the nature of their titles, positions, and oaths. Each man may have very well come to the decision to abdicate on their own, but I don't think for a moment that it was something any did lightly or with any degree of ease or happiness - it may have been their choice, but I fully believed the circumstances around them forced them into the decision. To me, this growing trend of monarchs being forced to abdicate in no small part because of scandal is not a good sign for the future of monarchies. It might be a fix for now, and a necessary one at that, but it can be a crack in the foundation of the concept, especially for realms where there is no tradition of abdication and/or there is a tradition of mass demonstrations or republicanism.