3 ms·

Having a king didn’t help Italy too much. However Churchill probably had a point conservatives and monarchists weren’t really ever wholeheartedly committed to t

Having a king didn’t help Italy too much. However Churchill probably had a point conservatives and monarchists weren’t really ever wholeheartedly committed to the survival of the Weimar republic. They might not had been as keen to undermine at every opportunity had it been ruled by a monarch. Then again , the nazis might just have turned the emperor into an impotent figurehead (as happened in Japan and Italy).

danans 4y ago
> Then again , the nazis might just have turned the emperor into an impotent figurehead (as happened in Japan and Italy). I bet that is exactly would have happened. The reality is that the advance of science and technology and general literacy was quickly eroding the traditional notion of the monarch having the consent of God or heaven. By the turn of the 20th century this was almost complete, and largely irreversible. From that point on, the only value left in the monarch in industrialized societies was as a symbol of a national ethnic identity for societies that defined themselves in those terms. Today, only the most extreme religious movements around the world see a return to monarchical society as a goal. Even the neo-fascists would prefer a dictator drawn from their ilk, not a king.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  There is an observation, though, that most European monarchies that turned into republics or dictatorships in the 20th century did so after losing a major war. Monarchist countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK ... that either stayed out of the war mess or ended up on the winning side were more likely to keep their monarchy. Prior to the military conflagrations that started in 1914, vast majority of Europeans lived in monarchies, even though the democratization and personal emancipation process was well underway. The only republican countries in Europe at the outbreak of WWI were France, Switzerland and (very recently) Portugal. Well, and San Marino, yes.
  - danans 4y ago
    > Monarchist countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK ... that either stayed out of the war mess or ended up on the winning side were more likely to keep their monarchy. If I'm not mistaken, those are also countries that had already significantly diminished the actual power of their monarchs prior to WWI. The UK in particular arguably started that process centuries earlier with Magna Carta. On the other hand, places where the monarch retained the most power, like Russia, saw their monarchs assassinated pretty early in the industrial period.
    - karencarits 4y ago
      Since Norway became independent from Sweden as late as 1905, they voted on whether the country should be a monarchy or not that year (80% voted for monarchy). But as you say, the process of limiting the power of the Swedish king was quite important during the 1800's. Today, 80% are still supporting monarchy [1], also among the young [2] [1] https://www.nrk.no/norge/8-av-10-vil-beholde-kongehuset_-storst-oppslutning-blant-de-unge-1.13383378 https://www.nrk.no/norge/8-av-10-vil-beholde-kongehuset_-sto... [2] https://www.nrk.no/norge/3-av-4-unge-stottar-opp-om-monarkiet-1.15807716 https://www.nrk.no/norge/3-av-4-unge-stottar-opp-om-monarkie...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Rexxar 4y ago
    It was a little sooner, but the first stable French Republic was created after losing the war against Prussia in 1870. Curiously, royalists had the majority in the first parliament but didn't manage to agree on a king, they lose the next election and then monarchists rapidly disappeared from France politics. So 3 revolutions (1789/1830/1848) fail to create a republic but losing a war manage to do it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

danans 4y ago

> Then again , the nazis might just have turned the emperor into an impotent figurehead (as happened in Japan and Italy). I bet that is exactly would have happened. The reality is that the advance of science and technology and general literacy was quickly eroding the traditional notion of the monarch having the consent of God or heaven. By the turn of the 20th century this was almost complete, and largely irreversible. From that point on, the only value left in the monarch in industrialized societies was as a symbol of a national ethnic identity for societies that defined themselves in those terms. Today, only the most extreme religious movements around the world see a return to monarchical society as a goal. Even the neo-fascists would prefer a dictator drawn from their ilk, not a king.

inglor_cz 4y ago
There is an observation, though, that most European monarchies that turned into republics or dictatorships in the 20th century did so after losing a major war. Monarchist countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK ... that either stayed out of the war mess or ended up on the winning side were more likely to keep their monarchy. Prior to the military conflagrations that started in 1914, vast majority of Europeans lived in monarchies, even though the democratization and personal emancipation process was well underway. The only republican countries in Europe at the outbreak of WWI were France, Switzerland and (very recently) Portugal. Well, and San Marino, yes.
- danans 4y ago
  > Monarchist countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK ... that either stayed out of the war mess or ended up on the winning side were more likely to keep their monarchy. If I'm not mistaken, those are also countries that had already significantly diminished the actual power of their monarchs prior to WWI. The UK in particular arguably started that process centuries earlier with Magna Carta. On the other hand, places where the monarch retained the most power, like Russia, saw their monarchs assassinated pretty early in the industrial period.
  - karencarits 4y ago
    Since Norway became independent from Sweden as late as 1905, they voted on whether the country should be a monarchy or not that year (80% voted for monarchy). But as you say, the process of limiting the power of the Swedish king was quite important during the 1800's. Today, 80% are still supporting monarchy [1], also among the young [2] [1] https://www.nrk.no/norge/8-av-10-vil-beholde-kongehuset_-storst-oppslutning-blant-de-unge-1.13383378 https://www.nrk.no/norge/8-av-10-vil-beholde-kongehuset_-sto... [2] https://www.nrk.no/norge/3-av-4-unge-stottar-opp-om-monarkiet-1.15807716 https://www.nrk.no/norge/3-av-4-unge-stottar-opp-om-monarkie...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Rexxar 4y ago
  It was a little sooner, but the first stable French Republic was created after losing the war against Prussia in 1870. Curiously, royalists had the majority in the first parliament but didn't manage to agree on a king, they lose the next election and then monarchists rapidly disappeared from France politics. So 3 revolutions (1789/1830/1848) fail to create a republic but losing a war manage to do it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]