The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 05-19-2009, 08:20 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Ayatollah was worse. The Shah was very pro western ideals and he actually was going to transition the country to democracy, at least that was his plan. Under the Shah there was alot of personal freedoms, freedom of dress, religon, freedom for women etc. There was a large devloping middle class that had tp flee the country after the overthrow. Things are worse now, expecially for women.
Interesting that he became more and more autocratic, then, if his plan was to do the exact opposite. You don't transition a country to democracy by banning all opposition parties. The Iranian secret police under the Shah were brutal. They just weren't as openly thuggish as the present lot. The extremist government in Iran now is a direct reaction to the extremist government under the Shah.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-19-2009, 08:44 PM
Bones's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Laredo, United States
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyLeana View Post
Yes, I thought it was something like that too.

I'm still wondering whether or not the Italian Republic was a good thing. Since the establishment of the Republic, the country saw almost as many governments as years pass by (I believe one of Berlusconi's recent governments was the first to do it's full term of 4 or 5 years, which brought some balance in this equasion). But obviously there's no telling if this would have been different with a King instead of a President.

And I think this applies to many examples you so easily dismiss as having been for the worse, Bones. There's no guaranteeing that keeping the monarchy would have been a better choice. Cambodja, for instance. Is it so sure a monarch would have prevented the Khmer from coming into existence? Would an Italian King have prevented the "civil war" between left and right in Italy, and all those bombing attacks? Nobody can know this for sure. (although I guess for some countries it's obvious that the way things turned out certainly isn't for the best)

It's also a bit one-sided to judge these historical developments only by their outcome, and not by what lead op to the abolishing of the monarchy.
Which doesn't mean I'm pro abolishing, just that you have to see things in their entire context.

So maybe some of you (who know more about this than me) can enlighten me as to the situation in all these countries before the monarchies were abolished?
I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I was simply listing in a concise way how negative things tended to follow the destruction of monarchies, I was not trying to go into detail about how monarchy itself could have prevented any of these, just that 'here's what happened next'. In fact, I'll even give the anti-monarchy camp some help here (because it's true and I'm not trying to push an agenda here). In Cambodia the Khmer Rouge actually came to power with the support of the King and at the outset was under his nominal reign. The King was first overthrown by General Lon Nol with the support of the US and the King allied with the Reds and urged his people to do the same. Many believe that the Reds could never have come to power without this event. However, the Reds knew that they were ideological opposites to the King but adopted a policy of 'use him now and ditch him later' which they finally did and that's when you got the full brutalities of "Democratic Kampuchea". So, bad things happened after the monarchy was abolished, but the King himself was complicent in some of it -hard to say how far his responsibility goes. I guess my only point was that I don't know of many/any cases wherein a monarchy was abolished in the 20th Century and things were suddenly better.

The USA, as I mentioned, was not included in this because the thread and original post was on the 20th Century. The US has fared pretty well as a republic but it wasn't exactly poor and oppressed before either. I also don't think I took a very extreme stand on Italy, things have not been terrible as a republic but I do think it was extremely unfair regarding how the King's family was treated compared to Mussolini's (not that it is ever fair to punish a whole family for the crimes of one but that's what was done).
__________________

__________________
"Oh, God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams".
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-20-2009, 03:44 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Interesting that he became more and more autocratic, then, if his plan was to do the exact opposite. You don't transition a country to democracy by banning all opposition parties. The Iranian secret police under the Shah were brutal. They just weren't as openly thuggish as the present lot. The extremist government in Iran now is a direct reaction to the extremist government under the Shah.
No his ideal was always democracy, it just never worked out that way. Every Persian I know, many dozens, who lived under the Shah and the regime afterwards are always emphazising thea things were better under the Shah. They had freedoms you see, they didn't have to wear the Burkah, had freedom of religon etc etc etc. And a growing middle class would have achieved democracy eventually. That was destroyed by the revolution, which never had the support of the majority of citizens. As I understand it, Iran was the first state to promote Fundalmentalist Islam as more than just a religous way of life.

Of course things weren't perfect under the Shah, but they were definately better.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-20-2009, 01:10 PM
mrsbugman's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin, United States
Posts: 217
Well, to quote from a while back "this is fasinating". I have enjoyed, what I see as respect among the posters too. Thanks it seems like I've forgotten much of what I learned in histsory class! Keep all the information coming.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-20-2009, 09:39 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,211
This thread is now reopened after removing some off topic posts.

Please note that the subject of this thread is "Kings that overthrown in the 20th century" which means that anything relating to the United States of America (i.e. the Stamp Act, the Federalist Papers, the Boston Tea Party, slavery, etc.) are completely OFF TOPIC and will be deleted without notice.

Also, let's try to keep within the scope of the subject, so we don't need to get into too much detail about life in Iran after the Shah, the pros and cons of communism, etc.

I would like to remind everyone of the following TRF rules that EVERYONE agreed to when they joined:

  • Threads should remain on topic. If you wish to conduct a private conversation with another poster, please do so via the private message system or the chat room. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.
  • It is mandatory to comply with instructions posted by the moderators and administrators. Complaints about moderator actions should not be made in the threads; instead, send a private message to the moderator concerned or an administrator. If a moderator deletes or edits one of your posts and you disagree with the action, contact the moderator concerned or an administrator; do not repost deleted material or interfere with moderator edits.
If anyone has any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any of the moderators and/or TRF administrators via PM. Snarky posts about post deletions in the thread will not be tolerated.

Thank you.

Zonk
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diana: the most beautiful or famous woman of the 20th century? Daffodil Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 276 07-31-2014 12:55 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]