Monarchies & Republics: Future and Benefits


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
There is a real possibility that the UK of GB & NI will cease to exist, being replaced by the separate Kingdoms of England (including Wales) and Scotland. If the break-up happens while the present Queen is alive, a personal union of the two crowns would most probably be agreed upon but if Scotland becomes independent near the start of a new reign, that may not be the case. I wonder in that case if the Scots would opt for a separate King/Queen of Scots (maybe even someone from the BRF, such as The Princess Royal, as Queen Anne II, for example), continued personal union with the English crown under Charles III, or a republic.
 
I think there is a greater chance of an evolution towards a purely ceremonial monarchy alongside an elected presidency in some monarchies. There's no earthly reason why there can't be an elected president and a royal family in the same state. it doesn't have to be binary.

Thankfully, the days of violent upheavals and revolutions in Europe are increasingly distant, so unless there is an earth-shaking scandal, it would seem more likely for the shift to an elected head of state being 'softer', and the establishment of a system in which the royal families would be removed from the pinnacle of the state but still recognised for their cultural, symbolic and ceremonial roles. Ironically, this may open the door for a restoration of other royal families (Romania? Albania? Serbia?) to a similar role.

Why would you need an elected president? Monarchies function perfectly well with a prime minister and a monarch next to each other. What would the role of an elected president be in this case? Be another ceremonial head? Because if it is about leading the government, that's what the PM already does...
 
There is a real possibility that the UK of GB & NI will cease to exist, being replaced by the separate Kingdoms of England (including Wales) and Scotland. If the break-up happens while the present Queen is alive, a personal union of the two crowns would most probably be agreed upon but if Scotland becomes independent near the start of a new reign, that may not be the case. I wonder in that case if the Scots would opt for a separate King/Queen of Scots (maybe even someone from the BRF, such as The Princess Royal, as Queen Anne II, for example), continued personal union with the English crown under Charles III, or a republic.

I've no doubt that the Scots would want their own full time resident head of state. I've also no doubt that they'd opt for a republic. Probably based on the Irish system as that's compatible with the Westminster model.
 
I don't think that any of the monarchies in Europe are nearing the end at this time.
Neither does Spain's monarchy, although it has had some problems recently.
Monarchies function perfectly, they are completely valid systems and have been modernized a lot in the last decades. I hope they will last a long time.
 
I don't think that any of the monarchies in Europe are nearing the end at this time.
Neither does Spain's monarchy, although it has had some problems recently.
Monarchies function perfectly, they are completely valid systems and have been modernized a lot in the last decades. I hope they will last a long time.

Monarchies dont function perfectly, any more than any system does. Constitutional monarchies work reasonably well.. but they are inherently unfair and there are many monarchies which are still absolute ones
 
I've no doubt that the Scots would want their own full time resident head of state. I've also no doubt that they'd opt for a republic. Probably based on the Irish system as that's compatible with the Westminster model.

Is there any Stuart descendant living in Scotland now?
 
Monarchies dont function perfectly, any more than any system does. Constitutional monarchies work reasonably well.. but they are inherently unfair and there are many monarchies which are still absolute ones

There are not many absolute monarchies. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Swaziland and the United Arab Emirates are the only absolute monarchies. But there are also republics that are dictatorships, so none of the regimes is actually perfect.
I defend monarchies, it is a regime that is valid for me, of course I am talking about constitutional monarchies.
A King or Queen who defends the constitution and represents his country at the highest level for me has great significance.
 
Is there any Stuart descendant living in Scotland now?

Do you mean from the Jacobite line? The sister of James II&VII? I don't know I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean from the Jacobite line? The sister of James II&VII? I don't know I'm afraid.

Considering how awful the Stuarts were as rulers, I'd say they have no chance. Scotland's far more likley to become a republic
 
Is there any Stuart descendant living in Scotland now?


There are no (legitimate) living descendants of James II or Charles II. The most senior living descendant of Charles I is Franz, Duke of Bavaria.


I hope I got it right.
 
Last edited:
Considering how awful the Stuarts were as rulers, I'd say they have no chance. Scotland's far more likley to become a republic

Oh yes definitely. Restoration of the Stuarts in an independent Scotland is an eccentric pipe dream.
 
There are no (legitimate) living descendants of James II or Charles II. The most senior living descendant of Charles I is Franz, Duke of Bavaria.


I hope I got it right.

Yes. He's a descendent of the sister of the last (reigning) Stuart King, James II&VII
 
The monarchy in Afghanistan could have solved a lot of the ethnic issues and was well liked, but in 2002, the U.S government urged the former king to not take up the throne and instead propped up their own puppet.
 
Is there any Stuart descendant living in Scotland now?


The Queen is a Stuart descendant and she lives part-time in Scotland (at least a few months each year).


The most senior Stuart descendant based on male-preference cognatic primogeniture is, however, Franz, Duke of Bavaria. He lives in Germany.
 
Last edited:
Constitutional monarchies work reasonably well.. but they are inherently unfair and there are many monarchies which are still absolute ones

There are not many absolute monarchies. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Swaziland and the United Arab Emirates are the only absolute monarchies. But there are also republics that are dictatorships, so none of the regimes is actually perfect.

Are there any current monarchies in which the monarch is officially invested with absolute power? In this day and age, even dictatorial regimes (whether they be monarchies or republics) usually have constitutions, political and electoral systems mimicking democracy. Even North Korea masquerades as a democratic republic.


Why would you need an elected president? Monarchies function perfectly well with a prime minister and a monarch next to each other. What would the role of an elected president be in this case? Be another ceremonial head? Because if it is about leading the government, that's what the PM already does...

Yes, both monarchies and republics can function perfectly well with "only" a prime minister leading the government, but some countries do divide governing responsibilities between a president and a prime minister or the equivalent.


Considering how awful the Stuarts were as rulers, I'd say they have no chance. Scotland's far more likley to become a republic

I'm not sure the Stuarts were more awful than numerous other British monarchs, but as Mbruno indicated, that test would rule out the present Queen as well.
 
Last edited:
In which country (or countries) is restoration most likely to happen?

Broad question: In your view, which republics that were once monarchies (whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas) are most likely to move towards restoring monarchy in the foreseeable future?
 
In my opinion, I think the countries where the restoration of the monarchy is most likely are Nepal, Serbia and Romania and maybe Albania.
 
In my opinion, I think the countries where the restoration of the monarchy is most likely are Nepal, Serbia and Romania and maybe Albania.

Nepal and Albania I very much agree, Nepal especially. I know that Serbia has at least one, perhaps two monarchist parties but I’m not sure how strong they are. I hear conflicting accounts of Romania and would like to learn more.
 
I doubt if any republic is likely to become a monarchy nowadays.

In these interesting times, it is hard to say ‘never’.

And ‘Historical Inevitability’ is no longer … inevitable.
 
what is historical inevitabiltiy?

I placed it in inverted commas deliberately. It is the idea of inevitable, linear ‘progress’ away from tradition towards a ‘pure reason’ or egalitarianism.
It is a phrase popularised by Marxists but can be used also to describe the deterministic strain in liberal thought or indeed what used to be called ‘the Whig interpretation of history’.

This narrow idea of progress has in my view been discredited and this opens up possibilities rather than closing them off.

Apologies for long answer.
 
I doubt if any republic is likely to become a monarchy nowadays.

A British styled monarchy, as in well organized and major tourism and marketing magnet for the economy, could benefit any restored Monarchy. There is a fascination about royalty in general that can't be denied and when put to good use it benefits the economy.

No joke here but millions go to Disneyland and Disney world parks for the main picture opportunity at Cinderella's Castle, not a Cinderella's presidential house, Cinderella's Ministry Offices.

Monarchy is the oldest form of government and even here in the USA it exists and thrives disguised as plutocracy. Power is exclusive to a fraction of the population that has the money or influence. Then you have the external religious or economic entities that do influence to alter policies affecting everyone. They are basically the Middle Ages Feudal system adapted to modern living.

The recent version of the movie Dune is like a mirror of the modern World and how on top of it all is a hereditary system moving the chess pieces. So, in our very real world having a well-organized constitutional monarchy is a plus for any economy.

Presidents and ministers come and go, but with well-behaved Royals there seems to be a sense of common history that ties in everyone, since these monarchs descend from people that were either elected to their post or won it in ancient battles to form a nation.
 
Nepal and Albania I very much agree, Nepal especially. I know that Serbia has at least one, perhaps two monarchist parties but I’m not sure how strong they are. I hear conflicting accounts of Romania and would like to learn more.

Romania has a working Royal House inside a republican state structure.

On itself that is not unique: between 1588 and 1795 princes of the House Orange-Nassau held the position of Stadtholder in the Republic of the United Netherlands, said high office was declared hereditary.

Actually this is a situation which fits best anno 2022: in Romania there is no "democratic deficit" as the head of state is elected indeed. Said "democratic deficit" is the Achilles' heel of any monarchy. No any can win the argument that a head-of-state should be determined by the womb which started his/her life.

The chance that current monarchies will end is by far bigger than the chance thay any republic would turn into a system in which the head of state is determined by birth.

By the way: I would not be surprised to see my country to be the first domino stone to fall. There is a toxic combination of virus deniers, conspiration theoretists, deep resentment against institutions, globalization, all mixed with xenophobism. The King is the figurehead of all these discontent people aim to puke on. No matter he is a ceremonial head of state: conspiration idiots think he is part of the Bilderberg Group which wants to eatablish a capitalist dictatorship etc.

Never I have seen such deep resentment and toxic negativism as right now in my country. But it is visible in all countries. From the gilets jaunes in France to tomorrow's Elections in Italy where a party with Neo-Nazist roots will become the biggest fraction.

These are very, very difficult times for some monarchies.
 
Last edited:
The tourism argument doesn't really work. If the UK were to become a republic their would still be all the palaces, jewels, and changing of the guards, and etc. to draw in the crowds and cash.

Romania, Albania, Serbia, and Nepal could become monarchies but that would require these RF's to work really hard at capturing their nations imagination and hearts and present a system that keeps them as accountable public servants. They of course would have to be voted in by a referendum so, similar to the Norwegians, the families can build an identity as being chosen by the people to serve the people.

Unfortunately that's a near impossible task - if any nation were to become a monarchy in this age and world it would most likely be with bloodshed i.e. Syria, which is basically a monarchy.
 
The tourism argument doesn't really work. If the UK were to become a republic their would still be all the palaces, jewels, and changing of the guards, and etc. to draw in the crowds and cash.

Romania, Albania, Serbia, and Nepal could become monarchies but that would require these RF's to work really hard at capturing their nations imagination and hearts and present a system that keeps them as accountable public servants. They of course would have to be voted in by a referendum so, similar to the Norwegians, the families can build an identity as being chosen by the people to serve the people.

Unfortunately that's a near impossible task - if any nation were to become a monarchy in this age and world it would most likely be with bloodshed i.e. Syria, which is basically a monarchy.

France is tourist destination Number One in the world and is a Republic. That alone shows how wobbly the argument is, that tourists buy an airline ticket because Elizabeth and Philip, or Charles and Camilla happen to live there.
 
Presidents and ministers come and go, but with well-behaved Royals there seems to be a sense of common history that ties in everyone, since these monarchs descend from people that were either elected to their post or won it in ancient battles to form a nation.

From my perspective, even royal and imperial dynasties also come and go, as is the case with China.

To get back on topic, I understand why people prefer either monarchies or republics. In monarchies (especially constitutional ones), there's a sense of national unity, connection to history, and accountability because the top position is occupied by real people who are obliged to stay impartial in internal politics. This doesn't mean they can't show them in subtle ways, such as Queen Elizabeth's quiet disdain for then-white-dominated Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe). The connection to history can be very flimsy, however, as for some countries their foundations are based on republicanism. One could rectify this by saying that the founder's descendants should become the hypothetical royal family. For instance, I wouldn't mind if my country becomes a constitutional monarchy with a descendant of Sukarno as its first monarch. One possible problem with restoring a deposed monarchy or creating a new one from scratch is that the ones currently in power will prevent it because it means losing power. This also applies to hereditary republics like Azerbaijan. Why would the Aliyevs willingly turn themselves into mere figureheads? And why risk angering your predominantly anti-monarchical populace? It's an option that appeals to nobody, at least in the surface.

In republics, the idea that anyone can be elected reassures people that their country runs on a sense of meritocracy, something people want these days. Unfortunately, this isn't always viable in practice because when one person gets elected, chances are that they'll use their newly acquired position to secure their family's position for themselves. You might as well turn your country be a monarchy already, lack of traditions be damned.
 
Back
Top Bottom