Originally Posted by NotHRH
The way you explained the situation to which I was referring now makes better sense to me - it is more a matter of etiquette or tradition. I think as these royal families were legally ran out of their countries, it seems a little odd that now they are welcomed back into their home countries with open arms. For instance, I cannot imagine Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Iran ever being welcomed in Iran ever, much less as the Crown Prince of Iran. Do you think that a significant passage of time, and the changes brought about during these times makes a difference?��
I'll start this post by apologizing for it being slightly off-topic, so as to respond to your comments and questions.
The first error here is whether or not something is/was done legally or not. If a country is taken over by a non-elected grouping, be it military or ideological, and they decide to either force a change, set up a referendum that cannot legally be recognized as free and fair, does that make changes legal? To neutral onlookers, it cannot be validated as legal, but there is always an argument on the other side, about how these forces came to take power in the first place. Was it the will of the people that they did? These questions fill books and rooms of arguments and discussion, but a few factors are usually recognized more universally.
The communist regimes that took over most Eastern European countries after WWII, forced the Royal Families out, and made necessary changes to the laws, to ensure their kegitimacy. Because people didn't sufficiently protest, one might assume that they agreed with the changes made. In some countries, referendums were held, as in Italy and Greece. In Italy, it was made clear a long time ago, that the Catholic church was influenced to recommend the abolishment of the monarchy, and still, in a deeply religious Italy in those days, the monarchy almost won the referendum. Is religious influence rigging an election?
Without having a definitive answer, I would say that it is guaranteed that Italy would be a monarchy today if the church supported it. Such was its power in Italy at the time.
Greece had some of the same dilemma. Even after the King was exiled, and the referendum was to be held, the King, the RF, other institutions etc, were all barred from campaigning for the monarchy, and still the monarchy received over 30% of the votes. Is that a free and fair referendum, or is that rigging a battle to get the result you want?
The former PM of Albania has admitted on several occasions that the referendum in Albania in the 90s over whether or not to restore the monarchy, was rigged, and that the pro-monarchy side had actually won by a clear majority. Still, people didn't revolt or create chaos when it was admitted, why not?
In the countries that became communist post WWII, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary etc, the existing Royal Families were simply forced to leave. Is that a legal way of changing how a government is run, how a country functions? When communism fell, and the families came home, they were greeted with open arms, after 40-50 years in exile. Their language had slipped away, their children and grandchildren born in foreign lands, just knowing that their families once were something special. Coming back to their historical lands now, they don't always know what's expected of them, and we don't always know what to make of them. It's not an easy situation to navigate for anyone, least of all, royal members always on display. In the case of Romania, it seems clear that Crown Princess Margareta and Prince Radu do the very best they can, within the confines their very undefined roles and under the current republican regime. I wish that would sometimes be more understood, instead of scrutinized with suspicious and unkind eyes, that always look to find support for the views one already has about them, or in particular, the Prince.
In countries that have a Royal House that once represented them, there is always going to be an attraction to restoring them to a position of headship, because they're seen as possibly less corrupt, hopefully more fair and potentially more prepared for the job, the role they will undertake. As long as these Royal Houses exist, they will be faced with great opposition, but not mainly from the population. People are quite often either sympathetic or indifferent to the idea of monarchy. The amount of people who are die-hard against the concept are usually not in the majority, but as with any republic, they're filled with certain people with powers and positions they don't want to relinquish or reduce. That's human nature, and one of the things monarchies naturally counter, with their inherited nature and natural rejection of corruption.
Whether or not Crown Prince Reza will ever return to Iran, only time will tell, but I do know 2 things: Every one of my Iranian friends have parents who supported, or didn't care about, the Iranian revolution that led to the Shah leaving Iran. Today, they very much regret the way things played out, as their lives have certainly not improved, their futures are not what they want them to be and Iran has lost its standing in the world. Of all the lands in that region, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, who all were monarchies only a generation or two ago, I am fairly sure Iran is the one country that just might become a kingdom again.
If it's with H.I.H Crown Prince Reza as King, I truly don't know. But the world always changes, and time tends to heal wounds and erase mistakes. Iran has been a proud kingdom and empire for over 2.500 years, and ruled by priests for the past 36. I'm not sure that's what modern Iranians want anymore. In fact, I doubt it's what they ever wanted.
Empress Farah once said: What's done is done. What's been has been. We need to look forward, towards tomorrow. That's where a better day for Iran exists.