The Monarchy in Greece

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

I was referring to the Greek Royal Family not the country.

I apologize. Now I get your point. Yes, I agree completely. it must be terrible to witness all this profound indifference.

To Odette re # 146: Well said!

If you look at the history of Greece will reach the obvious conclusion, Greece has never wanted a monarchy.

You may be right here.

Greece becomes a State in the XIX century, they were occupied by the Turks, to liberalize of them and be a state, they needed financing for war, money, weapons, military support came from countries like Denmark

Greece's war of independence started in 1821. The revolution was supported by pre-eminent illuminati and funded by wealthy Greeks of the diaspora who formed a secret society, Philiki Etairia. When Greece became independent, the Greeks looked upon the Great Powers as saviours and accepted whatever they recommended for her, first Otto of Bavaria (1832), and later a Danish prince (1864). In other words, Greece had no choice and was doing everything to secure borders and expand territorially.
Insofar as money was concerned, Greece received loans but struggled to pay them off. Nothing was given to her for free.
Denmark was too small and too poor itself to be able to subsidize a new and impoverished nation. King George I, however, brought along, as a gift from queen Victoria, the Ionian Islands.

The events of the 20th century with the emergence of communism and the civil war following WWII are an entirely different story with its own perspective. The monarchy was restored with the plebiscite of 1936 and the post-exile referendum in 1946 mainly and mostly to preserve freedom and political stability, not necessarily for financial support.

Greece had chosen to be part of the Western World and, while it was surrounded by three communist countries, it had no option but to maintain the monarchy to symbolize her western orientation.

 

[IRIS1983]

they did not wanted the money of Britain to finance the war and to expel the Turks, they wanted that Britain didn´t acted , in contrast, if Britain had acted the entire island would be Britain today .
Second, Marshall plans can not be compared with the European Union, the European Union to be funded by taxes from all states menbers, while Marshall´s plans was loans of U.S to European countries for reconstruction as well as to attract financial investment ....Greece is repairing monuments with money from the European Union, and many other countries of the European Union .. All States member contribute to the European union, certain taxes paid in all territories of the EU are to finance the organization ...Your comparison is not accuraten.The monarchy was money when not need the money, monarchy was not necessary

 

[Odette]

Iris I have a hard time following you. The thread is about monarchy in Greece. What could the EU, the Marshall Plan, Cyprus independence, Monarchy in Greece and restoration of monuments have in common?? Nothing.

 

[noldorlord]

I have been in Greece for the last 5 months-
The Greek Royals are just not known by the younger generation. Most do not even know that WE had a Royal family until the 70s. The papers and the government have done a very good job in removing them from the minds of the people. Save in the North, there are still houses with portraits of the royal family next to the dinner table.

I do not see much hope for the Greek royals to come back to Greece in any capacity.


But they have been buying a lot of land Near Lefkada And there are plans for large EXCLUSIVE resort backed by the Jacob Rothschild

 

[BELTRANEJA]

it is true are very years with a negative vision of the monarchy. This is very difficult of change.The cementery of Tatoi is a reflection of historical oblivion, the persons buried here were Heads of State, they remain in oblivion

 

[fandesacs2003]

Iris I believe you are wrong but you are entitled to your opinion...

I agre to ALL you said.
Monarchy in Greece has always been a scottish shower and you can not put all population and all Kings into the same basket.
The last King, was the less guilty but he has paid the price of his mother's action! (which were NOT all bad, but people has retained only her bad actions)

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

..... The last King, was the less guilty but he has paid the price of his mother's action! (which were NOT all bad, but people has retained only her bad actions)

The unfortunate thing is that the King took some steps that were constitutional but not in line with public sentiment and defying the decisions of prime-minister George Papandreou who was, in fact, a centrist and genuinely friendly to the Palace. It was indeed tragic that the king followed the advice of the camarilla. Had he gone along with the wishes of George Papandreou, the Junta would have never taken place and Constantine, in all likelihood, would still be King.
How sad and how unfortunate!

 

[BELTRANEJA]

I am not agree with you, If Constantine would had followed to Papandreu, today he would be in London, Papandreu didn´t want to Constantine and the monarchy.

The monarchy was an obstacle to his claims

 

[Odette]

George Papandreou the elder, although a centrist was not friendly to the Palace and he was confrontational and wished to put his stamp on the life of Greece. He was inciting the masses against the Palace.
The Junta would have happened whether the King had sided with Papandreou or not. The country was going towards the left and the US needed a right wing government to protect their interests in the area. President Clinton apologised to the Greeks for the US involvement and support of the Junta.
The King should have followed the advice of the Shah and King Hussein and should have landed in Athens the same day Karamanlis returned to accept the helm, after the second Junta government of Ioannides folded.
The King always said he agreed to flee to Rome rather than landing in Thessaloniki to avoid pitting the Royal Airforce and Royal Navy against the Army in 1967. He believed that Karamanlis was going to call him as soon as the dust settled in 1974.
The truth is that either due to immaturity, bad advice or a true concern for the country
King Constantine missed his chances to reign and the clock unfortunately cannot turn back.

 

[BELTRANEJA]

My opinion, I do not believe that Constantine should stay in Greece,because the Board of Coronoles enjoyed the support of foreign forces and not only the United States, other States
The Colonels had everything, money, international support ....... Constantine had nothing of that, he and the military loyal to the crown could not do anything .....

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

I am not agree with you, If Constantine would had followed to Papandreu, today he would be in London, Papandreu didn´t want to Constantine and the monarchy.

I sense that you confuse the older (George) Papandreou, prime minister in the 60s, to whom in fact even princess Irene refers to with affection, with his son Andreas Papandreou, a non-descript "socialist" who brought havoc to the country in the 1980s.
Papandreou, "the old" as the people used to call him, had NO problem with the monarchy per se. Papandreou, in fact, gave in to the wish of Frederika and bought a jet for the royal family and, when King Paul died, despite resistence from the Opposition, he (Papandreou) passed a Law regarding the Civil List of Queen Frederika as well as her title, which was (at her insistence) designated as "HM Queen Frederika, The Queen Mother".
In brief, prime minister G Papandreou decided at some point to also assume (himself) the position of Defense Secretary. The young King declined (it was his prerogative as per the then constitution) to allow him to do so. The people became furious and 500.000 demonstrated in the streets (July 1965). Papandreou resigned. In result a period of political anomaly ensued and, finally, thw Junta took over.

Many historians, in hindsight, argue that the (period of) monarchy had served its purpose (deter communism) and therefore, one way or another, it would have ended. These, of course, are only guesses.

Happy New Year everybody

 

[BELTRANEJA]

Did he admired to the Queen Federik ? In my opinion Papadreu (old) acted badly by assuming the defense ministry, Constantine was right to lodge an appeal of unconstitutionality, my opinion he acted good but the letter Constantine send to Papandreu requesting the resignation of Papandreou was a trap
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

 

[Odette]

Elder Papandreou toed the line while King Pavlos was alive. After his death and the ascent of King Constantine the elder politician had little patience with the palace, whether it was due to his political ambitions, desire to control K Constantine or his antipathy towards Q Frederika.
The timing of his desire to assume the Ministry was taken by the Palace as heavy handed and they respond accordingly.
What each of the historians and those who lived through those times took from this was based on their political leanings. There was no sense of compromise from the politicians who followed Papandreou.
The Junta was inevitable and the element of surprise was not easily understood by many. The Palace phones were tapped and any conversations and plans between April 67 to December 67 were known to the then leaders so the countercoup of Dec 13, 1967 was expected and addressed before any public announcements were made.
However if I could fault the King for anything, it is his passive attitude after the 1974 events. He should have been in the center of Athens rightalongside Karamanlis. Karamanlis was called back by the right leaning party, not the people and the King has as much right to be there as the (another) elder politician who fancied himself the saviour of Greece.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

... However if I could fault the King for anything, it is his passive attitude after the 1974 events. He should have been in the center of Athens rightalongside Karamanlis. Karamanlis was called back by the right leaning party, not the people and the King has as much right to be there as the (another) elder politician who fancied himself the saviour of Greece.

The king was blamed, rightly or wrongly, by many people for his stance at the time of the Coup. Their argument was that, had he declined to swear the Junta in, events would or could have evolved differently. I don't agree with this interpretation.
However, had King Constantine resisted in any way, and regardless of oiutcome, the people's attitude toward him and the monarchy, could have been more favorable.

With respect to 1974, I do agree with you that he should not have taken Karamanlis's advice to stay in London and wait for the phone call that never occurred. Instead, the King should have taken the "first flight" to Greece. And this shows poignantly that the King's advisors were not the best strategists around - to say the least! Karamanlis set him up for dethronement.

In his memoirs, elder Karamanlis claims that the King, along with his aide M. Arnaoutis and others, was possibly involved in an attempted coup, in 1976, aiming at restoring the monarchy.

At any rate, the biggest irony of it all is that the final blow against the monarchy (1974) came not from the social-democrats, centrists or liberals, but from the right-wing party!

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Did he admired to the Queen Federik ? In my opinion Papadreu (old) acted badly by assuming the defense ministry, Constantine was right to lodge an appeal of unconstitutionality, my opinion he acted good but the letter Constantine send to Papandreu requesting the resignation of Papandreou was a trap
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Personal opinions aside, G Papandreou had every constitutional right to assume the portfolio of Defense. In fact, there was precedent to that in the early 60s when Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis had done the same!
It is true, however, that the King also acted constitutionally in 1965 - albeit with disregard to the "psychology" of the populus, which, in the end, cost him the throne.

 

[Odette]

The king was blamed, rightly or wrongly, by many people for his stance at the time of the Coup. Their argument was that, had he declined to swear the Junta in, events would or could have evolved differently. I don't agree with this interpretation.
However, had King Constantine resisted in any way, and regardless of oiutcome, the people's attitude toward him and the monarchy, could have been more favorable.

The night of April 20 1967 when the three colonels arrived in Tatoi demanding to meet the King, the entire government was already taken to the Pentagon and were kept there under "arrest".
By the time the King was awake, there were no ministers or government to confer with. From around 11pm till about 5am the radio was constantly transmitting military marches with announcements at small intervals that "We are ready to announce some very important news" The King was refusing all these houres to accept the Junta and swear the government in, but had no other way to turn and it would have been wise to arrest those three on the spot and have the King go to the radio station and make the announcement to the people himself. Something like what K J Carlos did under similar circumstances...Unfortunately it did not happen, He felt trapped, accepted them and swore them in..He took the blame in full and even when he tried his countercoup he was blamed again for trying to have Greek fighting Greek so he could retain the throne.

 

[BELTRANEJA]

Papandreou could not assume the defense ministry because This was inconsistent.
Greece had a political structure that it prevented form a stable government ,many political parties, sharply divided parliament, it prevented form a stable government. This did not benefited to foreign states had economic interests and politicians in Greece. The coup d'etat in Greece had the support of these States, they preferred to support a dictatorial regime , they did not want to King.
A year before to the referemdum the reforms began to be focused on creating a republic, not a monarchy. A year before the referendum Greece was a republic What could Constantine make?
Nothing

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

The night of April 20 1967 when the three colonels arrived in Tatoi demanding to meet the King, the entire government was already taken to the Pentagon and were kept there under "arrest".
By the time the King was awake, there were no ministers or government to confer with............. He felt trapped, accepted them and swore them in..He took the blame in full and even when he tried his countercoup he was blamed again for trying to have Greek fighting Greek so he could retain the throne.

In a "recent" documentary (I believe it was the one by Al-Jazeera Agency 4-5 years ago), King Constantine acknowledged that he DID manage to talk, at some point during that night, with the Prime Minister and that the latter advised him not to swear them in, but the King felt that, because he was left alone with the colonels and feared bloodshed, he had no alternative but to proceed with swearing them in.

Papandreou could not assume the defense ministry because This was inconsistent.

As we discussed earlier, both G Papandreou and the King acted within constitutional boundaries.
Papandreou's intention to assume the Defense portfolio had a past precedent, that is, when Constantine Karamanlis had assumed both the premiership and the defense ministry. In this regard, there was no inconsistency.
I feel, perhaps, that you mean conflict of interest on the part of G Papandreou and here you are correct! Indeed, there were allegations that his son, Andreas Papandreou, was involved in "Aspida", an alleged Army organization that did not favor the monarchy.
The historian of the future may perhaps argue that G Papandreou was somewhat insensitive toward the King's feelings, nonetheless Papandreou had the consitutional prerogative to act so and was assuming the political repercussions.
Whereas, one may argue that what Papandreou did was sensitive/insensitive, right/wrong, or that it had ulterior motives, it was constitutionally acceptable. The same was also true about the King's stance, completely constitutional. However, the point that matters historically is that, rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, the populus sided with Papandreou.

 

[BELTRANEJA]

I think that it was not same possition Karamanlis, Papandreu(elder). The Defense Ministry(Papandreu Junior) was being investigated by the justicie, his father could not assume it because it could be interpretated as a obstacle to the justice.this is motive because he couldn´t assume the Ministery, it is the cause of the inconsistent.The king was converted with it unpopular , and Konstantine Mitsotakis, he also won the unpopularity

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

I think that it was not same possition Karamanlis, Papandreu(elder). The Defense Ministry(Papandreu Junior) was being investigated by the justicie, his father could not assume it because it could be interpretated as a obstacle to the justice.

I completely agree that the circumstances were totally different but the concept of the same person holding the premiership and the Defense Ministry portfolio was fully constitutional. As in most western countries, Greece had (has) three, supposedly independent of each other, powers, Executive (ie government), Judiciary and Legislative. Could the executive branch influence the judiciary and obstruct the delivery of justice??? The answer is unfortunately and definitely, yes. However, you would agree, I am sure, that from the moment a monarch or president of a country raised doubts as to his prime minister's and/or the judiciary's objectivity, he himself, unwillingly or unknowingly, was symbolically doubting the efficacy/legitimacy of the political system and was thus setting the substrate for anomaly.

In every other respect, eg as to motives, intentions etc, I agree totally with you. But, tragically, history has taught us that the very moment any monarch told, justifiably or not, a legitimately-elected prime minister, "I don't trust you", that was the end for both.

 

[BELTRANEJA]

I think there are distinguished two stages:The first when the King presented the resource of unconstitutionality by assuming the defense ministry Papandreu, I believe that the King acted constitutionally and I think the appeal was good.Secondly, when Constantine asked to Papandreu the resign .... this was the error of the advisers to the King ....I think the error was not the first case was the second.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

I think there are distinguished two stages:The first when the King presented the resource of unconstitutionality by assuming the defense ministry Papandreu, I believe that the King acted constitutionally and I think the appeal was good.Secondly, when Constantine asked to Papandreu the resign .... this was the error of the advisers to the King ....I think the error was not the first case was the second.

First of all, two technical clarifications. Papandreou's insistence to become minister of Defense was not unconstitutional and to the same extent, the king's insistence not to let him do so was also constitutionally correct - albeit politically incorrect as history showed.
Second. Papandreou resigned out of his own will.

In retrospect, the historian recognizes that the whole issue was one of control over the military. Traditionally, that is ever since the first (Bavarian - House of Wittelsbach) monarchy in Greece, the Palace was ruling, or controlling if you prefer, the military. The palace's favorite, Right-wing Karamanlis, well before Papandreou, was the first to express intention to end this power of the Palace which, by all counts, had no constitutional backing anyway. Until 1960, of course, the People and the Government didn't mind because they were scared of Communism. But when political order was restored, the politicians, both from the Right and the Center, felt that things had to change to eliminate corruption or, merely, as a matter of principle.

Had the sensible monarch sensed that a new era had dawned, he should have gone along with the wishes of the politicians.

Personally, I feel that King Constantine could still be King or have remained King until at least the 1980s or at least until Greece entered the then European Community (now Union). When many European old-established monarchies saw their monarchs getting reduced to powerless, mere symbols of their nations, King Constantine could also have compromised. Other people insist that the monarchy had fulfilled its purpose and would, thus, have been abolished sooner or later. No one can argue against that, but monarchies don't get abolished out of the blue. Thus, had the dictatorhsip not taken place, no one would have raised a question royale, so to speak.
Ironically, the extreme right-wing paramilitary organizations that were friendly to the palace and the ones who prompted the junta, were also those who, willingly or unwillingly, precipitated (I wouldn't say caused) the monarchy's demise. Of note, the monarchy knew from the ouset of the right-wing paramilitary's existence and, at least, had tolerated them all along!

 

[snowflower]

One thing that IMO has to be taken into account during the Junta period (and correct me if I am wrong) is that Constantine didn't protest against the junta when he fled the country. When he was safe outside Greece, he didn't condemn the junta's violation of human rights and legitimacy. He didn't try to organize any kind of resistence movement . He didn't try to draw publicilty into Greece's problem . He didn't fight as people would expect him to fight. So, he didn't try to secure his popularity among the Greeks, especially among the youngest generation who was born in the 50s and for whom the civil war was history and were young students in the 70s. Besides ,when Karamanlis phoned him before he was summoned to Greece ,he fell to a trap. I read in a Greek newspaper years ago (I am 99% sure it was" Vima" ) Karamanlis said to the King that he shouldn't yet return because this whole thing (the fall of the Junta and people's movemets) could turn into a communist uprising , so it would be better if he (Karamanlis) went first alone and evaluated the situation. One phrase he actually used was " If this turns out to be a communist movement, you will be in London and I will be in Frande playing golf and no one will associate us with that". One would expect the King , given his experience and the fact that there was a bitter struggle fight in the not so remote past between Karamanlis and his parents, to be more thoughtful over that but he wasn't really, which makes me thing that he was either very secure about his position or not exaclty a smart person - at least at the time.
Another thing that is quite interesting is that the very fact the monarchy was deeply into politics led into its eventual downfall. When files and archives form the 60s were made accesible to the public from the State Department after years had passed , letters were found exchanged between ambassador Lambuisse in the 60s and USA government officials stating his dislike for the palace. It turns out that Lambuisse and other Americans in high positions in Greece had started getting irritated by the palace even if they had common interests , because they thought that the monarchs and especially the Queen were radicals and not subtle enough when it came to interfering in politics and taht could jeopardise their interests in Greece. So when the time for the referendum came, especially after their experience from the whole Papandreou controversy and the Iouliana , USA most likely viewed the royal as "damaged good" and they decided to form new alliances inside the country so they didn't offer them any support as they did in the previous referendum.

 

[Nikolopoulus]

The King of Greece in the U.S. Parliament after the coup he said "This is not my government."
he tried to give two military counterattacks, both addressed, on suspicion that the services of USA collaborated to failure. In 1971 in English interview, he spoke in English, the Colonels had just accuse him of trying to prepare a counterattack, he denied it, he condemned the regime of the colonels and admitted he had not international support for remove to these people of the power.

And now I ask:
What did Karamanlis did? He played golf in France with Georges Pompidou and Valery Giscard d'Estaing.
and the rest?

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

The King of Greece in the U.S. Parliament after the coup he said "This is not my government."

I do not believe he did or he would be allowed to do so. When did he visit the US Senate or House of Representatives? Please provide your sources to this effect. And even if he did, how could he substantiate this statement when he was the person who swore them in!!??
In fact, every historian, nowadays, believes that it, his decision that is, to swear them in, was his mortal mistake. Pattakos, one of the colonels has acknowledged repeatedly in televised interviews and books that if the King didn't swear them in, they would have returned to their barracks.
It was a great mistake on the part of the King to believe that they were powerful for they were not. The member of IDEA, the fascist organization within the military [created in 1951] was counting just a few hundred members, if that and most officers, at the time, were on the side of the King. By December 1967, when the King attempted his coup, the climate had changed because the colonels were in control of most cities and other strongholds and the Greek people were happy because the Junta wrote off all of the farmers' debts.

And now I ask:
What did Karamanlis did? He played golf in France with Georges Pompidou and Valery Giscard d'Estaing.
and the rest?

With all due respect, what Karamanlis did or did not is irrelevant in this discussion. Karamanlis was a politician while Constantine was Head of State. But I would agree that Sunflower's argument above for blaming King Constantine for not organizing against the Junta while abroad is also irrelevant and unfair. Most Greeks living abroad at the time were staunch antimonarchist so there was no possibility for any initiative on his part to be successful.

 

[BELTRANEJA]

I remember the images of the king of Greece in USA Parliament, respect to the importance it said by Nikolopoulus is very important because Karamanlis received the support of France when he returned to the Republic of Greece. I read that the plane that took from France to Greece Karamanlis was the French Government

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

I remember the images of the king of Greece in USA Parliament, respect to the importance it said by Nikolopoulus is very important because Karamanlis received the support of France when he returned to the Republic of Greece. I read that the plane that took from France to Greece Karamanlis was the French Government

It is true that Constantine Karamanlis returned with the personal plane of the then President Mr Valery Giscard d' Estaing.
But what is the point you are tyring to make. Karamanlis had served neither as King nor as President until 1974. He was a former prime minister. Here we are evaluating the Monarchy, what they did or what they failed to do and so on.
If you are trying to say that the setting and climate was negative for Constantine in 1974, I cannot agree more with you. And I would also concur that the referendum was conducted in an unfair for the cause of monarchy fashion.
Anyway, Constantine is not blamed for things he did or did not do while in exile between 1967 and 1974, but for what he did before 1967 while in Greece. And these are the issues the people have with him.
But even these, the mishandling of several situations, was only the precipitating factor. I personally believe that the liberalization that swept the Western Hemisphere in the 1960s, was going to affect Greece one way or another, unless a very astute young monarch had sensed the changing times and opened a direct dialogue with his people. Had he tried to reach out, I believe there was good chance that he would still be king.

 

[snowflower]

To tell the truth, I am not exactly blaming the King for not organizing a kind of resistence but I believe that he had took a huge political responbility on his shoulders when he swore the Colonel's government , so it would have been good to be equal political when he fled abroad in order to prove to his people that he was not a "traitor" or a mislead puppet because , among other things, this could have help his image. But I guess you are being right Vlaha when you say that my point is somehow irrelevant to him in the sense that he was a Head of State not a politician. I guess that because the junta is a political situation I find it hard sometimes to distinct him from the political aspect of the matter.
One thing I really don't get is that why he didn't return back to Greece . No one could have held him on the borders, it would have cause a huge uproar if they tried. I can't believe he trusted Karamanlis so easily into this.

 

[Odette]

When the three colonels showed up in Tatoi a little after midnight, the King had no way of knowing how widespread the "revolution" was. One thing he found out fast is that the entire government had been moved during the night from their homes to the Pentagon. He had no way of contacting anyone. It was a little before sunrise that he finally agreed to swear them in.
When he responded to the US Congressman that this was not "his" government he was thinking he was giving a subtle message that he did not approve of the Junta. Little did he know that the US encouraged and supported the Junta to avoid Greek left wing politicians from taking over the government.
Karamanlis duped him. The King should have listed to King Hussein and the Shah and should have gotten to Athens in July 1974. Again during the referendum Karamanlis played a dirty game and did not allow the King (except for a televised speach) to come and plead his case in Greece. He never gave a hint to his supporters who were expecting him to let them give their support to the Monarchy.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

When the three colonels showed up in Tatoi a little after midnight, the King had no way of knowing how widespread the "revolution" was.

But he should like his brother-in-law did. That means that he was poorly cognizant of the situation in the military where only a small portion of officers were IDEA [the fascist intra-military group] members.

One thing he found out fast is that the entire government had been moved during the night from their homes to the Pentagon. He had no way of contacting anyone.

Not true. Former prime minister George Rallis, both is books and televised interviews acknowledged that he spoke to him on the telephone and advised him not to swear them in.

It was a little before sunrise that he finally agreed to swear them in.

This is true

When he responded to the US Congressman that this was not "his" government he was thinking he was giving a subtle message that he did not approve of the Junta. Little did he know that the US encouraged and supported the Junta to avoid Greek left wing politicians from taking over the government.

At that juncture, his statement was ineffective, irrelevant, embarrassing and compromising himself.

Karamanlis duped him. The King should have listed to King Hussein and the Shah and should have gotten to Athens in July 1974.

This is true.

Again during the referendum Karamanlis played a dirty game and did not allow the King (except for a televised speach) to come and plead his case in Greece.

He never stopped the King from going to Greece, but this wouldn't have helped the King. It is widely acknowledged that the referendum was conducted under UNeven, not favoring the monarchy, that is, conditions. It was, indeed, unfair.

He never gave a hint to his supporters who were expecting him to let them give their support to the Monarchy.

That was very appropriate on the part of a prime minister of the government conducting the referendum. What Karamanlis may be blamed for by the future historian was that he did nit secure a fair milieu in conducting the referendum.