The position of the Royal Family and attitudes to restoration


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Hello V.K,i agree with what you say about Greeks and it has nothing to do with the former royal family,which i never liked.I read above about the current problems in Greece concerning corruption and wanted to express my opinion.I said that i won't reffer to Glucksburgs at all and that no matter what Constitution says the current situation here has nothing to do with royalty.Maybe i didn't express myself with the best posible way.
 
Republicans criticize the monarchy in the forums that talk about the monarchies. Why can not the monarchical criticize to the Republics?
 
off course they can,it's a discussion forum after all.i am not against monarchy at all,it is connected with history and wherer i like Glucksburgs* or not i wanted to continue the discussion by saying that the problems mentioned above concerning corruption nowdays have nothing to do with the former royal family.but maybe i didn't placed it well.

*to return to the topic,i think that their blood is as blue as it gets having 100% royal roots,and honestly i find Anna Maria sensitive and her children down to earth but royalty was firstly introduced to Greece under weird and difficult political circumstances so they never gained acceptance and respect from the majority of Greeks.like many others here i do believe that it is impossible to restore monarchy in Greece,but they spend time in Greece from times to times so i wouldn't be that susprised if they chose to relocate back here.
 
like many others here i do believe that it is impossible to restore monarchy in Greece,but they spend time in Greece from times to times so i wouldn't be that susprised if they chose to relocate back here.

I don't thing this could happen easily , at least not for the whole family. Pavlos and Marie Chantal have a well settled life in the UK and I doubt they fell the need to move here - it would most probably just mess their balances. As for the King and the Queen - I don't think he really wants to return here, because to me it seems that he can't really accept what happened . To me, it seems that he is content living abroad, as an exiled Head of State who lost his place, interacting often with his peers, who treat him as a royal .But if he ever came back, he would have to face a considerable indefference towards his face, and he would lose his circle, not to mention that he would not be trated in a special way by most people.
 
He lives in abroad because he is free to live wherever he wants.. The King of Greece does not receive treatment abroad as head of state, attending royal weddings because It was always thus , he represents a House royal is or is not on the throne.The second in the Greek Royal Family are aware that they are not wanted in Greece, Princess Alexia said in an interview Vanity Fair Spain, She said that she felt that Greece was her home, but she was aware that the people of Greece does not want to them.
 
it is true , she said it, in the interview of passed month of the Vanitty Fair
 
All I can say regarding the above posts is that thank God, no Greek can blame the royal family for the current mess.
Although the King and Queen and their children summer in Porto Heli and visit throughout the year, the truth is that they have established their home elsewhere and as much as they love Greece, they should consider themselves lucky they cannot be connected to any of the scandals that turned our dear country into the world's laughingstock.
 
the crisis will make some politicians go home. but it won't change the constitution. this is science fiction scenarios, let's not be so extreme. the democracy is so stable here and nobody should doubt. have you seen many countries with more stable democracy than greece? only very few and we are among these countries for sure.

this royal family was imposed to us by the great powers. they are something totally strange for the greeks. what is so difficult to understand? i know the monarchy lasted about 150 years in our country and the democracy only 36 years, but it's closer to our mentality and hearts. this is what we are. we can't bow in front of nobody or call him "Your Highness" or "Your Majesty", like we are inferior to him. it's impossible, either you like it or not. i don't want to talk about the human rights that were completely unknown when the glucksburgs reigned here, because i'll open a huge conversations and it's irrelevant right now.

gregory
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No matter how interesting it would be for someone to see former monarchies become monarchies again, monarchy is the right type of government only if the citizens believe it is.

the crisis will make some politicians go home. but it won't change the constitution. this is science fiction scenarios, let's not be so extreme. the democracy is so stable here and nobody should doubt. have you seen many countries with more stable democracy than greece? only very few and we are among these countries for sure.

with respect,
gregory

You are aware that monarchy is not the opposite of democracy, right? Democracy is very much stable in the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc, isn't it? Not to mention that there was no democracy in Spain until the restoration of monarchy in 1975!

In this century that kind of government is simply useless and even in countries that have a monarchy there is hatred and criticism towards it.

The first statement is a personal opinion (which I don't support) so I won't comment a lot. The second is as true as is saying that there are citizens of republics who hate and criticize that type of government.
 
Kotroman
But what you are mentioning it's not a monarchy on the original sense but a parliamentary monarchy, at least it's how it's called in Spain, I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I think that we can agree that the traditional monarchy doesn't have a place in Europe in this century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i know it's not the opposite of democracy. i agree with your post Kotroman. but we are talking about greece now and people here don't seem to know some basic facts. the monarchy here lasted until 1967 and the king had a lot of power in his hands(even the mother of the last king had power!), he didn't help the democratic politicians to establish a true democratic form of state. the prisons were full of people who didn't do any crime. just because they suspected that a citizen was not a monarchist or worse, he was a communist, they arrested him and kept him in prison with terrible tortures, i have to say. the monarchy under the glucksburgs is connected with much violence and constant violation of the basic human rights. the Greeks abolished the monarchy with their vote and now people say we have bad manners or low qualities, like hatred, and this is why we don't want constantine back? this is absurd! that's why i'm telling you...

gregory
 
Kotroman
But what you are mentioning it's not a monarchy on the original sense but a parliamentary monarchy, at least it's how it's called in Spain, I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I think that we can agree that the traditional monarchy doesn't have a place in Europe in this century.

If by traditional monarchy you mean absolute monarchy, then I agree with you. However, a traditional monarchy is not neccessarily an absolute monarchy.
 
i agree Kotroman and Melibea. and as you see, greece had something between an absolute and constitutional monarchy. it is a very sensitive case, this is why i explained to you all these. every Greek with a brain is natural not to want the royal family back. we have our Presidents of democracy here to represent us. and they are and were all very decent men. Tsatsos, Sartzetakis, Karamanlis, Stefanopoulos and now Karolos Papoulias, all great men. seriously, i can't think about a President that didn't deserve our love and respect so far.

gregory
 
If by traditional monarchy you mean absolute monarchy, then I agree with you. However, a traditional monarchy is not neccessarily an absolute monarchy.

I supposed that it depended on the country, but at least in my country the Borbones meant that, an absolute monarchy. But that's another topic. :)

And I can uderstand GRS. on why monarchy hasn't got another opportunity in Greece.
 
My parents were monarchical and I am a monarchist, I believe in the monarchy. I do not agree with the laws that prevented the king of his passport, and I admire the Queen Sofia and I like say that she is greek.We are very few who belive in the monarchy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The discussion spun out into a very confused and confusing tangent today.
Those posts have been removed.

Warren
GRF moderator
 
All I can say regarding the above posts is that thank God, no Greek can blame the royal family for the current mess.
Although the King and Queen and their children summer in Porto Heli and visit throughout the year, the truth is that they have established their home elsewhere and as much as they love Greece, they should consider themselves lucky they cannot be connected to any of the scandals that turned our dear country into the world's laughingstock.

Seeing as my other posts agreeing with your comment have been deleted.
I would like to say that I agree with your statement, I suppose this is one of the benefits of being a deposed King. :)
 
...They area bit like the Gandhis in India.....a dynastic rule...
I agree with you.
The monarchical dynasty was replaced by the dynasties of Papandreou and Karamanlis .... Andreas Papandreou, the father wrote a criticism of the monarchy, many years ago, where he said that monarchy was a sequence in the power of members of one family ...
From grandfather to father and from father to son .... he criticized the dynasties, but forgot to include in the list to his dynasty:whistling:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Posts discussing current Greek politics have been and will be removed.

Warren
GRF moderator
 
I'll try and go through this as best as I can.

In the 19th century, the rise of nationalism led to the birth of modern-day nation-states as they are in Europe, as Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania all became independent countries (and Albania later on) after almost five centuries of Turkish domination. At that time, despite the French Revolution, most nations of Europe were still monarchies- only Switzerland and San Marino were republics (this is between the rise of Napoleon and the end of the Second French Empire). So the decision was made with assent of the great powers to place members of existing European royal houses on newly-created thrones of Greece, and later Bulgaria and Romania. But the trend of importing royal houses was hardly unique at that time- after all of Europe's royal houses came from another country and assimilated/localised themselves- the present-day British and Norwegian royals being good examples.

Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Georgia are different in that the royal houses of those countries are exclusively home-grown, and the founder of the House of Karadjordjevic was also a leader of Serbia's independence struggle, while the other three also had long traditions as royal (or in Albania's case, aristocratic) families.

The notion of monarchy being a concept alien to Greece is an interesting one for those schooled in Greek history from antiquity to the present day. Greece is indeed the birthplace of many of today's democratic ideals, which also includes constitutional monarchy. Sparta could be considered one of the first examples of such, since the kings' power was not absolute and there was a council and assembly. And other Greek kingdoms (including Macedon) had similar institutions. Then you had the Byzantine Empire, which was effectively a continuation of the Roman Empire, a continuation of Greek and Roman culture and traditions. Between then and Greek independence, only the Mani peninsula maintained autonomy due to its ruggedness and isolation.

For a monarchy to succeed it must establish a bond, a connection with the people and identify with the people of their land. It is true that the Romanian and Bulgarian royal houses, while of foreign (German) origin, have maintained that to a degree today and some sentiment in favour of restoration exists, although not quite as strong as it is in Serbia or Georgia. Perhaps, too, the standing of those royal houses might even have been strengthened by the misfortunes those countries experienced after losing their monarchies- Communist oppression, and the subsequent losses for Serbia and Georgia leaving many people looking for a rallying point (as I've iterated in another thread).

Greeks' feelings towards the Royals vary greatly- and that's partly the reason why a restoration is extraordinarily unlikely, because whereas monarchies are supposed to be unifying forces, in Greece it was for a long time a divisive issue. Many do indeed resent what they saw as political interference from the Kings and from Queen Frederica, at a time when almost all other surviving European monarchies had long become figureheads who did not interfere in politics. Paul was not wholly unpopular, but Frederica's unpopularity undermined him as it did Constantine.

Constantine ascended the throne at the time of a political crisis in Greece, and his handling of such coupled with the above-mentioned perception of Frederica sealed the monarchy's fate. In a sense, this was a misfortune because he had the chance to become a good king and one who could win wider support for the monarchy from the people- one thing I've heard said was that Constantine was "the most Greek" of all kings to have reigned in modern Greece. It is fair to say that the situation was not entirely of his own making, but little he did at the time helped the position of the monarchy.

AFAIK, at the time of the referendum, Constantine had promised that if he had been allowed to return as King, he would stay out of politics and Frederica would not return. Ironically, the very forces that had backed the monarchy up to the 1967 coup- the conservatives, church and military- were all instrumental in its demise.

Not all members of the family are viewed in a negative light- Irene and Sofia, from what I gather, do seem to be more liked and respected by Greeks even today, and even Anna-Maria seems to be such. But none of those were involved in any way with the political mess that was happening at the time and we can see that Sofia went on to become an excellent Queen for Spain, and Juan Carlos proved to be an exemplary and reconciling monarch- and had Constantine been the same, the monarchy might have survived.

Did the Royals (or at least the Kings and Queen Frederica) interfere in politics? Yes. Were there some hideous occurrences in Greece at the time? Definitely. But were they to blame for all of Greece's woes? I don't think so. If anything, it can be argued they had been made scapegoats for Greece's problems. And perhaps a further irony is that in light of Greece's present-day problems, one might have to reassess certain aspects of history- the fact that the political groups that came out of this period of Greek history must also shoulder responsibility for its current problems.

Hopefully this covers enough ground. I am new to this place, and am well aware of the forum's stance on political posting, so I've tried to skirt that as best as I can.
 
thank you.
You opinion is not bad is pretty good though I disagree on some of your statements, such as limits on the European Kings was created by French Revolution and its extension to other countries as Spain.
The foreign Kings in these countries, This is because the major powers put the money for the weapons with which were funded the wars to these territories constituted subsequently States.
 
thank you.
You opinion is not bad is pretty good though I disagree on some of your statements, such as limits on the European Kings was created by French Revolution and its extension to other countries as Spain.
The foreign Kings in these countries, This is because the major powers put the money for the weapons with which were funded the wars to these territories constituted subsequently States.

The French Revolution did play a crucial role- albeit not the sole factor, and however indirect- in national awakenings (as did the Revolutions of 1848, its effects could be felt right up to WWI). This was definitely the case in Greece. The struggle for independence in both Greece and Serbia began not long after the French Revolution. Montenegro remained an independent ecclesiastical principality for centuries, and Mani as explained above retained autonomy and resisted Ottoman rule for centuries too- both as a result of geographic factors too.

I think I can expand the point more- after French Revolution, the revolutionaries originally tried to spread radical Jacobin and Republican ideas throughout Europe. However, when Napoleon came to power, republicanism was abandoned in favour of a new monarchism, which was also eagerly (and somewhat more successfully) exported- hence you had the "client monarchies" like Westphalia, Etruria, Warsaw, etc. With the Peace of Vienna, things were "back to normal"- which meant the pre-revolution monarchies of Germany, Italy, Spain and France.

The events of 1805-1815 and 1848 cemented the modern concept of constitutional monarchy as we understand it, even though Britain had evolved its system by convention over centuries, Sweden and Poland had developed relatively liberal political systems times past, and Norway had (during the time of Napoleonic Wars) drafted a democratic monarchist constitution.

In this context, it might be easier to understand the scenario that led to the creation of the modern monarchies in Greece, Romania (following unification) and Bulgaria (upon independence).
 
Good, this is true, current monarchies are the result of a whole series of historical events ..(.... the Second World War, the Declaration of Human Rights, European Union ...) and the internal developments in each country.
I wanted to put a date or event as a starting point of the evolution of current monarchies, with the French Revolution, the end of the old regime of absolute monarchies.....and continue of evolution..
 
Okay, this is true, current monarchies are the result of a whole series of historical events ..(.... the Second World War, the Declaration of Human Rights, European Union ...) and the internal developments in each country.
I wanted to put a date or event as a starting point of the evolution of current monarchies, with the French Revolution, the end of the old regime of absolute monarchies.....and continue of evolution..

Given that each country evolved differently- as explained above, the development of a constitutional monarchy began in the UK, Sweden and Poland earlier, and most European monarchies did have legislative bodies of varying degrees for centuries ("Estates of the Realm", even in France though that was utterly powerless)- it's hard to put a definite starting date. On the continent, the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, and the Revolutions of 1848, did assist the evolution towards modern constitutional monarchy but even then some monarchs were more inclined to wield their powers than others. You can check out constitutions dating from back then.

The first post-independence monarch in Greece, Otto, did not come until a decade after Greece had won its War of Independence. Of course, you could have chosen one of two ways- select a native monarch (as Serbia and later Albania would), or import someone from existing European royal houses. In Romania, btw, the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had a long line of elected local princes (from the existing boyar class), and one of those was originally ruler of all Romania upon unification.

But when we talk about the situation of post-WWII Greece, the monarchy definitely wielded greater political influence than others in Europe, and this along with the fact they were never accepted by many Greeks led to their downfall.

So it might be hard not to underestimate the differences in political evolution and experiences between Greece and other Balkan nations post-WWII, that explain differences in attitudes to their Royal Families.
 
Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Georgia are different in that the royal houses of those countries are exclusively home-grown,

The notion of monarchy being a concept alien to Greece is an interesting one for those schooled in Greek history from antiquity to the present day. Greece is indeed the birthplace of many of today's democratic ideals, which also includes constitutional monarchy.
For a monarchy to succeed it must establish a bond, a connection with the people and identify with the people of their land.

Greeks' feelings towards the Royals vary greatly- and that's partly the reason why a restoration is extraordinarily unlikely, because whereas monarchies are supposed to be unifying forces, in Greece it was for a long time a divisive issue. Many do indeed resent what they saw as political interference from the Kings and from Queen Frederica, at a time when almost all other surviving European monarchies had long become figureheads who did not interfere in politics. Paul was not wholly unpopular, but Frederica's unpopularity undermined him as it did Constantine.

Constantine ascended the throne at the time of a political crisis in Greece, and his handling of such coupled with the above-mentioned perception of Frederica sealed the monarchy's fate. In a sense, this was a misfortune because he had the chance to become a good king and one who could win wider support for the monarchy from the people- one thing I've heard said was that Constantine was "the most Greek" of all kings to have reigned in modern Greece. It is fair to say that the situation was not entirely of his own making, but little he did at the time helped the position of the monarchy

You couldn't have said it better.We all have to admit that it wasn't completely his fault,regarding the fact that he was very very young and inexperienced but what he did was not enough.I fully agree with everything,even with what people say that he was ''the most Greek'' among the rulers in Greece.But still..
 
One area where many people are confusing the issue is that the Hellenic Constitution of 1952 was indeed conferring certain prerogatives to the monarch. Thus, what Constantine did was within the framework of constitutionality. However, it was politically wrong and, in essence, he dug out his own grave.
With respect to Frederika, there are more data coming out. Back in 2006, Mr. Zoulas, a respectable journalist of I KATHIMERINI, the pre-eminent conservative Athens daily, wrote that Madame Helen Vlachos, the ultracoservative and royalist powerful publisher disliked Frederika for many reasons including her arrogance and expectation that even women curtsey and kiss her hand - evidently, an old Germanic but obsolete, even at her time, habit.
Indeed, I saw recently a short video clip of the wedding of Sofia and Juan Carlos, showing that at the end of the ceremony, when her mother congratulated them, Sofia curtseyed and kissed Frederika's hand.

At any rate, as we have discussed many times and the topic is by now exhausted, even superb monarchs such as Juan Carlos and Sofia (it cannot get any better than that) have not prevented corruption to prevail. Thus, with or without monarchy, the problem of European states, and worse, the Balkan ones lies elsewhere
 
More were unconstitutional the reforms that took place with Karamanlis ,during the decade 50-early 60 and nobody said about it.
the politicals steal and they continue in office, they have immunity , it is unconstitutional and politically incorrect, but nobody says anything.
 
More were unconstitutional the reforms that took place with Karamanlis ,during the decade 50-early 60 and nobody said about it.
the politicals steal and they continue in office, they have immunity , it is unconstitutional and politically incorrect, but nobody says anything.
I don't think that " noboby says anything" . I believe you have noticed that publc has not been reacting very politely the past one and a half month when it comes to politicians in this coutry. In regards to Karamanlis , I not know how much reaction he actually faced during that decade but I don't believe that no one protested, people have been protesting many times during history in our country when it come to politicians , it's not that all their energy was consummed exclusively in blaming the Kings they had.

O
With respect to Frederika, there are more data coming out. Back in 2006, Mr. Zoulas, a respectable journalist of I KATHIMERINI, the pre-eminent conservative Athens daily, wrote that Madame Helen Vlachos, the ultracoservative and royalist powerful publisher disliked Frederika for many reasons including her arrogance and expectation that even women curtsey and kiss her hand - evidently, an old Germanic but obsolete, even at her time, habit.
Helen Vlachos has admitted it herself that she was not very fond of Frederica's personality and that one of her favourite habits whenever she was in Prince Peter's company was to start gossiping regarding the Queen , As she has put it in her column " somehow the discussion would always lead to the Queen ":D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that " noboby says anything" . I believe you have noticed that publc has not been reacting very politely the past one and a half month when it comes to politicians in this coutry. In regards to Karamanlis , I not know how much reaction he actually faced during that decade but I don't believe that no one protested, people have been protesting many times during history in our country when it come to politicians , it's not that all their energy was consummed exclusively in blaming the Kings they had.

I agree.They protested.Maybe not in the way they do it today (which is awful,including damages and victims) but they always did and he was severely criticized even then.
 
Back
Top Bottom