Which Country Could Become A Monarchy?

[AshYJ]

I am pretty sure that Hawaii would have to cede because there is only one form of government in the US-and it is elected, not hereditary

But there is a monarchy in Cambodia that elects a monarch, And of course Hawaii has to cede. But what if it wants British royao family to rule it again?

 

[Tuf Pic]

Unless the Constitution gets changed!!

But there is a monarchy in Cambodia that elects a monarch, And of course Hawaii has to cede. But what if it wants British royao family to rule it again?

Or maybe the U.S.A. could amend the constitution to allow for monarchies within the United States of America?!


(I REALLY HOPE SO)!!


ALSO:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indonesian_monarchies

Also, Malaysia has SEVERAL Royal Families which ROTATE, VIA ELECTION!!

 

[LadyRohan]

Hawaii is Not a country, it is one of the 50 US states. From the onset of this topic, this disqualifies Hawaii from this discussion. Its just not gonna happen...its really not...

That is a narrow view of Hawaii, who was an independent state and monarchy only 120 years ago, and who lost its independence because of a forced takeover by the United States. That in itself sets it apart from most other current American states, and is a good basis for a constitutional change in its arrangements.
Although it would require rework, there is always a way where there is a will, and if the proper movement took place, it is not an impossible thing to envision, a Hawaii that remains an American state, but with a monarch instead of a governor, and with large degree with internal self-governing. There are many such semi-sovereign states around the world, where the goal is not complete independence, but a self-governance on important matters and a restoration of cultural and historic institutions.
The Hawaiian monarchy would be one such thing.

The American president would be head of state of the federal country, the monarch of Hawaii would be the representative of Hawaii in most appropriate affairs domestic and foreign.

 

[AshYJ]

Or maybe the U.S.A. could amend the constitution to allow for monarchies within the United States of America?!


(I REALLY HOPE SO)!!


ALSO:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indonesian_monarchies

Also, Malaysia has SEVERAL Royal Families which ROTATE, VIA ELECTION!!

Sorry but Malaysian states don't choose sultans through election, it was herediately, it was all of Malaysia, therefore election for choosing a sultan of all states of Malaysia including Sabah and Sarawak which have no sultans of their own. Who cares about Indoensia when they have no sultan anymore. President, they got a president.

 

[Tuf Pic]

Sorry but Malaysian states don't choose sultans through election, it was herediately, it was all of Malaysia, therefore election for choosing a sultan of all states of Malaysia including Sabah and Sarawak which have no sultans of their own. Who cares about Indoensia when they have no sultan anymore. President, they got a president.

https://islaminindonesia.com/2011/10/22/monarchies-in-the-republic-of-indonesia/


They have numerous constituent monarchies within the Republic, *EVEN NOWADAYS*, as should have been made clear by the URL in my previous post!!


Also, while you are correct that there are Sultans who rotate in the Malaysian Federation, (every 5 years, I believe), it still counts as a *TYPE OF ELECTION!!*

 

[Mbruno]

That is a narrow view of Hawaii, who was an independent state and monarchy only 120 years ago, and who lost its independence because of a forced takeover by the United States. That in itself sets it apart from most other current American states, and is a good basis for a constitutional change in its arrangements.
Although it would require rework, there is always a way where there is a will, and if the proper movement took place, it is not an impossible thing to envision, a Hawaii that remains an American state, but with a monarch instead of a governor, and with large degree with internal self-governing. There are many such semi-sovereign states around the world, where the goal is not complete independence, but a self-governance on important matters and a restoration of cultural and historic institutions.
The Hawaiian monarchy would be one such thing.

The American president would be head of state of the federal country, the monarch of Hawaii would be the representative of Hawaii in most appropriate affairs domestic and foreign.

Hawaii cannot be a monarchy while remaining a US state because the US constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government.

 

[AshYJ]

Hawaii cannot be a monarchy while remaining a US state because the US constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government.

So ravergirl is correct. Hawaii has to cede from U.S.A. but I'm sure U.s.a. will try to stop Hawaii from ceding.

 

[Mirabel]

I very much doubt Hawaii would ever want to be a monarchy again.

Let's face it, monarchies are archaic. A few countries cling to them because of tradition, but I don't see them coming back to any country that has been without for more than a decade.

 

[AshYJ]

Monarchy does not mean traditional. Republic is also traditional.

 

[LadyRohan]

Monarchy does not mean traditional. Republic is also traditional.

So the discussion might actually focus on the point of the thread, which is about nations that are closer to a monarchical restoration than others, and not which system is traditional or not.
Some naysayers enjoy using the word 'archaic' about the monarchy as an institution, and although that is fascinating in itself, all the while most, if not all, empirical evidence points to monarchies being more prosperous, democratic, educated, socially cohesive etc etc, it is also a sidetrack of this thread.

Whether or not country X could return to a previous form of government is not only an intellectual exercise. It's also a proven model of success and an avenue open to many countries globally who have found themselves losing important aspects of their respective societies by eliminating what they thought was a problem, the monarchy, when in fact, it could had been one of the keys holding the country together.
Countries like Nepal, Laos and Vietnam would to varying degrees find that restoring their monarchies would improve their political and social/societal progress.
Nations like Romania, Serbia, Italy, Albania, Montenegro and Greece would to varying degrees benefit from restoring the monarchy, both to offset corrupt and discredited movements overthrowing them in the first place, and improving political and territorial stability.

Seeing a country become a monarchy again is no more outlandish than seeing a republic rise from the ashes of a kingdom. Times change and systems will come and go, but as long as there are reasons for a restoration and people to carry the banner, there will always be chances to see monarchies return, even in days of 'archaic' conversations.

 

[LadyRohan]

I very much doubt Hawaii would ever want to be a monarchy again.

Let's face it, monarchies are archaic. A few countries cling to them because of tradition, but I don't see them coming back to any country that has been without for more than a decade.

There's that word again.

'A few countries cling to them because of tradition'. Yikes. It takes a special kind of arrogance to make that statement. Every 4th country in the world is a monarchy. 7 of 10 of the richest ones are monarchies. 8 of 10 of the most democratic ones. 8 of 10 of the most literate and educated ones are.
These countries, mine included, are not monarchies because of tradition, although that is always a factor (just like gun totin', land o' the free-celebratin' people in a certain republic across the waters hang on to their 'traditions', come hell or high water), but we are monarchies because it works.
There is no head of state with more amassed knowledge and experience than H.M Queen Elizabeth II.
I can't think of a single head of state that gives stronger, more moving and more inclusive speeches than H.M King Harald V of Norway.
There are few heads of state who safeguard the territorial integrity of their land more than H.M King Philippe of the Belgians.

Anyway. About Hawaii. I suppose you might not think the state will ever return to a monarchical state, and that may be true, but since the United States overthrew a monarchy that was popular to conquer and include the islands in their American union, the islands obviously could say 'aloha' and be as independent as they once was, if they so chose.
I don't think that's the solution they would choose if faced with the options, but instead they might opt for a 'monarchy within the union'-solution.

Article IV, section 4 of the U.S constitution doesn't necessarily ban a monarchical solution for a state. It guarantees their right to have one, but it does not require them to have one. Therefore, if they choose not to, it's quite arguable that this is a wish that could and should be granted.
If the U.S was faced with the option of accommodating Hawaii, or losing Hawaii from the union altogether, I'd bet good money on the former being preferred by all.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think that's the solution they would choose if faced with the options, but instead they might opt for a 'monarchy within the union'-solution.

Article IV, section 4 of the U.S constitution doesn't necessarily ban a monarchical solution for a state. It guarantees their right to have one, but it does not require them to have one.

You are wrong about Art IV.

It has been established, however, that congressional admission of a state to the union legally implies that the state's then-existing constitution satisfies the Guarantee Clause. Yet the clause does not freeze that state constitution into place, but allows states wide latitude to innovate, so long as they retain the three basic elements of the republican form.

[....] The second required element of republican government was that there be no monarch. The participants in the constitutional debates believed that monarchy, even constitutional monarchy, was inconsistent with republican government. In fact, when Alexander Hamilton proposed a President with lifetime tenure, the delegates so disagreed that they did not even take the time to respond

[....]
The primary purpose of the Guarantee Clause, however, was not protection against pure democracy but against monarchy. Based on precedents in ancient Greece, the drafters feared that kings in one or more states would attempt to expand their power in ways that would destabilize the entire federation. Having republican government in each state was deemed necessary to protect republican government throughout the United States.

For the full text, go to


Guide to the Constitution

 

[LadyRohan]

You are wrong about Art IV.

The debate around article IV, section 4, took place 120 years before the United States overthrew the monarchy of a sovereign kingdom, and the islands were annexed into the U.S. I'm sure you would agree that this poses an interesting debate around an actual process of restoring a monarchy without seceding.
Obviously, if the issue arose, and that is the hypothetical raised to begin with, the United States would have to decide whether it was more important to deny another interpretation of article IV, section 4, or losing the islands completely.

I think, in order to stem any secessionist movement before it even took off, a little leeway granted would be good when it comes to a former nation which was quite content being on its own, under a popular Crown, and who might, just might, want a little justice done to their own heritage, as every nation tends to do at certain moments in time.

 

[Mirabel]

.
About Hawaii. I suppose you might not think the state will ever return to a monarchical state, and that may be true, but since the United States overthrew a monarchy that was popular to conquer and include the islands in their American union, the islands obviously could say 'aloha' and be as independent as they once was, if they so chose.
I don't think that's the solution they would choose if faced with the options, but instead they might opt for a 'monarchy within the union'-solution.

The monarchy was popular at the time, but since then the population of Hawaii has changed, and become much more diverse. The Native Hawaiian population is now only about 6 %, very much a minority.

 

[Mbruno]

The debate around article IV, section 4, took place 120 years before the United States overthrew the monarchy of a sovereign kingdom, and the islands were annexed into the U.S. I'm sure you would agree that this poses an interesting debate around an actual process of restoring a monarchy without seceding.
Obviously, if the issue arose, and that is the hypothetical raised to begin with, the United States would have to decide whether it was more important to deny another interpretation of article IV, section 4, or losing the islands completely.

I think, in order to stem any secessionist movement before it even took off, a little leeway granted would be good when it comes to a former nation which was quite content being on its own, under a popular Crown, and who might, just might, want a little justice done to their own heritage, as every nation tends to do at certain moments in time.

The US constitution is very antagonistic towards both monarchy and nobility, but that was to be expected given the circumstances of the time.

In any case, what most people forget is that at least part of the Americans who at the time preferred to live under the King's sovereignty, namely the so-called "Loyalists", left the United States and eventually established their own constitutional monarchy under the British crown north of the border. That country is now called Canada.

 

[Feologild]

I would like to see all European countries become Constitutional monarchies.

Of course that will never happen.

 

[AshYJ]

So the discussion might actually focus on the point of the thread, which is about nations that are closer to a monarchical restoration than others, and not which system is traditional or not.
Some naysayers enjoy using the word 'archaic' about the monarchy as an institution, and although that is fascinating in itself, all the while most, if not all, empirical evidence points to monarchies being more prosperous, democratic, educated, socially cohesive etc etc, it is also a sidetrack of this thread.

Whether or not country X could return to a previous form of government is not only an intellectual exercise. It's also a proven model of success and an avenue open to many countries globally who have found themselves losing important aspects of their respective societies by eliminating what they thought was a problem, the monarchy, when in fact, it could had been one of the keys holding the country together.
Countries like Nepal, Laos and Vietnam would to varying degrees find that restoring their monarchies would improve their political and social/societal progress.
Nations like Romania, Serbia, Italy, Albania, Montenegro and Greece would to varying degrees benefit from restoring the monarchy, both to offset corrupt and discredited movements overthrowing them in the first place, and improving political and territorial stability.

Seeing a country become a monarchy again is no more outlandish than seeing a republic rise from the ashes of a kingdom. Times change and systems will come and go, but as long as there are reasons for a restoration and people to carry the banner, there will always be chances to see monarchies return, even in days of 'archaic' conversations.

i too support the change, but I am mostly monarachists in the countries. As for Taiwan, I support Republic of Zhonghua. And I support the need to have a republican British ex-colony. I also support the need for Juche to have a king, it has a king named Kim Jong-Un.

 

[Iain]

But there is a monarchy in Cambodia that elects a monarch, And of course Hawaii has to cede. But what if it wants British royao family to rule it again?

Why the British Royal family? Hawaii was an independent country with it's own Royal Family and it is they who should rule over the country not the British.

 

[Iain]

Hawaii cannot be a monarchy while remaining a US state because the US constitution requires all states to have a republican form of government.

But it should be up to the Hawaiians and not an occupying force who stole their country and deposed their Queen.

 

[CSENYC]

But it should be up to the Hawaiians and not an occupying force who stole their country and deposed their Queen.

The facts:

1. In the late 1800s, a coup overthrew the monarchy of Hawaii. The coup was led by native-born Hawaiians. (They were of US background, but they were native-born Hawaiians.)

2. The US intervened after the coup. The US has acknowledged that the annexation of Hawaii was unlawful.

3. In 1959, over 94% of Hawaiian voters voted for US statehood.

I'm not sure who would qualify today as an "occupying force who stole their country and deposed their Queen", since the Queen was deposed by a native-born Hawaiian-led coup first and then the US intervened. If you're saying that the US shouldn't have any say-so over Hawaii's government, then should the 94% of Hawaiian voters who voted for statehood in 1959 be ignored?

 

[Winnie]

CSENYC. Impressed. You really know your history properly in true order. Today's PC will not agree but as a history major over 50 years ago, you nailed it correctly. Really don't know what the revised PC history professors have spun or new text books have left out today but historically, you are correct.

 

[AshYJ]

Why the British Royal family? Hawaii was an independent country with it's own Royal Family and it is they who should rule over the country not the British.

The British ruled Hawaii before USA took over. U can read in Wikipedia. There was also a flag of Hawaii with a smaller British flag at the top left.

 

[Countessmeout]

The British ruled Hawaii before USA took over. U can read in Wikipedia. There was also a flag of Hawaii with a smaller British flag at the top left.

No, not at all. And not even in Wikipedia.

The Hawaiian monarchy was began by a native nobe family who united the islands. Yes the flag has the Union Jack. But it also has the American flag. The first king had been friends with John Vancouver who gifted him a flag. He was known to fly it as symbol of friendship. But he had to take it down not to offend Americans. At times to appease the Americans, he flew theirs. In the end he combined the two into their own flag.

The British did at one time seize control but a period of a few months. When the Hawaiians took control back, both the British and French recognized the independent kingdom. It remained independent until the last queen was over thrown by foreign business men who wanted to see it join the US.btgere was Hawaiian support for the coup. And eventually the locals voted to join the US. But no British control.

If the monarchy was restored, this is considered by most the rightful heir

http://www.keouanui.org/Princess-Owana-Salazar.html

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Future of monarchism

Honestly I think the best chance of ever seeing any new human monarchies again is probably going to be in the future where humans develop colonies on moons and planets. Chances are there going to be some dynasties that will rise and establish something like *insert planet/moon name here* kingdom/empire, I mean who knows monarchism may have another golden age, I confident about it, but whether were alive to see said golden age is well debatable. I mean as long as the human race exists, there will be monarchists no matter what.

Now for our current generation, I do see Brazil, Romania, Nepal and possibly Montenegro, Albania and Libya becoming monarchies again. I should also talk about Germany, more and more people are becoming interested about the idea of having a kaiser again (roughly around 20-25% from what I've gathered) so it does have a shot in my opinion. I also think Egypt and Greece may have a shot if the former royal families step up their game in their countries. I am curious about post Islamic Republic Iran and post Communist Vietnam and Laos as well, but only time will tell about that.

Now I will leave with what Archduke Karl von Habsburg once said: "You never know what's going to happen in the future", so all we can really do is have faith in the matter and hope things will finally and I mean finally turn out in our favor.

What about you guys?

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Personally I don't see Hawaii ever really happening, ever.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't see countries reinstating a monarchy in the 21st century.

More likely a few more of the existing ones such as Barbardos and Jamaica will become republics - along with both NZ and Australia.

 

[Lee-Z]

I should also talk about Germany, more and more people are becoming interested about the idea of having a kaiser again (roughly around 20-25% from what I've gathered) so it does have a shot in my opinion

At a poll in 2016 only 16% thought monarchy a future option for Germany, 72% are against it.
Umfrage zur Monarchie: Keine Chance für König von Deutschland - Panorama - Stuttgarter Nachrichten

Germans tend to be interested in royals and nobels from other countries, but imo Germany would be one of the least likely countries to reinstate monarchy.

 

[Andy T]

As democracy becomes more secure in those parts of central and eastern Europe which were under Soviet domination, I think there is a real chance (more than a hope) that the Royal Houses will gain constitutional recognition as institutions which have a role to play in the life of a state. Montenegro has already taken this step, Romania is currently debating it and other likely candidates are Serbia and Albania. If it is adopted and seen to work in these countries, others may follow. However, the three countries mentioned have Royal Families who are actively promoting the role they can play. Other families, particularly among younger generations, are less engaged, at least visibly.

We may be moving toward a situation in which we have some republics which are secure enough to allow a formal cermeonial role for former ruling houses, not as Heads of State but Representatives of State, rather like "Super-Ambassadors".
Personally, I think this is the best way to go for many former ruling houses - it's non confrontational and non-threatening. Others could see this as selling out to the republic and be vehemently opposed.

In countries where the monarchy is associated (sometimes unfairly) with national disgrace or humiliation and/or dictatorship, the chances of the above happening are much smaller and in several cases, constitutional restrictions prevent any legal acknowledgement of royalty. Nonetheless, if Bavaria were allowed to "recognise" its former royal house, as ceremonial representatives, I think it's within the bounds of possibility that a majority of its population would be ok with such a move.

As for former 'Kingdoms' without a clear Royal House/Family (Iceland, Ireland, Czech Lands, Croatia, Poland, Finland, Lithuania....), there's no chance of any change.

Hungary is a weird case. Ostensibly, anti-Habsburg sentiment rules out any hope of positive developments but...... the "ideas" of the Kingdom - and Crown - of Hungary seem to be very powerful symbols.

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Here is my opinion of Hungary, I do think there is potential in that nation but the problem is that besides the Habsburgs there is no real Royal House to choose for the nation. I know there are prominent monarchist organizations as well as monarchists themselves but in the end its like Poland, another nation I think has at least some potential in the monarchy department, no house to choose from but plenty of think tank groups promoting the subject thus keeping it alive. Now we just need to find potential monarchs for Hungary and Poland and we'll be golden.

-Frozen Royalist

As Archduke Karl von Habsburg has said once "You never know what's going happen in the future". I'm not suggesting a Habsburg restoration in Hungary but I'm confident you guys understand what I'm getting at here. Who knows maybe Hungarians will change their minds on the Habsburgs if and when Orban goes away.

 

[Somebody]

Within the Habsburg family it is Georg who has the strong connection to Hungary, not Karl. Another complication is that the Habsburgs were also emperor of Austria. So, while I think it is highly unlikely they will go this (or any other) route; asking Georg to ascend thd throne seems a likelier recipe for success than Karl (who of course would need to agree and give up his claims to the Hungarian throne).

 

[Frozen Royalist]

Other than Brazil, Romania and Libya pretty much being the most logical of seeing chances of restoration how about we talk about nations that could become monarchies under rather bizarre circumstances whether it be a coup or people just giving up entirely on the republic? Which nation could bizarrely become a monarchy, meaning out of total surprise, what do you guys think?

-Frozen Royalist