Which Country Could Become A Monarchy?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

[...] of Canada. Now most people say that they'd like to cut ties with the House of Windsor but at the same time the majority of Canadians in the polls say they absolutely adore the Queen. [...]

This is exactly what is so often is wrongly interpret by many: a royal can enjoy a great popularity while the institition as such is seen as mwoah...

It is very well possible that a Crown Princess Victoria or a Queen Máxima enjoy great popularity and approval. At the same time it is very well possible that a growing part of the Swedes or the Dutch favour a system in which people can elect their head of state.

Then comes the confusion on this forum: "How is that possible? Isn't she hardworking? Isn't she beloved?" But the question: "Who is the most popular member of the Royal House?" is a completely different question than "Do you prefer a head of state by hereditary succession, or by election?"

See Romania: the HUGE popularity of the late King Michael never translated into a majority for the restoration of the monarchy. That is proof that popularity of a person and popularity of a system are two completely different things.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

I know I know, but I felt it should've been included anyway because it was on the list I saw. My apologies

-Frozen Royalist

No need for apologies at all. I wasn't questioning your intentions at all.
I'm a bit puzzled concerning the situation in Serbia. On one hand you have very positive figures like these you presented above and on the other you have stories about Alexander being unpopular and ridiculed for his bad language skills coupled with him seemingly being a very nice guy very serious about his position and the stories about Katherine suffering from a severe attack of red carpet fever.
In addition to this the couple seem to be a popular and well-liked part of the royal set.

[Frozen Royalist]

You know I think they should just put ??? on the polls instead of an actual number because at this point it would make more sense because of the information or lack of information we've been getting; for example ???% in favor of restoration for Serbia.

Argh, Serbia has just been so infuriating in my opinion because of this. I mean at one point I have very high hopes for the former Yugoslav Republic but at another point I hear people saying it is just so completely remote.

Either you're a monarchist or not, it is not rocket science, just say yes or no. Don't give us a recipe for the world's greatest pizza. I swear if this is some joker playing games with us then I am not at all amused by the slightest. Hell at this point considering that some people in Montenegro would favor reunification with Serbia I say we just give the throne to the Royal Family of Montenegro in the event of a Kingdom of Balkania (Balkania was a name proposed for a federation between Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro if you're curious, I would also include the Republika Srpska into Balkania as well if I had it my way), I mean they don't seem unpopular and they at least care about the people, the Eastern Orthodox Church prefers strong men and dynasties so.

Just do an honest poll and maybe do a referendum and I'll get off your case.

Thank you for your time.

-Frozen Royalist

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

... [snipped] Romania and Russia are all over the place with some polls showing like one out of five people in favor while the next shows like almost half the nation in favor, I guess it really depends on the public mood, location of poll, how the questions were asked and what organization was doing the asking ... [snipped]

One can not determine how accurate the restoration polls are. Russia has decided to spend 100 years in solitude and find its own identity. Perhaps it will succeed in building the elusive Third Rome. Attempted by many rulers (mostly the Romanovs), the Russian journey to the West is over. It finally dawned on the Russian elite that they would never be treated as equal in the western Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world.

“The event [the 2014 Crimea situation] is the conclusion of Russia’s epic journey towards the West, the ending of numerous fruitless attempts to become part of western civilisation, to inter-marry with the ‘good family’ of European nations,” he [Surkov] wrote in a sweeping essay.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...aide-gjlm9fqwb

With Russia's hopes of rapprochement growing dimmer as conflicts have flared with the West, the country is increasingly looking inward as well as eastward, rather than toward the West, Surkov said.
He cited the saying in Russia that the country has "only two allies: the army and the navy."
"Solitude doesn't mean complete isolation," Surkov wrote, but he said Russia's openness would be limited in the future.
"Russia without doubt will engage in trade, attract investments, exchange know-how, and fight wars...compete and cooperate, cause fear, hatred, curiosity, sympathy, and admiration," Surkov wrote. "But without false goals and self-denial."

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-advise.../29155700.html

Russia abandoning ‘vain attempts to become part of Western civilization’: Putin aide | National Post
The solitude of a half-blood| V Surkov| Global Affairs

Similar articles/discussions are in abundance in various Russian newspapers/magazines. Overall Russia has been following the Primakov's doctrine, i.e. the pivot to the Middle East and Eurasia.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

Hell at this point considering that some people in Montenegro would favor reunification with Serbia I say we just give the throne to the Royal Family of Montenegro in the event of a Kingdom of Balkania (Balkania was a name proposed for a federation between Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro if you're curious, I would also include the Republika Srpska into Balkania as well if I had it my way)
-Frozen Royalist

So, your "Kingdom of Balkania" is just the Greater Serbia in the name of which a hundred thousand people were killed and millions expelled from their homes in the 1990s? I can only imagine how many European princes and princesses would like to dine with the king of such a country.

[Frozen Royalist]

Originally Posted by Kotroman

So, your "Kingdom of Balkania" is just the Greater Serbia in the name of which a hundred thousand people were killed and millions expelled from their homes in the 1990s? I can only imagine how many European princes and princesses would like to dine with the king of such a country.

Honestly that was kind of a rage induced bad joke on my part, my bad. Any who there was an attempt to create a sort of federation called Balkania consisting of Serbia, Kosovo and Montenegro. The proposal was made by a Kosovo politician called Adem Demaci in 1993 during the great and messy break up of Yugoslavia. Keep in mind it was only in 2006 that they gained independence and as of today at least one pro union party with Serbia has 8 out of 81 seats in the parliament of Montenegro, so about 10%. The part is called New Serb Democracy if you are curious.

Any who as for my admittedly bad logic, said logic was that because the Serbian Royal Family isn't exactly the most popular while the Royal Family of Montenegro is relatively respected the idea was if there was ever another union again that maybe the Orthodox Church would just ask the Royal Family of Montenegro for the the throne instead of the Royal Family of Serbia if things don't work out.

It just sort of made sense in my head okay, I'm admittedly a bit of a screwball in some aspects so there will be times when I saw rather outlandish things.

Come to think of it do other royals still dine with German and Austrian royalty?

-Frozen Royalist

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

The proposal was made by a Kosovo politician called Adem Demaci in 1993 during the great and messy break up of Yugoslavia. Keep in mind it was only in 2006 that they gained independence and as of today at least one pro union party with Serbia has 8 out of 81 seats in the parliament of Montenegro, so about 10%.

-Frozen Royalist

There will never be a voluntary union between Kosovo and Serbia. The Albanian majority of the former would never willingly subject themselves to Serb rule again. The proposal made in 1993 was made before a decade of warfare and ethnic cleansing tore Kosovo apart with tensions running high even today.
According to my Kosovar friends they're not even that keen of entering a union with Albania who they look down on as backwards and corrupt.

Regarding royalty the Albanians have their own royal family and Prince Leka is quite often in Kosovo.

[Al_bina]

When it comes to murders, corruption, human organ trafficking and etc, Kosovars are not better than Albanians. One can assume that Serbs have not forgotten the suffering inflicted by and war crimes committed by Kosovars and the western enlighten regimes. The blood feud will continue in the foreseeable future. No royal family can stop it.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

When it comes to murders, corruption, human organ trafficking and etc, Kosovars are not better than Albanians. One can assume that Serbs have not forgotten the suffering inflicted by and war crimes committed by Kosovars and the western enlighten regimes. The blood feud will continue in the foreseeable future. No royal family can stop it.

One can also assume that the Kosovars havent forgotten being subjected to decades of oppression, persecution and ethnic cleansing commited by the Serb regime but I dont feel that this forum is the right place to discuss the matter.

[Al_bina]

As pointed out in the last sentence, one can safely assume that no royal family will be able to mend the grievances of Serbs and the other side. Any unification under any crown is non-existent. Given the current situation in the international arena, one can see that there is primacy of the rule of force over the rule of international law.

[Lee-Z]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

I'm admittedly a bit of a screwball in some aspects so there will be times when I saw rather outlandish things.

Come to think of it do other royals still dine with German and Austrian royalty?

-Frozen Royalist

Outlandish: maybe just a little lack of understanding that seperate countries in europe, asia, africa etc are actually separate *countries* (as in Mexico and Canada) and not comparable to separate cities (NY and Washington) or US states (New York and well...the other Washington )

German/Austrian royalty: don't know about dining, but at the recent wedding of P.Christian of Hanover among others P.Beatrice and Eugenie of GB attended, i guess that answers the question?

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Biri

United States has never been a monarchy.

The United States has always been a republic, but:



US states along the Eastern coast were provinces and colonies directly under the British crown (with a range of arrangements), and some of them basically have the same government structure as before 1776.

Most of the rest of the country was ruled by monarchies (UK, Spain, France) at some point.


The US would NEVER become a monarchy today, though. Republicanism is too embedded in Americans' DNA.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

The United States has always been a republic, but:



US states along the Eastern coast were provinces and colonies directly under the British crown (with a range of arrangements), and some of them basically have the same government structure as before 1776.

That is not entirely correct. Before 1776, all 13 colonies were monarchies under the British Crown. Under the constitution of the United States, all states now have a republican form of government. They are actually forbidden by the constitution from ever becoming monarchies.

In Australia and in Canada, not only is the federal union a monarchy, but also each state or province is also a monarchy by itself.

[Biri]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

The United States has always been a republic, but:

US states along the Eastern coast were provinces and colonies directly under the British crown (with a range of arrangements), and some of them basically have the same government structure as before 1776.

Most of the rest of the country was ruled by monarchies (UK, Spain, France) at some point.

The US would NEVER become a monarchy today, though. Republicanism is too embedded in Americans' DNA.

The discussion about alleged offer made to George Washington to be crowned King of the United States:

https://www.quora.com/Was-George-Was...solute-monarch

[CSENYC]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That is not entirely correct. Before 1776, all 13 colonies were monarchies under the British Crown. Under the constitution of the United States, all states now have a republican form of government. They are actually forbidden by the constitution from ever becoming monarchies.

In Australia and in Canada, not only is the federal union a monarchy, but also each state or province is also a monarchy by itself.

No, you misread my post--



Many of the "13 Colonies" kept their governor positions and legislatures once the US became independent. They kept the same basic arrangements for their executive and legislative branches both pre- and post-revolution. If you can't understand that, then you need to do your own research.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by CSENYC

No, you misread my post--



Many of the "13 Colonies" kept their governor positions and legislatures once the US became independent. They kept the same basic arrangements for their executive and legislative branches both pre- and post-revolution. If you can't understand that, then you need to do your own research.

Prior to independence, the colonies had a governor appointed by the Crown who represented the King as the holder of the executive power. Then there was a popularly elected legislature, and maybe also an appointed Legislative Council and an appointed Executive Council (sometimes overlapping with the latter), who were both chosen by the governor and served at the governor's pleasure; the governor in turn served at the King's pleasure. All bills passed by the legislature required royal assent to come into force. That is basically the same structure of government that was kept north of the border in British North America until the later introduction of the British parliamentary system of responsible government in Canada in the 1840s.

After independence, the new states became republics. Executive power was no longer vested in the Crown, but rather in an elected governor with a fixed term. I don't see how you can claim that is "basically the same government structure".

Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies

[Lee-Z]

What about Turkey...is there any form of royalist movement there? Is there any remainder of the Ottoman Empire left?
(Hope it's not a dumb question..)

[Jacknch]

Indeed, since the United States of America is unlikely ever to become a monarchy, we should move on and discuss countries that might. If people wish to have a back and forth argument, they may do so by private message. In that respect, some posts have been edited to remove personal remarks.

[Blog Real]

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

Whelp ladies and gentlemen, after that talk about Canada, Republicanism as a whole and the status of restorations lets get back to talking what nation might become a monarchy (again) in my personal opinion.

Good Chance of Restoration:

• Brazil (The republic hasn't really improved in popularity now has it?)
• Romania (There have been talks in the past week)
• Libya (There are still supporters and the crown prince isn't entirely against it.)
• Nepal (Although the monarchist parties haven't really done well in the recent election, this could just be a sign of screwy tactics by the Maoist parties in Nepal manipulating opinions, polls, elections and what nots.)
• Iran (If the Islamic Republic ever goes away of course)
• Russia (When there are Eastern Orthodox Christians and a conservative nation then there is an appetite for a new Tsar/Emperor.)
• Georgia (Former Soviet Republic and Russia's neighbor, the Georgian Royal Family is relatively popular and quite a few prominent figures have asked for a referendum on the matter as whole.)

Honorable Mentions:

• Poland (As quirky and think tank as Polish monarchists are, you can help but feel there is at least some potential for the former Communist nation.)
• Egypt (Well, like I said with Brazil, the republic isn't anymore popular now is it?)
• Germany (You've got to admit that polls showing 20% supporting restoration have to be sort of a good sign for monarchism in the nation, but they'd have to gain more support and change a constitution that was practically set in stone.)
• Montenegro (A creeping restoration could still happen and the royal family does have recognition at least.)
• Greece (Well at least the deposed royal family is back in Greece and showing a little bit of interest about what goes on in their former kingdom.)
• Portugal (Shows promise and at least the nation's monarchist party actually has a seat in government.)
• Czech Republic (Even though the nation's monarchist party has been swept under the rug most of the time, at least it has 800 members, which isn't too bad for a nation with about 10 million. Plus it does appear to be rather popular to a certain extent in the country.)

Dishonorable Menstions

• Bulgaria (YOU HAD ONE JOB, ONE JOB. That is all I have to say to the former Czar of the country.)
• Serbia (The former monarchy with some of the most unreliable polls on the planet.)
• France (Impossible as per usual)
• Italy (Also impossible as per usual)
• China (Insert over 9000 face palms here)

-Frozen Royalist

I have some hope in restorations in Portugal, Brazil, Georgia, Nepal and Romania.

I dream of restorations in Greece and Bulgaria, even because the last kings are still alive. I find the case in Bulgaria very cramped, even because I do not know of any monarchical movement in that country.

[Curryong]

Of all of them I think Romania probably has the best chance. However the Royal House rules don't allow for a female monarch and there is no acceptable male heir. So at the moment that's quite a problem.