King Constantine and The Dicatorship of the Colonels, 1967-1974.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Originally Posted by stef

No no no....

I do not say that the USSR was creating a conspiracy in Greece.... .

In 1966 when it was discovered more data on Aspida, it was began to publish that members related to this plot, had traveled and had contacts with Russia ( buy weapons, search for support ....).
in the plot appeared names of persons related to the clandestine Communist party .

If said would be saboteurs were seeking soviet assistance than that would be expected. Kh was out of power by 1964 and Brezhnev was less interested in getting as involved internationally as Kh was, so if they ASPIDA plotters got support in the USSR it most likely wasn't anything very substantial. Despite the fact he was under virtual house arrest Kh still had access to the news and would have heard about the coup from the Soviet media (yes believe it or not the Soviet press did talk about foreign events)

It's just that a lot of people still believe in conspiracy theories like that and I got carried away in the last post. mea maxima culpa

[WreathOfLaurels]

Juan Carlos's opinion about Constantine's approach to dealing with the colonels according to Cyrus Sulzberger:

Madrid 12 May 1970 He [Juan Carlos] acknowledged that he was luck to only be 32, because today more than half the country was thirty or less. This would help him to establish a bond with the nation. He thought a King in Spain, which was not only European but also Mediterranean, could never only be a symbol, as in Scandanavia or England. He had to rule through a government and prime minister, not to try and rule himself, but in a sense he had to influence events within the reigning formula. The best technique would be to show "that I am strong but not to use my strength except on very important occasions." It would be possible to do this, to exert pressure when need be, but tactfully and behind the scenes, more or less the way King Paul had done in Greece. "Not Constantine," he added, laughing. Constantine, his brother in law, is now an emigre in Rome as a result of an unsuccessful counter coup against the colonels.

Cyrus Sulzberger, An Age of Mediocrity: Memoirs and Diaries 1963-1972, New York, Macmillian, 1973 p 603

And Paul Prestons take on JC's views:

All of this put Juan Carlos in a difficult position. He had little or no popular support. Years of glum, mute appearances next to Franco had lead to the widespread assumption that he had neither intelligence or courage. Jokes proliferated about his alleged stupidity. Wits named him Juan Carlos the brief. While waiting for Franco's decision as to his Royal successor, he had been obliged to keep a humiliating silence.... His brother in law, Constantine, had struck a powerful chord when he lamented his own failure to make himself better known to ordinary Greeks.

Paul Preston, Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy, Haper Press, London, 2003 [2012 pbk end] p 253

Preston's take on Constantine and the Coup;

In April 1967, there took place a series of events in Greece which suggested that Franco was mistaken about the mission of the CIA and that they would have obliquely have had an influence on the thinking of Sofia, and by extension, of Juan Carlos.* In September 1964 her father King Paul, had died of cancer. The concequence was that Greece lost a voice of moderation and her younger brother, the rather impetuous crown prince Constantine, found himself on the throne. Just 23 years old, an Olympic gold medalist yachtsman and a keen exponent of judo, he lacked the experience and strength of personality nessecary to reform an essentially corrupt and highly conservative system. His mother Frederika was the dominant force and she was conspiring to undermine the Centre Union government of George Papandreou. The principal figure in a group of conspirators was Colonel George Papadopoulos, a man with links to the CIA. Eventually, with Constanitne as a helpless spectator, a coup aimed at forestalling an election victory in May by Papandreou was hatched by the palace and the colonels. It took place on 21 April. Three days earlier, Juan Carlos and Sofia had been in Greece for the birthday of Queen Frederika. The prince had returned to Spain before the coup took place but Sofia was still in the royal residence of Tatoi to the north of Athens. She was able to witness the somewhat hesitant performance by her brother in contrast to the ruthless decisiveness of the conspirators. For the next two days Juan Carlos suffered considerable anxiety until Sofia was able to get back to Spain. King Constantine would exist as an uneasy figurehead until 13 December 1967, when he would launch a feeble counter coup. Following its collapse, he would go into exile, to be replaced by a regent, General Zoitakis.

Preston p 211

As you can tell, Prestons account is riddled with errors - Paul died in March not September, and there is no evidence linking Freddy to the Colonels, who were anti-monarchy and seems to have merged the rumoured Generals plot with the actual coup. Preston got his information for this part from a appalling book by an Irish journo called Peter Murtagh called The Rape of Greece. It's mostly a lengthy apologia for why terrorism is awesome (Murtagh was and is a long time IRA apologist), and is literally the only book on Greece Preston looked at - despite the fact that Preston interviewed C - what a fail!

*Franco was paranoid that the CIA was working to undermine his neo-feudal rule and establish a more liberal and democratic government in its place.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Helen Vlachos on the Coup:

I had talked about this threat [the coup] from the army privately, and at length with King Constantine. He was aware of it and spoke to me with distaste of the various military men who at every crisis hinted at the possibility of uncositiuional solutions of the nations problems. He was quite genuinely attached to democratic ideas, and quite clear minded about what any kind of military take over would mean for himself. I remember, word for word, king Constantine asking me in rhetorical style "if any kind of dictatorship prevails...i ask you! Who would be the first victim? Who else but the king? Who else but me?"

Helen Vlachos, House Arrest, Boston MA, Gambit Inc, 1970, pp 17-18

*******************

C M Woodhouse on the breach between Karamanlis and the RF which was a major factor in the Coup and the later abolition of the monarchy

...Karamanlis was deeply disturbed by his relations with the palace. Five years later [1966] he wrote about his feelings at the time "My relations with the King [Paul] were good until my resignation, and I believe he accepted it with regret. But it is impossible to say the same about the Queen and the crown prince, whose hostile attitude toward me began to be unmistakeable from about 1961, as was evident from many typical instances [oh Kostas, why so coy? Please tell us more, we're all dying to know! - WoL]" senior colleagues also confirmed Karamanlis impression. As for the King, his conduct sometimes puzzled Karamanlis. Once he returned from an audience, he told his wife that the King had appeared to be drunk. But it was certainly impossible that this could be true. It was simply a symton[sic] of a state of affairs which Karamanlis found inexplicable.

C M Woodhouse, Karamanlis: The Restorer of Greek Democracy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980, p 148

The Drunknenness that K describes might be Paul under the influence of Pain killers for his stomach tumor, or the pain was worse than usual that day. Its interesting that K failed to twig about KP's health. A lot of the secrecy that surrounded KP's failing health was a major factor in the problems of the RF and the monarchy and yet is often overlooked.

More on K's views of Constantine:

When Papagos came a third time on 23 july [1968] to show Karamanlis a draft letter from the king commenting on the new constitition drawn up by the junta, he merely remarked that it was 'brief and feeble', and advised against sending it. Again he refused to meet the King...His contempt for the young King was barely disguised. They had not met since Constantine came to the throne, and to Karamanlis, in his wife's [Amalia Kanellopoulos] words, Constantine remained simply "Paul's naughty little boy"

Woodhouse p 189

I don't know about you but letting a personal grudge like that get in the way of something important like putting up a united political front, I'm not surprised that the junta lasted as long as it did!

Next will be the books by M-Pap and A-Pap

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by WreathOfLaurels

Juan Carlos's opinion about Constantine's approach to dealing with the colonels according to Cyrus Sulzberger:



Cyrus Sulzberger, An Age of Mediocrity: Memoirs and Diaries 1963-1972, New York, Macmillian, 1973 p 603

And Paul Prestons take on JC's views:



Paul Preston, Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy, Haper Press, London, 2003 [2012 pbk end] p 253

Preston's take on Constantine and the Coup;



Preston p 211

As you can tell, Prestons account is riddled with errors - Paul died in March not September, and there is no evidence linking Freddy to the Colonels, who were anti-monarchy and seems to have merged the rumoured Generals plot with the actual coup. Preston got his information for this part from a appalling book by an Irish journo called Peter Murtagh called The Rape of Greece. It's mostly a lengthy apologia for why terrorism is awesome (Murtagh was and is a long time IRA apologist), and is literally the only book on Greece Preston looked at - despite the fact that Preston interviewed C - what a fail!

*Franco was paranoid that the CIA was working to undermine his neo-feudal rule and establish a more liberal and democratic government in its place.

JC's view on the role of the king in a "Mediterranean, European monarchy" seems to have "evolved" (as American politicians often say). Contrary to the quote you posted above, following the adoption of the 1978 constitution and the failed 1981 military coup, he increasingy embraced the role of a cerimonial or, if you will, "symbolic" monarch along the British or Scandinavian lines, rather than the activist role he seemed to defend in that interview. Felipe VI seems to have taken that even further as suggested by his apparent unwillingness to have a more active role in the current Spanish government formation deadlock, leaving it to the political parties to sort it out themselves.

[WreathOfLaurels]

I don't know to what extent JC's views have fully changed in the intervening 5 decades (Prestons not helpful on that) but it's a source on what he thought at the time. You are right though about F getting criticised about lack of involvement. Seems with monarchies that are called on to be intervene it's damnded if you do and damned if you don't.

[IRIS1983]

Totally agree with you, the Spanish monarchy his functions are symbolic, abstention, it has been good received, but now in Spain are many people and journalists....that think the King as guarantor of order should have more functions to solve this crisis of goverment . You are right, if they have functions (as the monarchy of Luxembourg), they are criticized,and if have not functions , now all say conversely that should have more functions monarchy to solve problems of lack of government.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Originally Posted by IRIS1983

Totally agree with you, the Spanish monarchy his functions are symbolic, abstention, it has been good received, but now in Spain are many people and journalists....that think the King as guarantor of order should have more functions to solve this crisis of goverment . You are right, if they have functions (as the monarchy of Luxembourg), they are criticized,and if have not functions , now all say conversely that should have more functions monarchy to solve problems of lack of government.

I don't know enough about what is going on in Spain right now to say anything hard and fast but such an Obama-sque approach by Felipe probably says more about the low caliber of Spanish politicians and the sour mood of the electorate than about Felipes character. A theme that I hope has emerged from the quotes I've been posting regarding his uncle.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Former Greek King Constantine Would Return to Throne if People Wanted Him | GreekReporter.com

C's partial explanations on the coup and counter coup

[WreathOfLaurels]

Following the referenda on the monarchy in 1974, there was apparently a plan by a number of disgruntled army officers in 1975 (along with a plethora of other plans that wer unreported at the time) to launch a coup against the government of Constantine Karamanlis, assassinate him and recall the exiled king. the greek government found out of Constantine's possible involvement via the UK intelligence services. The files about this in the UK are still classified but edited and biased versions are in the edited archive of Karamanlis as well as the memoirs of the Greek ambassador at the time mention the possibility of C's involvement. I found out about this in a really quite biased book by a certain P Dimitrakis called Greece and the English.

This sounds insane. Althouth I don't deny the that there were many who wanted Karamanlis dead at that point in time, C being involved sounds highly out of character - ??? Can anyone shed some light on this?

High life » 6 Jun 1997 » The Spectator Archive

Taki on what i metioned above

[stef]

Paul Prestson, in his book on the King of spain, it is obvious that ignores the facts that occurred in Greece.

First, the elections scheduled on May 28, 1967, was the King who did it to solve the problem . Given the political instability that had been created, the confrontation between political forces in parliament to reach agreements, did not allowed create a stable government in Greece. The King constantine convoked meetings with the leaders political, George Papandreou attended the meetings ... of these meetings came an agreement to hold elections and political parties pledged to respect the result.

Second, Colonels give a coup against the military leadership of the King, against the agreement call for elections and against ASPIDA complot.

Third, Georgios Papadopoulos, was not General Franco.

Queen Frederika had nothing to do with the coup of the colonels. On 21 April, the colonels introduced in Athens the tanks , taking advantage of the confusion, many people thought it would be a military parade. They put tanks on the streets and squares, public buildings, parliament, the royal palace..and take the media and suspend the telephone line. They put tanks in the houses of politicians and also in the house of the Queen Frederika when the tanks is put into her door , the Frederika sees them, she thought it was a coup of the "reds", the Communists, but after a while a soldier had to reassure telling her that they'd just avoid coup communist state.
...................


This last WreathOfLaurels you are commenting:
when Karamanlis returned to Greece in July 1974, Constantine had been betrayed by him, knew that the monarchy would not be restored , because Constantine knew that to restored of monarchy was necessary that the 1952 Constitution would restored in full, also the head of state, in the person of King, after the referendum could be celebrated .....but Karamanlis knew of it, he did not restored the title of constitution of monarchy . After he announces a referendum in a short time, he did not allow the participation of supporters of the monarchy, and the king , Constantine knew it would be a miracle.


Karamanlis always denied having betrayed the king, and denied have been managing the return of the King. He denied contacts with the King. But Constantine said otherwise, that he had spoken and met with him , when a British politician or a personality claimed it was true, that Karamanlis had been managing the return of King ...... then Karamanlis ,always resorted to this kind of story, where he was the hero who had saved Greece once again

[WreathOfLaurels]

Originally Posted by stef

Paul Prestson, in his book on the King of spain, it is obvious that ignores the facts that occurred in Greece.

First, the elections scheduled on May 28, 1967, was the King who did it to solve the problem . Given the political instability that had been created, the confrontation between political forces in parliament to reach agreements, did not allowed create a stable government in Greece. The King constantine convoked meetings with the leaders political, George Papandreou attended the meetings ... of these meetings came an agreement to hold elections and political parties pledged to respect the result.

Preston got all his info from one very questionable book; but then again, he's not a Greece expert but a Spain one - all things considers it's something I can forgive.

Second, Colonels give a coup against the military leadership of the King, against the agreement call for elections and against ASPIDA complot.

Third, George Papadopoulos, was not General Franco.

Damn right 'bout that

Queen Frederika had nothing to do with the coup of the colonels. On 21 April, the colonels introduced in Athens the tanks , taking advantage of the confusion, many people thought it would be a military parade. They put tanks on the streets and squares, public buildings, parliament, the royal palace..and take the media and suspend the telephone line. They put tanks in the houses of politicians and also in the house of the Queen Frederika when the tanks is put into her door , the Frederika sees them, she thought it was a coup of the "reds", the Communists, but after a while a soldier had to reassure telling her that they'd just avoid coup communist state.

I forgot to mention that Preston actually uses Measure of Understanding in Juan Carlos - ????
...................

This last WreathOfLaurels you are commenting:
when Karamanlis returned to Greece in July 1974, Constantine had been betrayed by him, knew that the monarchy would not be restored , because Constantine knew that to restored of monarchy was necessary that the 1952 Constitution would restored in full, also the head of state, in the person of King, after the referendum could be celebrated .....but Karamanlis knew of it, he did not restored the title of constitution of monarchy . After he announces a referendum in a short time, he did not allow the participation of supporters of the monarchy, and the king , Constantine knew it would be a miracle.

Karamanlis always denied having betrayed the king, and denied have been managing the return of the King. He denied contacts with the King. But Constantine said otherwise, that he had spoken and met with him , when a British politician or a personality claimed it was true, that Karamanlis had been managing the return of King ...... then Karamanlis ,always resorted to this kind of story, where he was the hero who had saved Greece once again

That the old 1952 constitution wasn't fit for purpose is hard to deny - Greece was in desperate need of social and economic reform and the fact that there was considerable vested interest in maintaining what was a very conservative and corrupt state system is also hard to deny but frankly I fail to see how abolishing the monarchy would further the cause of reform. Although in all honesty Constantine probably should have returned to greece before Karamanlis got a chance - this would have poss forced his hand, but tradition stated that you only returned after the referenda was held...

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ml#post1901399

Here's a link through to what i've had to say about the book in question on another thread

Βασιλιάς Κωνσταντίνος Β΄και ΓεώÏ�γιος Î*απανδÏ�Î*ου ‹ The Royal Chronicles

More background from a really fantastic website - what a great resource (even if it needs google translate for an unfortunate monolingual like me!) :)

[stef]

The Constitution of 1952 was obvious that it should be modified, it was unable to solve the problem of political instability in the years, 1963-1967, but if the democracy in Greece should be restored it had to be, first, restore the constitution of 1952 and then it should be changed it.

Constantine knew that it was the moment to return to Greece,Constantine knew that this would be the time would return to Greece, it would be restored the Head of State, he knew that the 1952 constitution would be changed, he knew he had many chances to win the subsequent referendum of constitutional reform.

But Karamanlis convinced Constantine: first, Karmanlis would travel to Greece and then he would call to Constantine to return the King..

But Karamanlis had betrayed him, he returned to Greece restaured the constitutional text, but not the title of the head of state. Greece was one Republic.

And when the result was guaranteed to favor of the Republic, he convoked to reform the constitution and he did not allowed participate, to the king or his followers.
Very relevant:
SKAI interview in May Constantine said that, Karamanlis had removed to him,his passport . He could not enter in Greece.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Originally Posted by stef

But Karamanlis convinced Constantine: first, Karmanlis would travel to Greece and then he would call to Constantine to return the King..

But Karamanlis had betrayed him, he returned to Greece restaured the constitutional text, but not the title of the head of state. Greece was one Republic.

And when the result was guaranteed to favor of the Republic, he convoked to reform the constitution and he did not allowed participate, to the king or his followers.

Very relevant:
SKAI interview in May Constantine said that, Karamanlis had removed to him,his passport. He could not enter in Greece.

Still think C should have just gone to Greece first (before any passports could be revoked) and that trusting K was a big mistake. Its pretty obvious in retrospect that K was setting him up by blowing C off at all opportunities, refusing to meet with C, and in general refusing rapprochement and letting sleeping dogs lie for the greater good.

At least that's the impression based on what I have read, and almost all of those books are favorable to K. Unless I've missed something, if someone refuses to meet you, spreads hostile news about you when they can, and refuses your peace offerings; than it seems safe to assume that that particular person doesn't have your best interests in mind.

Please don't think I'm bashing C - I'm not and I think that far too much venoms and odure has been heaped on him for no good reason - but that doesn't mean you can't criticize the mistakes he made.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Greece - Constantine II, King of the Hellenes, 1964-1974

Some information on the aftermath of C2's deposition and the court cases that followed over the family's property and citizenship.

[stef]

the first part is insulting, Queen Fredeiriki could not control the funds of the foundation bearing her name, but also she did not participated in politics, she retired in 1964, Georgios wanted that she would had one pension, and Queen renounce to it, Georgios asked to the Queen to consider her position, and the queen said she did not want anything, she was tired of the campaign that was in the media against her.

George Papandreou won the elections, he governs with a political party that he had created uniting various political forces, in 1962. This party was broken, because a conspiration appeared in the army (which aimed to replace army officers by others of Ideology left),Aspida, in this complot appears involved the Ministry of defense and the son of Prime Minsiter, Andreas Papandreou(EK).

The EK(political party) is divided, because some of their members, they think that George and Andreas were involved in the plot and are using the Defense Ministry.

In Greece, it is needed majority in the parliament to be Primer Minister or President of government. the EK was divided,on the one hand the followers of George and on the other those who feel betrayed by George,they believe that Andreas is in the conspiracy, The latter(who feel betrayed by George), they removed the parliamentary support to George.

The break is because George is committed to investigating the ministry, he puts a neutral Minister of defense, and this minister resigns because he says that George is obstructing the investigation . George assumed the defense ministry and his party is divided


Georgios resigned because his own party is divided, and they have removed the parliamentary support , it was essential (Samaras underwent a confidence which lost the majority in the parliament and had to resign in 2014)

King Constantine had a good relationship with Primer Minister, George Papandreou, a confirmed proof of their good relations, Constantine offers, at a meeting with George to legalize the Communist Party, and George says no. K. Mitsotakis confirmed that it was true that Constantino proposed to legalize the Communist party, Mitsotakis said at one channel of tv, that it had been true, but George said that no.
Parliament is split and it is impossible to create a government, then the King promotes a meeting with the parties and agreed to hold elections in May 1967, the parties(George also!!!!) undertake to respect the result.

In 1966, new data from the Aspida plot is discovered, and it is brutal because it is imminent that are preparing a leftist coup in Greece. This will be what leads to the appearance in the army of other conspiracies against Aspida plot. In conclusion the Greek army because of this frame is divided, the Colonels (with US support was the main investor in Greece and in the Greek army, Greece was a strategic country against the communist bloc, for this reason USa had a great economic investment in greece and in the Greek army, USa defended their interests. the plot Aspida directly attacked USA). The agreement to convene elections and solve the problem on this democratic path, it is not convinced to USa, because he considered the problem of instability came constitution text itself.

King Constantine did not give the coup, the coup was given by a part of the Greek army against Aspida plot and against the agreement(meeting held by the king) to celebrate general elections for May.

This was a 21 April. Colonels took the media comunicaion television, radio and telephone, including radio control, and they put the tanks in cities, as a means of triumph immediately, because they knew that the King could not mobilize the part of the loyal army to the Crown.

The king approved the agreement with the colonels, to avoid the confrontation . Colonels are presented with momentary character, but from the beginning their relationship with the king was bad. First the King deal to remove of power to them by diplomatic channel , but he did not get the support of countries like US or Great britain , this countries preferred support to the colonels that gave stability in the area. Then the King started to prepare a counterattack,...in december the King gives counterattack. but the colonels enjoyed the support of the army, social support, the others states, it was the Cold War....

[WreathOfLaurels]

Another Spain expert on the Coup and the relative merits of C and JC

Juan Carlos's position was such that apparently unconnected external events could prove unsettling. In April 1967 a group of officers staged a successful military coup against the government of king Constantine II, Sofia's younger brother, who had succeeded his father in 1964. The princess happened to be in Athens at the time, and was able therefore to witness the events of the coup first hand. In december following an amerturish counter coup launched at his insitgation, Constantine fled into exile, with so little time to make preparations that when Sofia flew to meet him in Rome she took some of her husbands clothes. The Greek monarch's departure, which came as a great blow to the couple, was greeted with relish by Juan Carlos's opponents who presented it as evidence of the instructions inherent anachronism.
Constantine's troubles in Greece provided Juan Carlos with much food for thought. When a new theoritaclly monarchist constition was adopted by the Greek military junta in September 1968, it was promptly rejected by Constantine, who declared the referendum null and void. Discussing these events with Lopez Rodo, Juan Carlos observed that it would have repelled him to have become 'King of the Colonels' adding that 'they would have probably taken me to the slaughter house within two years.'

Charles Powell, Juan Carlos of Spain: Self Made Monarch, 1996 p 33

The death of Queen Frederika in Madrid on 6 February 1981 provided Juan Carlos and Sofia with fresh food for thought. Partially as a result of the pressure applied by the spanish royal family, the Greek Authorites allowed the exiled King Constantine to enter his country for the first time since 1967 in order to attend his mothers funeral. The contrast between the almost clandestine arrival of the deposed monarch and that of Juan Carlos, who was greeted with full military honours, could not have been more eloquent. What was more the funeral held at the former royal residence of Tatoi where sofia had lived as a child was on the verge of being taken over by far-right demonstrators. As a number of observers were quick to point out, the essential difference between the two monarchs was that Juan Carlos had been a staunch defender of popular sovereignty and had refused to bow to military pressure however intense.

Powell p 168

As i have made clear in other posts, this view is inaccurate and does not take into account major differences. On a side note , how many coups did the late king Bhuminbol of Thailand endorse over the years?

A brief passage of the aftermath of Karamanlis's actions regarding the referendum,

The presence of a royal family in spain proved more damaging than useful in the country's bilateral relations with only one state, namely Greece. President Karamanlis, who never forgave Queen Frederika for forcing him into exile in 1963, visited Madrid officially in 1984, providing Sofia with an excuse to wear the Greek Royal Family's most splendid decorations. In view of continued official greek hostility to its royal family, athens remains the only EC and NATO capital the spaish king and queen have yet to visit officially.

Powell p 196

This has since changed as JC and S have visited in 1998 and many times after that.

It also explains the frosty relations with Denmark and is a factor in the bad relations with the UK along with the legacy of UK involvement in Greek affairs and Cyprus.

As with the passages from Paul Prestons work i won't comment on the inaccuracies listed here.

[stef]

First, I begin by Queen Freidiriki. Karmanalis was not exiled of Greece by the Queen , that's stupid.

Karamanlis was involved in political scandals of all kinds, he had lost credibility, he knew he would not win the elections. In 1962 had gone to the Palace and had asked the king Paul help to win the election, but King Paul said no. Karamanlis then began to attack the monarchy. when Georgios had won, Karamanlis asked to King Paul the veto to georgios to prevent that Georgios was Primer Minsiter.King Paul said, no to karamanlis.
Then he, and he alone, left Greece, it was his decision, he was arrogant man he did not accepted defeat.

Second:
After Constantine left Greece, december 1967, the colonels tried to convince Constantine, but Constantine in Rome delivered a document to the Colonels , in which, he demands to return to Greece, the restore of the democracy (constitution of 1952).
They are not accepted it.

the Colonels decided to reform the system and submit it to Referedum 1968. They created a political system as the Spanish (like franco), the state was a monarchical state, but the king was not determined, the colonels momentarily took the power as Franco.They mimicked Spain. the Greek people in referendum voted in favor of this new system that was like the Spanish.

They said to explain new system, that Greece was a patient in a hospital. They were the doctors, they had to intervene to the patient , and now the patient must recover, and after, the patient could leave of hospital..(In conclusion they were momentary, but once solved the problems of Greece, they would restore democracy, the constitution of 1952 and the king)

The difference between Franco and Colonels, the colonels were not monarchists, they reformed the system and mimicked the Franco, because they feared that parts of the Greek army rise up against them, when they saw that the king had been overthrown. They created an appearance, Franco no

In 1969 Franco, was a military, offered the succession Juan carlos and he accepted. he accepted be "Prince of Franco?".

I would like see to this biographers of King JC, talking about the official visit to spain of King Paul in 1963 , King Paul spoke with Franco, his daughter had been married with the Prince of the Royal House of Spain in "exile". and I would like see Mr. Preston talking about the Queen Freideriki and her friendship with the Franco family, when JC was still a prince .. King Juan Carlos owes much to the Queen Sophia. No need to distort facts to see it.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Paul Preston mentions in passing Paul taking Don Juan into letting JC&S live in spain after the wedding (p 178 pbk edn). Karamanlis isn't mentioned at all. No Ordnairy Crown doesn't say anything either. The Powell book was written twenty years ago but this was and is the dominant trend in the historiography.

Stef, you really know your stuff and I have been really enjoying your considered and detailed comments. Have you considered writing for a blog or print media?

[WreathOfLaurels]

A comparison between the Colones Coup and the Iranian Revolution;

The US decision to try and circumvent the Shah backfired with disastrous consequences for American policy and a near fatal outcome for the general [Robert E Huysar US dep cmdr of the ground forces in Europe]. The shah quickly learned about Huysar's arrival and naturally interpreted it as confirmation that Carter was trying to arrange a coup. His generals were so outraged that they offered to put an end to the American game right away. "The generals came to me and offered to shoot Huysar" recalled Ambassador Zahedi. "The fear was that the americans were about to repeat their involvement in the 1967 coup in greece against king Constantine" the shah wouldn't hear of it, but Zahedi was so furious he urged that Huysar be arrested and deported"

Andrew Scott Cooper The Fall of Heaven: the Pahlavi's and the last days of imperial Iran, 2016 p 477

[stef]

This was not the same, but if there are similar objective elements. First Iran was a country with oil, and strategic against communist bloc, US was its main investor, it is obvious that the Iranian revolution was supported by many foreign countries, interested in its oil, and others in communism