The Monarchy in Greece

[ellinotati]

Greece had asked for the olympics of 1996 to celebrate the 100 years of games.the olympics were given to atlanta.how come and constantine didn't manage to give the olympics then to greece that we wanted so much?i remember with crystal clear memory the moment when greece was given the olympics for 2004 and the media reported how emotional he felt which i do believe.also he celebrated with the greek members of the group who worked for the olympics 2004.i believe it was team work and not just constantine who gave us the olympics.As for incompentent goverments Greece is doing pretty well at the moment and will continue to do so!

[cuervo]

The official American argument against Greece in 1996,was terrorim!!Remember??(17N) So, Constantine is a King,not God himself!!!Did i replied????

[ellinotati]

poor answer for me.sorry!november 17th was still active until 2 yrs ago so they could have refused the 2004 olympics on that ground.i think the 70000 greeks that booed mr samarang on the mediterranean games a year after the decision not to give greece the olympics of 1996 ,might expain things.he entered the olympic stadium in athens and didn't manage to make a speech because the greeks wouldnt have him.also the press clearly was against the decision of the olympic committee to favour america over greece when the 100yrs was to be celebrated.so, forget the story that constantine gave us the olympics.we earned them and deserved them!if the birthplace of olympism hasn't got the right to organise the olympics for once then who has?

I come a bit late to the discussion but have been following the conversation for several days now and feel that I have some points to contribute. Sean suggested you ask members of the ex-patriot Greek Community well as such you may feel free to ask me anything you like. I have had the privilege to live both in and out of Greece and as such have a comparison of Greek opinion.

I will admit that I am biased towards the King myself, but this therefore means I have had to look for the good in him as the Greek media does little to promote this. I have had the fortune to be brought up in a family loyal to the King and with good reason. My Grandfather had worked in governance under King Paul and had brought up his family loyal to the King. In 1967 my family fled Greece as my grandfather opposed the military. My mum remembers the coup and having to leave quickly, and years later used to tell me and my brothers that the Generals would get us if we were bad. In 1974 my grandfather was involved in promoting the monarchy however this was not made easy and public promotion of the monarchy was not easily tolerated. Tourism had hardly begun at this time and so many people out side of Greece had no idea what it was like and inside Greece no one knew what life outside was like. This was a Government who was not interested in giving the people their king back and now they live haunted by their previous actions. My family had wealthy background and was able to maintain a life off shore. My grandfather died in 2001 having refused to return from self imposed exile and spend another night on Greek soil whilst ‘that government’ exists.

The average Greek does not know the full story of the coup and as it has been said that the Greek Government and Media do not talk about the King kindly as it is not in their interest. The Government has not made a bad job of the country, and who could say anyone else could do better, but they exist only because when the republic was formed in 1974 the population had been told that the King betrayed them. I was in Greece in 1994 when the Royal Family returned and witnessed the military response to the King and this can not be rational for a Government who does not fear him.

When Sean says he finds people and internet pages that do not like the King, it has to be remembered that you are privileged to be able to examine this information, it is only since the invention of the internet that Greeks can find alternative materials about the subject than what they are told with the spin the government and media put on things. The media in Greece does not tell how the Greek Government confiscated the Kings private property in the first place and only says how he demands money. If i did not know better i would probably not like him either. just be carefull when u form opnions that you know why you form them as it upsets me when people make judgements on people they do not know without looking at the whole picture. For the record, the King is not dim witted and is a natural man and that is from first hand experience.

[Sean.~]

My Grandfather had worked in governance under King Paul and had brought up his family loyal to the King.* In 1967 my family fled Greece as my grandfather opposed the military.

My family had wealthy background and was able to maintain a life off shore.*

Well, your family's political and socio-economic background under the monarchy may explain your biases.

The average Greek does not know the full story of the coup and as it has been said that the Greek Government and Media do not talk about the King kindly as it is not in their interest.*

With all due respect, the Greek people are not stupid and/or parochial. Not only do they know how to access information, but they know that the monarchy was never stable in that country and that the country has been far more prosperous and politically stable without it. They can think for themselves, and it is highly doubtful that they would think that the King betrayed them if there wasn't an element of truth to it. Of course, the old vested interestes would have you believe otherwise.


The Greeks I know hold that when Constantine said he didn't want a drop of Greek blood spillled, he was referring to *his* blood (During the 70s a friend of mine had a Greek Landlord. There was a picture of Constantine on the newspaper cover and her landlord grabbed the kitchen knife and shred the paper to pieces. This was in Canada. Just an anacdote that I thought I would share). Most of the Greeks who actually live in Greece don't want Constantine back. The fact of the matter is that there is no movement in Greece to restore the monarchy and there is no pro-monarchist political party.

When Sean says he finds people and internet pages that do not like the King

Actually, I didn't say I find internet pages. My information comes from first hand sources, for the most part.

The media in Greece does not tell how the Greek Government confiscated the Kings private property in the first place and only says how he demands money. If i did not know better i would probably not like him either.

The Greek people have access to all forms of media. They are a part of the European community, an are neither illiterate or so dense that they can not listen to divergent sources and form their own opinions. In my opinion, If he truly cared about the Greek people (as opposed to his bank balance) he would have been maganimous enough to give up his properties to the nation, rather that milking them for millions. His foundation is nothing more than PR excercise, and the way he treats his children and wife is abominable. And don't assume that I don't know.

For the record, the King is not dim witted and is a natural man and that is from first hand experience

Yes, but by your own admission your are biased towards him.

Having heard him speak,having talked with people who know him, and by analysing his...um... political decisions, he certainly doesn't come across as the sharpest knife in the drawer. And I'm not biased either way, as I have no vested intrests. I am objective on the subject.

I apologise for the following points but I am angry, insulted and those readers following this discussion have a right not to be miss lead by incorrect information.

Have you ever been to Greece Sean? I openly said I had biases and how dare you attack me on them and 'vested interests'. As it happens, my family’s financial concerns have nothing to do with Greek Politics and have not suffered or benefited from a monarchy or a republic, it merely gave them the opportunity to live away from the dictatorship and understand the wider picture.

You claim you are objective yet you make personal judgements on a man you do not know. You provide no facts, only other people’s opinions people have told you. For a serious historian you know very little about supportive evidence, let alone my country or its people. I have yet to read anything you have said that is anything but second hand opinions from all your supposed Greek buddies.

You are at least correct in that Greeks are not stupid, however I don’t believe I ever said they were. You do not understand the type of media access they have. The Government controls the media, and as I can read Greek I can tell you they do not present the King favourably. In addition, Greeks do have freedom of Press but they are prohibited against printing articles that are "insulting to the republic." Discussion of a monarchy is 'insulting' to the republic. As for the internet, as only 10% have access they are not going to get much from this. As for monarchist political parties, I am sure your background in economics and politics will explain to you that people do need money and time to support politics, and just as an added fact, voting is compulsory so they are forced to vote for who ever exists. As for stability... it has already been pointed out that Greece experienced instability due to external forces (namely two world wars).

Whilst I can not discredit that your friends may have their valid reasons (either informed or uninformed) for not being pro-monarch, they do not speak for the nation, and if it is so wonderful under the republic why don’t they go back and live there? I do not have a problem with you not being pro-monarchy, but I do have a problem with you making statements that are inaccurate.

[Sean.~]

I apologise for the following points but I am angry, insulted and those readers following this discussion have a right not to be miss lead by incorrect information.
oncerns have nothing to do with Greek

Snort. If you don't want people to be mislead by incorrect information then stop posting your selective, revisionist history.

Have you ever been to Greece Sean? I openly said I had biases and how dare you attack me on them and 'vested interests'.

Yes & no one was attacking you. You are the one who said that you had biases. I merely repeated what you said. Moreover, it was *you* who went on about how your grandfather served the King etc. and how they were wealthy under the monarchy. It is the impression that *you* gave. I merely stated that these factors may account for your biases (something you acknowleged having). If you don't like people analyzing what you write, don't write it. Simple. People are free to analyze and interpret here. After all, this isn't Greece under Constane I or George II. It just sounds to me like you are sensitive and/or have a problem with the truth being pointed out to you.

You claim you are objective yet you make personal judgements on a man you do not know.

That is your assumption. I preface my statements with the word allegedly (and other terms) when appropriate. Moreover, I based my opinions/perspectives based on reliable first hand accounts, by listening to him, and by studying the subject. I come to my own conclusions by synethsizing all of the material available to me on a given subject. I don't simply favour someone because my grandfather served their father or because of familial ties. Too bad if you don't like it.

I have yet to read anything you have said that is anything but second hand opinions from all your supposed Greek buddies.*

Likewise. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. Simple as that. Oh, and who said that they were all Greek?

As for monarchist political parties, I am sure your background in economics and politics will explain to you that people do need money and time to support politics

,

And your point? Greeks have money and time to support other political parties (and there are several). So your argument doesn't hold water. Also, it has a higher per capita income than many other countries in Europe. Thus the only reasonable explanation then is that there isn't enough significant interest in the monarchy. Oh, and who told you what my background is in?

Voting is compulsory so they are forced to vote for who ever exists.

Snort!! Greece is a DEMOCRACY now (a real one, too). People are free to form political parties, associational groups, lobby/oressure groups, and even...umm...run for political office!!!! The last time I checked there were at least ten parties, even Communist and Marxist ones. Contrary to the image you are trying to present, Greeks don't have to just roll over and accept the status quo. Really, your arugment is quite weak.

As for stability... it has already been pointed out that Greece experienced instability due to external forces (namely two world wars).

So did the rest of Europe (that's why they were called World Wars), Surely you are not claiming that all six referendums on the monarchy were due to external problems? How about having the intellectual integrity of acknowledging that there were internal factors too, like Constantine I's sympathies with the central powers, his and this refusal to recognize the democratically elected government of the pro-entente Venizelos, his dissolving the legitimate government of the country, his continued power struggle with Venizelos to the detriment of the country, the terror camapaign launched on his behalf by General Mexatas, and the Bulgarians grabbing of Greek territory due to Constantine's waffling. This disaster of a 'leader' only left the country when the allied powers threatened to bombard Greece if he remained.

Then there was the referendum on the monarchy in 1935, which was marked by fraud, and George II's subsequent appointment of the his facist, repressive friend General Mexatas as Prime Minister -- a man who suspended the Human Rights clauses in the country's constitution (thus creating a vaccume which led the support of Communism to grow), repressed the left (and I'm not talking about so-called Communists), and engaged in ethnic cleansing.

There was also the Second World War and famine, but I don't attribute that to the monarchy (although one must ask if Greece would have been as vulnerable if communication among the allies had been better organized).

However, once the war was over, the repression and intimidation continued, this time under the Prime Minisiterialiship Themistoklis Sophoulis. This ushered in what became known as the era of White Terror. An amnesty agreement was ignored and there was vigilantism, extra judicial executions by death squads, and arbitary imprisonment of leftists. In fact, there was so much represion that leftist parties boycotted the less than free elections of the 1946 (an election marked by fraud). The repression continued still under the government of Konstantinos Tsaldaris (yet another member of the old oligrachy), with tens of thousands of Greeks being placed in concentration camps (and no, all of these poor people were not Communists & even if they were they did not deserved to be treated in this abominable way.

Tsaldaris' 1946 plebescite on the monarchy, which saw the return of George II, too was marred by fraud, intimidation, and coercion -(all hallmarks of the Greek right during this era). George II was not popular with many Greeks (not just the left and the so-called Communists [it was easy to tar dissenters with the Communist brush]) due to his collusion with the facist dictator, Metaxas. This, in turn, led to allienation and increased civil strife. Repression continued and the leftists were forced to go underground. Subsequently, the DAG was formed by the Communists under the leadership of Vafiadis and the civil war commenced (in which atrocities were committed by *both* sides).

Up until 1950, Greece used its Marshal Plan dollars on its military (to repress elements of its population), whereas the rest of Europe focused on reconstruction. I admit that this changed in the 1950s, when there was more investment in development, but this too was was done by massive borrowing.

Yes, the colonels were brutal, but so was the monarchy. It was Constantine's incompetence (somewhat surprising when one considers it was a job he was trained for his entire life) and power struggle with Papandreou that allowed the colonels to take launch their coup. That's why 70 percent of the people (people who lived under the monarchy) voted to abolish it when Karmanalis took over. Say what you will about the referendum, the vote was legitimate and it was far more fair than any such undertaking conducted under the monarchy.

You are at least correct in that Greeks are not stupid, however I don’t believe I ever said they were.* You do not understand the type of media access they have.* The Government controls the media,

Kindly refrain from telling me what I understand and don't understand, because you haven't a clue. There is certainly less control of the media than there was during the monarchy (see below). Or are you going to dispute that too? Indeed, one wonders why you have such a double standard.

and as I can read Greek I can tell you they do not present the King favourablyGreeks do have freedom of Press but they are prohibited against printing articles that are "insulting to the republic." Discussion of a monarchy is 'insulting' to the republic.

That's your interpretation.

Yes, Greeks do have freedom of the Press, more so than they did under the monarchy, a fact that you assidiously fail to acknowledge. And there is plenty of discussion on the monarchy in the Greek press. Check the Athens News Agency from time to time. The Greek Constitution also prohibts censorship (all government hindrences of the press removed in 1994), and the state monopoly on radio and television ended in the late 80s. Moreover, the country has more newspapers and weekly periodicals than any other country in Europe (as of the late 1990s) based on a per capita basis, which represent all political parties and viewpoints. So don't tell me that discussion on the monarchy isn't permitted. If the press doesn't cover it or cover it favourably, then it is because a). there are more substantive things to cover; and B). there isn't anything favourable to report.

for the internet, as only 10% have access

If I recall correctly, you are quoting a figure from 2000 and the first half of 2001, and it only referred to home access. In 1999 there were 1.33 million internet users (out of a population of 10 million), many of whom had access through work and school. In any event, the rate of users has increased substantially over the last 2-3 years and is projected to reach the 50 percent mark over the next few years.

Whilst I can not discredit that your friends may have their valid reasons (either informed or uninformed) for not being pro-monarch, they do not speak for the nation, and if it is so wonderful under the republic why don’t they go back and live there?* I do not have a problem with you not being pro-monarchy, but I do have a problem with you making statements that are inaccurate.

My statements are not innaccurate, thank you very much. Your asserting so doesn't make them so. *I* could say the same about your statements. I also have a problem with you glossing over the failings of the monarchial system in Greece.

Oh, and I am not anti-monarchist, so kindly do not attribute political views to me. In fact, I am generally a monarchist, however, I am able to discern between good monarchies and bad monarchies. I realize that the system has its failings and that it isn't always suitable. Also, not only are the people I know very well informed (supporters of Constantine don't have a monopoly on that), but their nationalities are also none of your affair. For you to questions why they don't go back and live in Greece is childish, as far as I'm concerned. People immigrate for a host of reasons, particulalry in the new 'global village'. Indeed, why don't we all go back to where our ancestors came from? The whole world would be on the move.

[Julia]

Originally posted by cuervo@Nov 11th, 2003 - 3:44 am
PSS: CAN YOU PLEASE ALL DO ME A FAVOR???When yoy refere to the King of Greece {Please}don't use shortcuts like "connie"or "con" or 'Tino"!It is quite annoying!! The best abreviation I thing is " Kons "PLEASE USE IT!!!

I think it's best to let the other members refer to King Constantine in any appropriate way they wish...

[Splodger]

So basically the Kings of Greece have loved their people but bodged up a couple of times and the Republics not been an oppressive regime but it hasn’t been an Angel either is what we are trying to say I think. So moving on and learning from history’s mistakes, what is the future for Greece? King Constantine has stated he has no agenda and Karamanlis has said the Republican Regime is ‘here to stay so get used to it’, however I can not help but say ‘never say never’ when it comes to Greece.

So what is wrong in the free Hellenic Republic of Greece with a man with no political powers, calling him self what ever he likes, promoting Greece on the world map and giving his time to public and charitable causes? He in person would either find first hand that people want him or they don’t, and then the argument of popularity is once and for all finished. As for the future, if the ‘never’ happened and the Greeks decided that having a King with modern Constitutional powers and limitations is not such a bad idea after all, who is up for a party?

[George]

Sean: opa! let's sit down and have a drink...and some bread dipped in the
great cold pressed olive oil...and order lunch...

I said these same sentiments months ago...so I know.

Kalamatria dance...up for it buddy?

There are good monarchists systems and leaders and figureheads and others
who are not-there are good presidents and bad presidents, good governors,
and bad ones...so CA had a "recall and got the terminator in..."

there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade...that is the one draw
back of the monarchial system, and I too am not anti monarchy, I am a
monarchist, but I see the weakness and do not gloss it over, I admit it,
that if one has say, King Ruler I, and he is benevelent, raises the nation,
business, foreign interests, keeps the moral high, then he is doing his job,
but let's say...he has two sons, and one , the first born, CP I, is well,
lacking in his father's attributes...he is like Carol of Rumania, he likes
fast cars, fast women, drinks, this and that...all the trappings of good life,
with no desire to duty and responsibility.. and think as the people will:
"he is the next in ...line for the throne?" a good concern, right?

then there is son II, and he has all the intgeligence, thoughtfullness,
common sense* (very vital), and would do a better job of it than his
older brother...but alas, he is baby born #2....!

Let's say the CP I get s into the shoes of his father, who has passed on...
and he is seen to ignore the counsel of his ministers...and is with a woman
like Lupescu, and has more time to be at the gambling tables and Maxim's
with the can can dance girls and his playboys than the works of state...
well, there is all of a sudden, a famine...and outbreak of disease, and
he is in no rush to return, after all, he thinks of his own good time first...

over the years, finally, the people have enough of it and rebell, he goes
into exile...the people talk as they do when they spend the time sipping
their tea or coffee..."oh, if only the second son was given the CP posting
and not this meseable let down of a ruler...why could't the old man have
passed over #1 for #2????"

The inherent problem -unlike "recall Grey Davis" and elect "Terminator" to
post of Governor--is that it is a role one is naturally born to it.*

Sadly, unless a provision is added whereby a father who sees trouble in his
son #1--is allowed to bypass CP status and elect the better of the two
to the post as heir, then this can and did happen in all nations in history
at one point or another.

You understand what I am saying, this is the problem-no parents know what
their child will turn out to be as a grown up-a disappointment or a
heir to be proud of!

But this elective provision if added in many instantces-can serve to keep or remind CP #1 to tow the line or else he is out of the game...

[Splodger]

I am a believer in Constitutional Monarchy, however it appears the biggest problem the Monarchies in Greece had, was that too much power was vested in the King. Politics and Kingship do not mix. However any discussion on the theoretical restoration of a Monarchy in Greece should bear in mind that whether they invited Constantine, Pavlos or Cliff Richard to be King, they would not have this power again. The age of Autocratic Kings are over. If they returned it would be as a figure head for the nation. Any 'powers' would be to ensure the legitimacy of government and to ensure the will of the people was carried out. They would not be involved in day to day politics.

I totally understand what George says about having a son inherit the throne who is not worthy of the 'job.' Despite my beliefs in the advantages of Monarchy it is something that can not be ruled out as a downside. However being optimistic, a quick look at the European Monarchies today, and they on the whole do not seem to have Kings/Queens and Successors who are unworthy to be there, and in most cases appear to work hard. I do see the pattern has and is changing from the subjects serving the King to the King serving the subjects. I know there is a dilemma over how fit would Pavlos be as King for Greece. I can not comment objectively as I have not studied his movements that closely, however in a general word of defence for him: he was born to be King, but unlike his cousins who can learn from their parents and gradually take greater roles in state affairs, he not only has to wait to be 'king' but it is a kingdom he may never have. He reminds me a little of Edward VII and the phrase 'Idol Thumbs and Trouble.' I think he would not be as bad as people fear if he could be groomed for the job in a working environment than a theoretical one where he has been exiled from.

[ellinotati]

I wonder if pavlos truly loves greece with all its goods and bads or he is mainly interested in the throne.don't know why and how but everytime i saw him on the media i got the feeling that he dosen't REALLY loves greece.instinct or paronoia,i don't know.... hope that one day he proves me wrong.

[cuervo]

According to his statements,He adores everything Greek,so, does His wife Princess Maria-Chantal and Their children!

[Jo]

so that's why she hasn't bothered to learn greek!

[Splodger]

I honestly do not know a great deal about Pavlos or Marie-Chantel however I do belive he has the best 'intentions.' It must be hard for him to have expectations of his parents and royal supporters to be a Greek Prince when he has been unable to access the fundemental aspect of his 'Greekness' which is the country of his birth. I am aware that I have provided an excuse for him in this post and my last and as I say I do not know enough about that man to pass an objective comment, but these points are worthy of consideration. He has nothing to gain by being an arogant royal who just wants to be King as such an attitude will not gain him anything in the eyes of Greek Republicans or Loyalists. I do not live where I was born but still feel an attachment to it. I would guess he feels the same, but I am catious to claim my full nationality as I have barley lived there and he undoubtably has these concerns. I was not aware he does not speak Greek, especialy as he was taught by a GReek tutor, his parents speak Greek and he attended a Greek based school. He deserves a chance, but what he does with that chance is up to him.

[Fireweaver]

Pavlos speaks it. His wife doesn't, and that's where a lot of criticism comes in. He should have "made" her learn, they should have their children speak it now, etc.

[Sean.~]

Originally posted by Fireweaver@Nov 23rd, 2003 - 6:26 pm


Pavlos speaks it. His wife doesn't, and that's where a lot of criticism comes in. He should have "made" her learn, they should have their children speak it now, etc.

The whole family speaks Greek to one another, with the exception of MC and Carlos Morales (not sure about the MC's & P's children). How do I know? Because I knwow people that know them & because various members of the family have said publicly.

:flower:

S

[Sean.~]

Originally posted by Splodger@Nov 23rd, 2003 - 6:23 pm
He deserves a chance, but what he does with that chance is up to him.

A chance at what? Being King?

The present system of government works well. The country is stable and is prospering. There is no want or need to restore the monarchy. I know that you are a supporter of constitutional monarchy, however, one must be cognizant of the fact that other systems of government work just as well and, in many cases, better. Greece is one such case. It would be ludicrous for a country to abandon the most stable and democratic form of government it has had in in well over a century for a system of government (even if reformed) that was a disaster.

Monarchies are not suitable for every country. And, In my opion, he certainly does not deserve a chance at the (possible) detriment of Greece. For you to say "what he does with that chance is up to him" is really quite nonchalant if it means what I think it does. As I said above, the very notion of replacing the best system a country has had just so a someone (inexperienced) can have a "chance "due to his birth is outrageous.

[Fireweaver]

I thought that the Greek Royals didn't have legal last names. Hence the problem for them getting passports.

[Fireweaver]

Don't most women who marry into royal families go from having a last name to not having one? I mean there's the dynasty's name, but it's not really a surname from what I've understood from various geneologists/royal watchers.