The Monarchy in Greece

[BELTRANEJA]

It is true, the condition for that he recover her nationality is renounce her family name..
but, the royal decree of Venicilenos says:

the from king must relinquish their family name and publicly renounce a claim against Greek state ( it is relinquish her ideology)and he pledges the Republican Constitution.

In the parliament of Greece, there are minority political parties, they represent ideologies that the people in their majority do not want.. but a 10%, 20% of population vote to them.
They have representation in parliament and in smaller division(villages),that they govern .
The ideologies of the majority parties in Greece, they started being small ideologies, and eventually they are,now great ideologies.

I think that now the ideology monarchy is small, but it can be in future ideology majority.

 

[iakynthi]

I believe that the GRF's popularity in Greece won't grow.It's not only that the new generations don't care,but that most of them don't even know them.Nothing is written for them in the History books and every reference to them by the media or by politicians is avoided.The Democratic leaders have done everything so far in order to estrange this family from the Greeks and I believe that Constantine deserved it:when you are a King,you don't cooperate with dictators and leave your people to be exiled or tortured or loose even the basic human rights,because that is what really happened for 7(!) years (1967-1974).How can we ever forgive this?Or the fact that half Cyprus was lost?Greek people paid with their blood...and we're talking about lots of blood...Because when you are a king,you are the 1st to stand up and fight,and you fight well for your country's and peoples' freedom,for a better life,for dignity and justice.The Greek history is full of great Kings (who BTW happened to be Greek...),like Leonidas,Themistocles,Great Alexander,Iraklios,Constantine XI Palaiologos etc.You don't take your wife and kids and run away every time you get in trouble (and can someone tell me why Rome or London are considered places for exile?Cause I would looove to be exiled as well!!).Conclusion:since you haven't done the above as a King,then you don't deserve a place to reign...not even a corner on this planet.

 

[Odette]

Iakynthi, KC ascended on the throne April 64 and left Greece December 13, 1967
Whatever happenned after that cannot be blamed on him. The Colonels ruled Greece till July 74 and Cyprus was invaded the same month.
All the old ancient brave Kings of Greece ruled centuries ago. In modern times and since the independence we had 7 Kings. We send to exile 3 of them, killed one and another was bit by a monkey and died........The other two must have either been realy really good or we were busy with other pursuits and we did not notice them........

 

[iakynthi]

I've found a 5 minute video on YouTube with a Constantine's interview at their home in London.He said many things about his past,but the most important for me was his answer when the journalist asked him if he feels ok knowing that he might die without being a King again:"What does it matter?"
Well,I hope he wasn't lying.I have stated from the beggining that I'm a Republican,so don't get me wrong.It also came as a relief to me when Pavlos stated that he had moved on.I believe that this is the best for everyone and most important,for our country.

 

[sgl]

I have also seen that interview, Iakynthi. It was very interesting to me when Constantine said that. I wondered about his sincerity behind that statement. It is impossible to know, but I had a feeling that he was saying it because he felt like that is what he was expected to say.

 

[Menarue]

Perhaps he said that as the expected thing to say but they are not a very long standing royalty and it has always been a bit on and off, not like a royalty that has been in a country for thousands of years, then perhaps they would think a bit differently . He seems to have a nice comfortable life and that with the prestige that goes with being a King and related to nearly every royal in the world without the worry and responsibility of actually ruling, sounds good to me.

 

[sgl]

You have an excellent point, Menarue. I especially agree with you about having the prestige, and none of the worry or responsibility. It sounds like a great life to me too.

 

[iakynthi]

Yes,it is a great life indeed!!And he should keep it that way...He may think about the throne and desire it deep inside,but the best thing for him to do is keeping it deep inside,too.LOL

 

[Martha]

The monarchy in Greece, was abolished in 1973.

 

[noldorlord]

I believe that Constantine deserved it:when you are a King,you don't cooperate with dictators and leave your people to be exiled or tortured or loose even the basic human rights,because that is what really happened for 7(!) years (1967-1974).How can we ever forgive this?Or the fact that half Cyprus was lost?Greek people paid with their blood...and we're talking about lots of blood...Because when you are a king,you are the 1st to stand up and fight,and you fight well for your country's and peoples' freedom,for a better life,for dignity and justice.

I don’t believe that this is the full story. We had family members that worked as lady’s in waiting to the Family and they remember a very different story. As you say the government hides /covers over many things. As to the blood that was spilt when a young country fight with its self- it will be it’s own limbs that it hacks off .
How can you be asked to fight when you are ordered to leave at gun point (figuratively?)

 

[noldorlord]

I have also seen that interview, Iakynthi. It was very interesting to me when Constantine said that. I wondered about his sincerity behind that statement. It is impossible to know, but I had a feeling that he was saying it because he felt like that is what he was expected to say.

Yet he showed so much emotion-tears in the eyes in the BBC the grand father of europe.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Constantine was never politically astute enough to govern the "crown of thorns." He and his brother-in-law Juan Carlos are a study in contrasts. Juan Carlos managed to regain a shaky throne his family had lost while Constantine managed to lose volatile throne that his family had lost and gained back several times. Their actions to military coups emphasized their differences. When the coup happened in Greece in 1967, Constantine surrendered after using his powers as monarch. When it happened in Spain in 1981, Juan Carlos used his status as monarch and commander-in-chief to quash it. It was only then that he decided to rule instead of reign.
Granted Juan Carlos was older when he came to the throne (and had seen what happened to his brother-in-law), but he was politically astute. He knew when to feign support for dictatorship (and suck up to Franco), when to step back and institute democracy, and when to intervene to uphold democracy. Constantine, on the other hand, decided to rule instead of reign, dissolved a democratically elected government, and cooperated with a illegitimate military dictatorship.

 

[Charlotte1]

Juan Carlos also had the advantage of a brother-in-law who had gone through a military coup and lost. Juan Carlos was in telephone contact with Constantine during the time of the coup ( asking his advice) and was able to use what Constantine had learnt through experience to bring about a different outcome in Spain.

 

[maria-olivia]

Constantine was to young , if his father did not die suddenly from cancer in 1964 , perhaps they will be still on the throne. Frederika should remain an unpowerful Queen consort.

 

[iakynthi]

Interesting points of view,but perhaps I should remind you another fact:the assassination of Grigoris Lambrakis ordered by Frederika...Shocking,huh?Perhaps Constantine "payed" back the sins of his ancestors as well.It's known that this RF's biggest intention and achievement-unfortunately-was to damage democracy in any possible way...

 

[EmpressRouge]

Interesting point of views,but perhaps I should remind you another fact:the assassination of Grigoris Lambrakis ordered by Frederika...Shocking,huh?Perhaps Constantine "payed" back the sins of his ancestors as well.It's known that this RF's biggest intention and achievement-unfortunately-was to damage democracy in any possible way...

I did not know that, but I wouldn't put it past Queen Frederika to do that. She was definitely a formidable woman, which probably worked to the monarchy's severe disadvantage in the end.
I found the TIME article from 1953 when she was on the cover while she was visiting the U.S. to gather support for the monarchy against the Communists.
The King's Wife - TIME
From the article, you get a sense that Frederika tries to portray herself as queen of the people, all cute and perky because of her size and looks. But in reality, she is authoritarian and very smug about her royal lineage.
"Like most of her ancestors, Frederika firmly believed that monarchs should rule their countries. 'Of course, we are national symbols,' she once told a reporter, 'but that doesn't mean we must be figureheads. What an awful bore that would be.'"

 

[iakynthi]

I knew all about that,Empress Rouge!!Thank you for providing the link,anyway!!Now everyone can get a clearer picture of her...Oh,and something else:now I don't need to talk to you about the reputation she had and still has among the majority of the Greeks...

 

[BELTRANEJA]

Constantine was never politically astute enough to govern the "crown of thorns." He and his brother-in-law Juan Carlos are a study in contrasts. Juan Carlos managed to regain a shaky throne his family had lost while Constantine managed to lose volatile throne that his family had lost and gained back several times. Their actions to military coups emphasized their differences. When the coup happened in Greece in 1967, Constantine surrendered after using his powers as monarch. When it happened in Spain in 1981, Juan Carlos used his status as monarch and commander-in-chief to quash it. It was only then that he decided to rule instead of reign.
Granted Juan Carlos was older when he came to the throne (and had seen what happened to his brother-in-law), but he was politically astute. He knew when to feign support for dictatorship (and suck up to Franco), when to step back and institute democracy, and when to intervene to uphold democracy. Constantine, on the other hand, decided to rule instead of reign, dissolved a democratically elected government, and cooperated with a illegitimate military dictatorship.

You are very confused.

Don Juan Carlos was appointed heir of General Francisco Franco in 1969, in 1975 acceded to the throne of Spain as Franco's successor, had it not been so, the heir would be Don Juan de Borbon.
tHE Tejero coup d'état, this has no comparison with the coup d'etat in Greece, the political and economic situation was very different.
Greece existed problems in the Army since 1964, Andreas Papadreu was accused of using the army to traffic in arms, he was Minister of defense, his father, Prime Minister, they tried to remove to members of Greek military by others of dubious career military as many of them had not reached the required graduation military hierarchy.
Andreas was accused with other military corruption, it was a case of funds reserved for the army (never appeared) and they used the army to smuggle weapons to countries that the UN had banned it ... Her father interfered in the work of the Prosecutor investigating the matter, assuming the Ministry of Defense ... It had that the militaries divided....
Secondly, Mistotakis explain it better than I. How were the politicals paties of Right? and How were the political paties of the left ? It is imposible of calculated because in a month they could was united or separated. This was the main problem in creating a government in Greece was impossible to create a majority to form a government...



The coup of state was a result ... The King of Greece was not to blame for this ..

With regard to Cyprus:
What did Costas Simitis did at the UN assembly? What Constantine is also guilty of all the problems Greece has suffered and will suffer in your life for eternity .......!!!

the King Juan Carlos had good monarchists on your side, it helped a lot him ... They weren´t traitors, they made him the King that he is today and he always has recognized it, but journalists do not...(Adolfo Suarez).
The King constantine was surround of traitors.
The traidors don´t help to nobody.(this is the different)

.............................................................

than luck that Greece entered the Marshall Plan, because Spain did not go in, and people had a tremendous hunger and misery, but thanks to a lady who dressed of Chanel the people of Spain could eat by her.. .She was EVA PERON She was from Argentina..

 

[kastorianroyalist.]

The King constantine was surround of traitors.
The traidors don´t help to nobody.(this is the different).....absolutely right.and the Konstantine ll was only 27 years old,this was the absolute opportunity(0 experience) for traitors to the throne usurpers,and they made it.FinalyThe history start to take the site of king Konstantine.

 

[espejor]

Why did the Monarchy fall in Greece?

Hello! I'm very interested in to know why did the Monarchy fell in Greece and why does Greek people doesn't mind his Royal Family.

King Constantine flew into the exile because the coup d'etat in 1967, and he didn't return because he wanted the democracy. Why did Greek people vote against the Monarchy in 1974?

Regards!

 

[susan alicia]

interesting interview with Constantine

YouTube - King Without a Country - 20 Apr 07 - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqokwpYAuzs&feature=channel

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

The Greek people by referendum rejected the monarchy by a large majority. (Over 80%).

In fact, 31% voted for the Monarchy and 69% for the Republic.

K Constantine ...... found the process unfair, since he did not have the chance to present his side, before the voters cast their votes.

This is true. He did not have ample opportunity to do so, thence Mr Mitsotakis's statement about the process, "it was unfair". Regardless, the climate at the time was not conducive to a fair process.

If the Greeks have no love for the GRF, the Greek Royals have no power. Sad but this is a 34 year old story and the young people feel no closeness to them.

Perhaps, it may be said that, irrespective of feelings toward personages, young Greeks perceive the institution of monarchy as something foreign to them, as is the case in the USA.

 

[Odette]

The Royal family fell into oblivion after the return of Karamanlis, the referendum and the subsequent governments of Nea Demokratia and Pasok. A large section of the Greek population grew up without knowing anything about them.
The first time they returned was for Q Frederika's funeral and the few houres they were allowed to spend on Greek soil was not something the TV stations and newspapers reported at length.
I agree that the younger generation grew up with neither love nor hate for the royals, which their parents and grandparents feel for their own reasons. However this indifference the Greeks feel today for the family is worse than the passions of the past. It means they can see them on TV during their vacations or Baptisms and then go back to their daily lives. There is no discussion or interest in resurrecting the subject.
It is sad for those of us who kept the dream alive for a long time but even we understand this issue belongs in our past and will stay there.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

I agree that the younger generation grew up with neither love nor hate for the royals, which their parents and grandparents feel for their own reasons. However this indifference the Greeks feel today for the family is worse than the passions of the past.

It is worse if one supports the cause of the monarchy but not necessarily for the fate of the nation. There, it is hard to say. We do not know how Greece (that by the way did very well due, mainly, to its joining the EU) would have fared with consitutional monarch instead of the republic, from 1974 to date. We do, however, know some from the paradigm of other European countries that underwent change of polity in the 20th century. Spain, for instance, did superbly with the return of the monarchy after a period of constitutional irregularity, Germany emerged as a superpower (even from the ashes of WWII) as a republic. So, it is hard to say.

As a general comment, it may be stated that the Greeks may be likened to the Americans [this perhaps may be a reason why they do very well in the USA]. That is, they want unlimited freedom [thence their entrepreneurial spirit] and are conservatives, who dislike communism. Their dislike for, in fact profound fear of, communism was what necessitated the return of the monarchy in 1936 (after 12 years of republic) and the stay until 1974 - that is, not necessarily a genuine preference for monarchy versus republic but by necessity.

 

[noldorlord]

Perhaps, it may be said that, irrespective of feelings toward personages, young Greeks perceive the institution of monarchy as something foreign to them, as is the case in the USA.

Could this be because Greece (the press/goverment) do all that they can to remove any referance to them in the country? most of the younger generation do not even know that they had a king or where the royal palace is/was - in Athans. So in a way they have wiped the GRF from the minds of the people.

 

[Hereditary Thane]

Kingship is an art. It always involved strict and erudite training, but having an hereditary element it is very much at the mercy of the individual. We have to accept that some men are not up to the job, this was the real tragedy of Greece. People who excuse the inexcusable never ever get their delicate hands bloodied.

 

[IRIS1983]

If you look at the history of Greece will reach the obvious conclusion, Greece has never wanted a monarchy.The monarchy only interested in Greece when they needed foreign money.
an example:
Greece becomes a State in the XIX century, they were occupied by the Turks, to liberalize of them and be a state, they needed financing for war, money, weapons, military support came from countries like Denmark, .. .... It explains why the first kings were strangers.
Greece has not been a country of natural resources, foreign loans, the search for investments, reaching with the Kings ... After World War II approved a refermdun to restore the monarchy, Why? They needed money ... King Pavlo and queen Federika introduced to Greece in the Marchall´s plans and promoted the turism ... late 50's monarchy was important for Cyprus, Cyprus needed military support and the support of Britain and others against the Turks .., but in the 60s with the king Pavlo on the throne and agreements already signed ... the monarchy began to be unnecessary for Greece and political. They did not need money, they did not need a monarchy.

 

[Odette]

I was referring to the Greek Royal Family not the country. Greece has survived for thousands of years and even after 400 years of Ottoman occupation the language, the faith and customs were left intact.
No one can say how the Royal family would have changed the course of the country. I tend to believe that nothing would be different.
The only difference would be that the left wing politicians would scream louder and accuse them for everything wrong from the weather to the economy and everything else.

 

[udyusa]

From what I have read, That makes sense, Odette.

 

[Odette]

If you look at the history of Greece will reach the obvious conclusion, Greece has never wanted a monarchy.The monarchy only interested in Greece when they needed foreign money...

Iris I believe you are wrong but you are entitled to your opinion.
In 1821 when Greece rose against the Ottoman yoke they got financial assistance from abroad. The foreign powers who assisted them financially had their own reasons help and to control each other's influence in the area.
The "great powers" sent over Otto from Bavaria and should he had been agreeable to allow them to have a parliamentary democracy perhaps his heirs (if any) would still be reigning there. When the Danish prince came and reigned for another 35 years as King George I the Greeks loved him dearly. After the Balkan wars when the same "great powers" wanted to force King Constantine to enter the fray and he balked they found Venizelos to do their dirty deed and the King was sent to exile.
The current King's misfortune was that he was very young and inexperienced when he ascended the throne and the Greeks felt a great antipathy towards Queen Frederika who continued to live there and pour oil in the fire. Along came the US backed Junta in 1967 and the poor King had no chance..
The suggestion that Greeks accepted the monarchy because there was a financial benefit attached to it is not true.

What on earth would the monarchy did or not to do with Cyprus?
Cyprus was bought from Turkey by the British and it became a part of the Commonwealth. The Greek Cypriots who were 82% of the population fought against the British and gained their independence. You suggest the British financed a war against themselves?

With regard to the Marshall plan, the whole of western Europe benefited because the Americans wanted to rebuild Europe and have a strong trading partner. Same thing with the EU. A lot of states received funds and if I am not wrong there are billions being spent now to deepen and widen the port of Cadiz in Spain. Funds that were sent from the EU.