The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royalty Past, Present, and Future (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f164/)
-   -   Could He Have Been A Good King? (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f164/could-he-have-been-a-good-king-38376.html)

Andy T 03-27-2015 10:54 AM

Could He Have Been A Good King?
 
Many of the European Kings who lost their thrones in the C20th had either reigned for a very short time or were rather young, or both.
Manuel II Portugal
Charles I/IV Austria-Hungary
Petar II Yugoslavia
Simeon II Bulgaria
Umberto II Italy
Michael I Romania
Constantine II Greece

Had destiny not dealt them an impossible hand, which, in your opinion, could - or would - have gone on to become great monarchs?

CyrilVladisla 03-27-2015 09:10 PM

In 1916 Charles I became the Emperor of Austria.
The First World War was well under way.
Charles went to work to restrain the conflict and ultimately bring it to a close.
He believed in peace. He believed the teachings of his church, the Catholic Church.
:imperialaustria::imperialaustria::imperialaustria::imperialaustria:

Hans-Rickard 05-03-2015 06:27 PM

Karl I was a good King and empreror. It is sad that the Habsburg Family never got a chance to reign again. Both Karl and Otto would have been great rulers.

If there is a country that i belive will ditch the republic someday it is Romania. It's sad that Mihai have spent almost his whole life as Ex-King :(

And to be honest. I would have really loved to see Princess Anne be Queen of England after her mother.

fearghas 05-04-2015 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy T (Post 1762753)
Many of the European Kings who lost their thrones in the C20th had either reigned for a very short time or were rather young, or both.
Manuel II Portugal
Charles I/IV Austria-Hungary
Petar II Yugoslavia
Simeon II Bulgaria
Umberto II Italy
Michael I Romania
Constantine II Greece

Had destiny not dealt them an impossible hand, which, in your opinion, could - or would - have gone on to become great monarchs?

I think Karl of Austria, Simeon of Bulgaria and Michael of Roumania would have made excellent rulers.
Otto Habsburg would have been an excellent ruler as well.
I also think that Rupprecht of Bavaria, followed by his son, Albrecht and grandson Franz would all have been enlightened and excellent Kings of Bavaria.
Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia was in my opinion the best Hohenzollern and would have made a great Emperor of germany, though I don't think his father or brother would have.

Biri 05-04-2015 05:22 AM

What about Edward VI Tudor?

wyevale 05-04-2015 05:35 AM

I think Edward VI [had he lived into adulthood] would have made a disastrous monarch ! Headstrong and RABIDLY Protestant [although highly intelligent] he may well have have attempted to wipe out all remnants of Catholicism from his realm, and set it on a 'fundamentalist' path..
Fortunately after his and 'Bloody Mary's' timely deaths, the GREAT [and reasonable] Elizabeth succeeded.

Biri 05-04-2015 05:44 AM

But during Elizabeth's reign Catholics were persecuted and burned on stakes.

wyevale 05-04-2015 05:53 AM

They were [mainly because the Pope had excommunicated her, and issued a Papal Bull urging Catholics to murder her....]
Even so, Catholics were more at risk of being killed during Edwards short reign [5.500 in Cornwall ALONE], than under Elizabeths long one.

Winnie 05-04-2015 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale (Post 1775792)
I think Edward VI [had he lived into adulthood] would have made a disastrous monarch ! Headstrong and RABIDLY Protestant [although highly intelligent] he may well have have attempted to wipe out all remnants of Catholicism from his realm, and set it on a 'fundamentalist' path..
Fortunately after his and 'Bloody Mary's' timely deaths, the GREAT [and reasonable] Elizabeth succeeded.

Very thought provoking. I have to honestly wonder how that would have changed the world of today. Good/bad, right/wrong. Can make one's head hurt to imagine. Of course we will never know, both would have had their good points.

Tho Hibbele 05-27-2015 09:22 AM

I think maybe Simeon II would have made a great king. His forebears had tons of bad luck though. But they were politically savvy like he is.


Gerard

eya 05-27-2015 10:17 AM

I beleive this move to tangle with the policy and perhaps was not the best. But agree with you that maybe he was the great king.

For me King Michael of Romania it would be a great King. Let's hope they have the opportunity to reign some day Princess Margarita and Prince Nicolae (for others Nicholas Medforth -Mills).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curryong (Post 1792940)
What if Crown Prince Rudolf of Austro-Hungary had lived and his father had died before 1914? Rudolf held very different views from his father, the Emperor Franz Josef, and the assassassination at Sarajevo would have been avoided.

I think World War One was inevitable, considering the alliances and tensions of the European nations at the time, but Austria might not have played a leading role in starting the conflict off.

I agree about that. The World War One was sure inevitable and the assassination it was the occasion not the causes. And also about Rudolf who knows?

Andy T 05-30-2015 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 1775785)
I think Karl of Austria, Simeon of Bulgaria and Michael of Roumania would have made excellent rulers.
Otto Habsburg would have been an excellent ruler as well.
I also think that Rupprecht of Bavaria, followed by his son, Albrecht and grandson Franz would all have been enlightened and excellent Kings of Bavaria.
Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia was in my opinion the best Hohenzollern and would have made a great Emperor of germany, though I don't think his father or brother would have.

This is very much my opinion, too. I also think that King Manuel II would have been an excellent constitutional monarch in a more stable Portugal. King Umberto II may have suffered because of his personal life but King Peter II seems to have been the King most likely to have had problems. Then again, if he had been able to return to his throne, his life would most likely have been very different.

Duc_et_Pair 05-30-2015 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tho Hibbele (Post 1783335)
I think maybe Simeon II would have made a great king. His forebears had tons of bad luck though. But they were politically savvy like he is.


Gerard

Well, he became a democratically elected Prime Minister (an unicum for a former reigning King), has sworn to upheld the (republican!) Constitution, did guide Bulgaria into NATO and EU but nevertheless lost the following elections and suffered impopularity. So I am not sure he has understood that modern kings better do not strive for real executive powers.

Tho Hibbele 05-30-2015 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair (Post 1784398)
Well, he became a democratically elected Prime Minister (an unicum for a former reigning King), has sworn to upheld the (republican!) Constitution, did guide Bulgaria into NATO and EU but nevertheless lost the following elections and suffered impopularity. So I am not sure he has understood that modern kings better do not strive for real executive powers.

Yes, but then again, I think he realizes that he's not a king anymore and that he made his choices with that in mind.
About his oath, every constitution has provisions about how to change that constitution and they are sworn by too. So an oath like that is never exclusively about the text of the day, but also about the constitutional process that may legitimately bring changes.

Gerard

Andy T 06-01-2015 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tho Hibbele (Post 1784439)
Yes, but then again, I think he realizes that he's not a king anymore and that he made his choices with that in mind.
About his oath, every constitution has provisions about how to change that constitution and they are sworn by too. So an oath like that is never exclusively about the text of the day, but also about the constitutional process that may legitimately bring changes.

Gerard

I think this point is excellent and a key one. Included in constitutions are the current rules and the rules by which they can be amended - or replaced.

Curryong 06-17-2015 02:56 AM

What if Crown Prince Rudolf of Austro-Hungary had lived and his father had died before 1914? Rudolf held very different views from his father, the Emperor Franz Josef, and the assassassination at Sarajevo would have been avoided.

I think World War One was inevitable, considering the alliances and tensions of the European nations at the time, but Austria might not have played a leading role in starting the conflict off.

Andy T 06-17-2015 11:59 AM

I totally agree about King Michael. Both Princess Margareta and Prince Nicholas would make excellent constitutional monarchs, too, I think.

Whoever succeeded Franz Joseph - Crown Prince Rudolf or Emperor Karl, whatever their personal strengths and qualities, would have been doomed to see the end of the Habsburg Empire. However, maybe a Kingdom of Austria (and a separate Kingdom of Hungary - with a monarch in situ) could have been salvaged had the inevitable war taken a different course.

CSENYC 07-05-2015 08:40 AM

King Michael I was and is an excellent leader. Public opinion polls speak for themselves: Romanians think very highly of him.


Simeon II was also good and he was in power recently, as prime minister.


Constantine II of Greece ruled long enough to know how he would have turned out: the Greeks voted him out.

Admiral Horthy 08-25-2015 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSENYC (Post 1798330)
Constantine II of Greece ruled long enough to know how he would have turned out: the Greeks voted him out.

He was exiled and not allowed to campaign for himself. He was the fall guy. He was in power for a very short time. Greece was hardly stable at the time he was overthrown, and still isn't. I think he would have been a good King given the chance.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises