Which Country Could Become A Monarchy?

[Blog Real]

My opinion on the current non-reigning royal families and their current role in their country:

Europe:
Albania - The Royal Family is doing some activities and seems to have a role to play. For now, it's everything.

Austria - It's hard to say. The Royal Family doesn't show up much and has no visible activities. The Royal Family does not even have its own website on the internet.

Germany - Same as Austria. Little or no activities. But they have a royal residence at their disposal and they live there.

Bulgaria - The King and Queen are doing some activities. But the rest of the royal family hardly appears. The King has a royal residence in Bulgaria.

France - It's hard to say. There are three families (Orleans, Bourbon and Bonaparte). But they carry out some activities in the name of the French monarchy.

Greece - I think this family could do more and have more activities. The Kings already live in Greece, and Prince Nikolaos and Princess Tatiana do too. It is unfortunate that the Royal Family has not been able to recover any of their former palaces.

Italy - The Sabóia family managed to return to Italy several years ago. There are some royalist movements in Italy. But the family doesn't seem to have a lot of activities. The Italian Royal Family does not even have its own website on the internet.

Portugal - In my opinion, the Portuguese Royal Family works hardest to preserve the legacy of their ancestors and monarchy. The Portuguese Royal Family always has many activities. And unlike other non-reigning royal families, the Portuguese royal family has a website on the internet (which could be renewed).

Romania - The Royal Family of Romania is one of the hardest working and has a semi-official role in their country. It is an example to other non-reigning royal families.

Russia-The Grand Duchess Maria Vladmirovna and her son carry out some activities on behalf of their family. But they still need to do more, is my opinion.

Serbia - It is the non-reigning royal families that work the most and have the most activities. And it also seems to have a semi-official role in your country.

Outside Europe:

Brazil - The Imperial Family of Brazil is always involved in many activities and with many members of the imperial family working for the monarchic cause.

Iran - I don't think the members of this family show up. Who appears most is the Empress Farah Palahvi.

Nepal- It is the country most likely to restore its monarchy. The Royal Family seems to care about their country and people.

What I think is that these families may not be reigning but they have a role and a legacy to keep and a history and a past that will forever link them to their country. Some non-reigning royal families seem to realize this, but others don't...

 

[An Ard Ri]

King Simeon scuppered any chances of restoration by becoming the PM in the early 2000's and I don't think any of his children or grandchildren live in Bulgaria?

Of the above list Romania is the shinning light.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

King Simeon scuppered any chances of restoration by becoming the PM in the early 2000's and I don't think any of his children or grandchildren live in Bulgaria?

Of the above list Romania is the shinning light.

Romania is remarkable. They recently started to use a new website and show that with a limited budget and a small but dedicated staff lots can be done.

But restoration? No. In fact Romania has the best of two worlds: it is democracy which includes all functions in society ánd it gives a meaningful and honourable position to the Royal House. Let us say: it is a republican monarchy without a democratic gap.

The other European monarchies are republican monarchies as well, as the head of state is essentially ceremonial indeed, but the people have no any say in who is to he their head of state indeed.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Agree its as good as gets for the Romanian RF and they've achieved far more than any other former royal house.

The Romanian RF have a far more savvy online media approach than some of the better off reigning houses.

 

[Stefan]

Agree its as good as gets for the Romanian RF and they've achieved far more than any other former royal house.

The Romanian RF have a far more savvy online media approach than some of the better off reigning houses.

But so far there is no real future as there is no clear successor for the custodian. And to that all the Family quarrels.

 

[An Ard Ri]

But so far there is no real future as there is no clear successor for the custodian. And to that all the Family quarrels.

That's very true and what happens after the current custodian the Crown Princess is anyones guess.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But so far there is no real future as there is no clear successor for the custodian. And to that all the Family quarrels.

Of course there are successors. Myself coming from a country with three successive Queens, of which two were single child and and unique sole successor, there are relatively plenty...

Alteța Sa Regală Principesă Elena a României (1950)
Doamnă Elisabeta Karina de Roumanie Medforth Mills (1980)
Alteța Sa Regală Principesă Sofia a României (1957)
Doamnă Elisabeta-Maria de Roumanie Biarneix (1999)
Alteța Sa Regală Principesă Maria a României (1964)

 

[Blog Real]

Hola magazine made a documentary entitled "Reyes sin Corona" about the non-reigning royal families of Europe.
The documentary features interviews with the Dukes of Bragança, Princes Leka and Elia of Albania and King Simeon II of Bulgaria.

https://www.hola.com/tv/especiales/temporada-especiales/reyes-sin-corona/9fV7r75a/

 

[Futurist]

Do you think that there is any country in the world that will become a monarchy - again or for the first time? Personally, I think that it probably won’t happen, but if I have to choose one country, I would say:

Serbia. This country has been through so much and maybe the current pretender Alexander could be a unifying force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandar_II_Karadjordjevic

In Asia, perhaps Vietnam will become a monarchy again in a very distant future. Compare with the recent restoration of the monarchy in Cambodia.

I think that Afghanistan might have been capable of becoming a monarchy again in 2001-2002 after the fall of the Taliban had the Bush Administration here in the US actually supported such a move instead of opposing it. Now it's obviously too late, of course, though maybe there could eventually be another opening in regards to this if the Taliban will ever actually lose their hold on power in Afghanistan. Though of course this is unlikely to happen soon, if it ever actually happens at all.

 

[Futurist]

King Simeon scuppered any chances of restoration by becoming the PM in the early 2000's and I don't think any of his children or grandchildren live in Bulgaria?

Of the above list Romania is the shinning light.

Do you think that he could have actually gotten restored had he not become Prime Minister in the early 2000s?

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

Do you think that he could have actually gotten restored had he not become Prime Minister in the early 2000s?

I bit doubt that Bulgarian monarchy would had still restored but ex-king's decision to step to politics really damaged monarchist cause.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Do you think that he could have actually gotten restored had he not become Prime Minister in the early 2000s?

No. At best the same as in Romania where the former Royal House has a semi-formal ceremonial and protocollary role inside the republican state structure, complete with a Budget, accomodation, staffing, facilities and assistance from the State.

By becoming a partisan politician King Simeon blew up all his chances.

 

[Futurist]

No. At best the same as in Romania where the former Royal House has a semi-formal ceremonial and protocollary role inside the republican state structure, complete with a Budget, accomodation, staffing, facilities and assistance from the State.

By becoming a partisan politician King Simeon blew up all his chances.

Thanks; that makes sense.

 

[Futurist]

I bit doubt that Bulgarian monarchy would had still restored but ex-king's decision to step to politics really damaged monarchist cause.

Maybe he wanted to show that he was capable of actually governing like the monarchs of the old days were?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Maybe he wanted to show that he was capable of actually governing like the monarchs of the old days were?

Former King Simeon of Bulgaria, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha became Mr Simeon Sakskoburggotski.

In 2001 he won nearly 43 % of the vote (meaning 57 % did not vote for him) and per definition the unpartial, constitional monarch became a partisan politician.

Four years later, in 2005, Simeon's party suffered huge losses, falling to 19,88 % of the vote.

Again four years later, in 2009, Simeon's party scored just 3,1 % of the vote, an immensely humiliating defeat and once more a warning that royals should avoid partisanism as the plague.

Whatever Simeon wanted to prove: it was a misjudgement hors categorie to engage in party politics.

 

[Futurist]

Former King Simeon of Bulgaria, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha became Mr Simeon Sakskoburggotski.

In 2001 he won nearly 43 % of the vote (meaning 57 % did not vote for him) and per definition the unpartial, constitional monarch became a partisan politician.

Four years later, in 2005, Simeon's party suffered huge losses, falling to 19,88 % of the vote.

Again four years later, in 2009, Simeon's party scored just 3,1 % of the vote, an immensely humiliating defeat and once more a warning that royals should avoid partisanism as the plague.

Whatever Simeon wanted to prove: it was a misjudgement hors categorie to engage in party politics.

What exactly ruined his popularity so badly? I'm asking because some politicians do, in fact, manage to remain popular for a long time.

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

Maybe he wanted to show that he was capable of actually governing like the monarchs of the old days were?

If so, he wasn't really smart on that. Him should had realised that royals can't just step to politics and govern that easily. It just was blatant blunder. It might had worked yet in early 20th century but not anymore in post-WW2 era. Just wondering, didn't anyone on his staff or family warned Simeon that it wouldn't be good idea enter to politics?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What exactly ruined his popularity so badly? I'm asking because some politicians do, in fact, manage to remain popular for a long time.

Simeon Sakskoburggotski succesfully steered former Communist Bulgaria into the NATO and on the doorstep of a membership to the EU. But alike many British are now wondering "Whatever happened to Brexit's promised sunlit uplands?", it was the same for the Bulgarians.

The transformantion from a rigid Communist planned economy to the volatile and competitive free market was very painful for many Bulgarians. And then the Prime Minister became the punching bag for the desillusioned Bulgarians. Simeon Sakskoburggotski became synonymous with recession, desorganization, retreat and disappointment.

Chancellor Helmut Kohl promised the same to the former DDR: blühende landschaften as an economic vision for the former DDR. Thanks to unbelievable mega-transfers of billions from former West-Germany to former East-Germany this did succeed, much later than promised, but it was equally painful for the East-Germans, who saw their economy completely collapsed.

The difference between Helmut Kohl and Simeon von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha was that the first one always was a partisan politician and the other an unpartial former constitutional King whom became a very partisan politician indeed.

 

[Futurist]

Simeon Sakskoburggotski succesfully steered former Communist Bulgaria into the NATO and on the doorstep of a membership to the EU. But alike many British are now wondering "Whatever happened to Brexit's promised sunlit uplands?", it was the same for the Bulgarians.

The transformantion from a rigid Communist planned economy to the volatile and competitive free market was very painful for many Bulgarians. And then the Prime Minister became the punching bag for the desillusioned Bulgarians. Simeon Sakskoburggotski became synonymous with recession, desorganization, retreat and disappointment.

Chancellor Helmut Kohl promised the same to the former DDR: blühende landschaften as an economic vision for the former DDR. Thanks to unbelievable mega-transfers of billions from former West-Germany to former East-Germany this did succeed, much later than promised, but it was equally painful for the East-Germans, who saw their economy completely collapsed.

The difference between Helmut Kohl and Simeon von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha was that the first one always was a partisan politician and the other an unpartial former constitutional King whom became a very partisan politician indeed.

That makes sense. Thank you. It's sad that a former King who actually tried to do so much good for his country ended up losing a lot of popularity because people's expectations were set too high.

 

[Futurist]

Romania is remarkable. They recently started to use a new website and show that with a limited budget and a small but dedicated staff lots can be done.

But restoration? No. In fact Romania has the best of two worlds: it is democracy which includes all functions in society ánd it gives a meaningful and honourable position to the Royal House. Let us say: it is a republican monarchy without a democratic gap.

The other European monarchies are republican monarchies as well, as the head of state is essentially ceremonial indeed, but the people have no any say in who is to he their head of state indeed.

Question: How would a Romanian-style arrangement actually work in a place such as Italy where the succession to the defunct royal throne is disputed? Should be Italian republican government give both claimants some kind of official recognition, or what?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Question: How would a Romanian-style arrangement actually work in a place such as Italy where the succession to the defunct royal throne is disputed? Should be Italian republican government give both claimants some kind of official recognition, or what?

No chance. The Italian Government will most likely only deal with an undisputed person from the former Royal House.

As former heads-of-state themselves, Michael von Hohenzollern (Romania), Simeon von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (Bulgaria) and Constantine of Greece and Denmark (The Hellenes) were undisputed heads of their respective Royal Houses.

As long as Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia and Aimone di Savoia-Aosta dispute the headship of the House, there is no chance that the Italian Republic will offer one of them a semi-formal position, including a royal residence, an official secretariate, a Budget and all kinds of assistance to have a ceremonial and protocollary role.

That is why factions in a former Royal House are extremely damaging. In the Italian case time could have done "healing" work as according the Constitution of the Kingdom and the House Laws the successor after Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia (son of Vittorio Emanuele) is his cousin Aimone di Savoia-Aosta.

But a few years ago suddenly Vittorio Emanuele unilaterally decided that the daughters of Emanuele Filiberto will be successors. This is new fuel to factionism.

So any formal role can be forgotten as the Republic of Italy has no any desire to mingle into a dynastic feud. Caesar already said it: Divide et Empera (divide - and rule). As long as the House of Italy is divided, the Republic rules and ignores them as infighting nobodies.

 

[rominet09]

I don't think a country will go back to Monarchy. History doesn't go back in the past.

 

[Curryong]

My opinion on this subject is the same now as it has always been. Major countries in Europe that are republics will never go back into being monarchies. Nor will the minor ones, except perhaps for Romania which may perhaps change in the future. A faint chance only. On the other hand I can never see Japan choosing to become a republic.

 

[Futurist]

No chance. The Italian Government will most likely only deal with an undisputed person from the former Royal House.

As former heads-of-state themselves, Michael von Hohenzollern (Romania), Simeon von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (Bulgaria) and Constantine of Greece and Denmark (The Hellenes) were undisputed heads of their respective Royal Houses.

As long as Vittorio Emanuele di Savoia and Aimone di Savoia-Aosta dispute the headship of the House, there is no chance that the Italian Republic will offer one of them a semi-formal position, including a royal residence, an official secretariate, a Budget and all kinds of assistance to have a ceremonial and protocollary role.

That is why factions in a former Royal House are extremely damaging. In the Italian case time could have done "healing" work as according the Constitution of the Kingdom and the House Laws the successor after Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia (son of Vittorio Emanuele) is his cousin Aimone di Savoia-Aosta.

But a few years ago suddenly Vittorio Emanuele unilaterally decided that the daughters of Emanuele Filiberto will be successors. This is new fuel to factionism.

So any formal role can be forgotten as the Republic of Italy has no any desire to mingle into a dynastic feud. Caesar already said it: Divide et Empera (divide - and rule). As long as the House of Italy is divided, the Republic rules and ignores them as infighting nobodies.

Yeah, that makes sense. When monarchists fight and are divided, then republicans win. Something similar occurred in early 1870s France, when the monarchists were split between the Legitimists and the Orleanists and Henri, Count of Chambord (the Legitimist claimant whom the Orleanists embraced) refused to go as far as the Orleanists would have been willing to go in order to acquire the French throne, such as by embracing the revolutionary French tricolor flag. So, France has remained a republic even since then (with the exception of several years during World War II when it was an authoritarian dictatorship, of course), for around 150 years!

I don't think a country will go back to Monarchy. History doesn't go back in the past.

It could have happened in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 had the Bush Administration actually supported this instead of opposing it. I wonder if this would have actually resulted in a more successful final outcome in that war, though.

My opinion on this subject is the same now as it has always been. Major countries in Europe will never go back into being monarchies. Nor will the minor ones, except perhaps for Romania which may perhaps change in the future. A faint chance only. On the other hand I can never see Japan choosing to become a republic.

Yeah, Japan's Emperor was literally viewed as a God-like figure by Japanese until the end of World War II, if I recall correctly. I wonder what margin the Japanese would have voted to keep their monarchy by right after the end of World War II had a referendum on the future of Japan's monarchy been done around 1946 similar to how it was actually done in Italy for its own monarchy during this exact same time.

 

[Mbruno]

Question: How would a Romanian-style arrangement actually work in a place such as Italy where the succession to the defunct royal throne is disputed? Should be Italian republican government give both claimants some kind of official recognition, or what?

The Italian Republic doesn't recognize any claimant to the throne and most likely never will. In fact, the Savoys were only allowed to return to Italy after publicly renouncing any claims to the throne.

 

[Futurist]

The Italian Republic doesn't recognize any claimant to the throne and most likely never will. In fact, the Savoys were only allowed to return to Italy after publicly renouncing any claims to the throne.

Makes sense. And it's interesting that the length of their exile was comparable to the length of French royal families' previous exile from France. For the Savoyards, their exile lasted from 1948 to 2002, whereas the French royal families' exile lasted from 1886 to 1950. So, 54 years versus 64 years. Not a huge difference.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Italian Republic doesn't recognize any claimant to the throne and most likely never will. In fact, the Savoys were only allowed to return to Italy after publicly renouncing any claims to the throne.

It was more about a Romania-role for the former Italian royal family. The House of Romania accepts the Republican form of State and has a ceremonial and protocollary role within it because the Republic acknowledges the unique and shared history with the former Royal House.

The Italian Republic can equally create a ceremonial and protocollary role for the head of the former Royal House. If there is a country studded with ceremonial and protocol, then it is Italy. And as they tend to give the (largely ceremonial) presidency to very old, wobbly and not so healthy former politicians, making the Palazzo di Quirinale alike a gerontocrats' home, I can see a role for a Aimone & Olga, or for a Emanuele Filiberto & Clotilde.

But without an end to the dynastical infighting: forget it. And to be fair: Emanuele Filiberto's antics in reality shows and Pizza restaurants and Clotilde parading on every red carpet between Cannes and Venice does not really make them stand out against the very honourable and most affable, serene figures of Giorgio Napolitano, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, Oscar Luigi Scalfaro and other Sphinx-acting presidents.

 

[Mbruno]

It was more about a Romania-role for the former Italian royal family. The House of Romania accepts the Republican form of State and has a ceremonial and protocollary role within it because the Republic acknowledges the unique and shared history with the former Royal House.

The Italian Republic can equally create a ceremonial and protocollary role for the head of the former Royal House. If there is a country studded with ceremonial and protocol, then it is Italy. And as they tend to give the (largely ceremonial) presidency to very old, wobbly and not so healthy former politicians, making the Palazzo di Quirinale alike a gerontocrats' home, I can see a role for a Aimone & Olga, or for a Emanuele Filiberto & Clotilde.

But without an end to the dynastical infighting: forget it. And to be fair: Emanuele Filiberto's antics in reality shows and Pizza restaurants and Clotilde parading on every red carpet between Cannes and Venice does not really make them stand out against the very honourable and most affable, serene figures of Giorgio Napolitano, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, Oscar Luigi Scalfaro and other Sphinx-acting presidents.

Although I agree with you about Emanuele Filiberto and his family, honestly, I can’t see a Romania-like situation happening anytime soon in Italy for 3 main reasons that have nothing to do with the current pretenders personally:

• The Italian Republic is officially very hostile to the former royal house(s), the former nobility and the former knighthood of Italy by basically not recognizing any of them. Ironically, in private, that is not the case as many Italian nobles use for example courtesy titles socially.
• There is still a lot of resentment against the House of Savoy in Italy because of King Victor Emmanuel III’s behavior during the Mussolini era and World War II. That has been passed down even to younger generations although those events took place a long time ago now.
• The House of Savoy is a very old dynasty tracing their ancestry a thousand years back (or close to that) in male line. However, it only became the national royal house of Italy in 1861. Prior to unification, Italy had several sovereign families and, unlike in Germany, where the former sovereign families were allowed to continue ruling in their respective territories under the Prussian king as the German emperor, what happened in Italy was that the Savoys basically dethroned everybody else to become the only (official) Italian royal family. I heard from many Italians that they feel that the House of Savoy never established a national connection with Italy (like the Orange-Nassau in the Netherlands for example) and that they are (or were) often seen as putting the interests of their own family/dynasty above the national interest. It would be interesting if some Italian posters could comment if they feel that way too.

 

[Futurist]

Although I agree with you about Emanuele Filiberto and his family, honestly, I can’t see a Romania-like situation happening anytime soon in Italy for 3 main reasons that have nothing to do with the current pretenders personally:

• The Italian Republic is officially very hostile to the former royal house(s), the former nobility and the former knighthood of Italy by basically not recognizing any of them. Ironically, in private, that is not the case as many Italian nobles use for example courtesy titles socially.
• There is still a lot of resentment against the House of Savoy in Italy because of King Victor Emmanuel III’s behavior during the Mussolini era and World War II. That has been passed down even to younger generations although those events took place a long time ago now.
• The House of Savoy is a very old dynasty tracing their ancestry a thousand years back (or close to that) in male line. However, it only became the national royal house of Italy in 1861. Prior to unification, Italy had several sovereign families and, unlike in Germany, where the former sovereign families were allowed to continue ruling in their respective territories under the Prussian king as the German emperor, what happened in Italy was that the Savoys basically dethroned everybody else to become the only (official) Italian royal family. I heard from many Italians that they feel that the House of Savoy never established a national connection with Italy (like the Orange-Nassau in the Netherlands for example) and that they are (or were) often seen as putting the interests of their own family/dynasty above the national interest. It would be interesting if some Italian posters could comment if they feel that way too.

In regards to your point #2 here, if one believes in ancestral guilt, this would only apply to the senior branch of the House of Savoy, no? The junior branch of the House of Savoy (specifically the Savoy-Aosta branch) is descended in the male line from Italian King Victory Emmanuel II, who died in 1878. So, it's rather hard to argue that the Savoy-Aostas actually bear any ancestral blame for Mussolini's rise to power, no?

It was more about a Romania-role for the former Italian royal family. The House of Romania accepts the Republican form of State and has a ceremonial and protocollary role within it because the Republic acknowledges the unique and shared history with the former Royal House.

The Italian Republic can equally create a ceremonial and protocollary role for the head of the former Royal House. If there is a country studded with ceremonial and protocol, then it is Italy. And as they tend to give the (largely ceremonial) presidency to very old, wobbly and not so healthy former politicians, making the Palazzo di Quirinale alike a gerontocrats' home, I can see a role for a Aimone & Olga, or for a Emanuele Filiberto & Clotilde.

But without an end to the dynastical infighting: forget it. And to be fair: Emanuele Filiberto's antics in reality shows and Pizza restaurants and Clotilde parading on every red carpet between Cannes and Venice does not really make them stand out against the very honourable and most affable, serene figures of Giorgio Napolitano, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, Oscar Luigi Scalfaro and other Sphinx-acting presidents.

In regards to your paragraph #3 here, is the Savoy-Aosta branch much more dignified in comparison to the senior Savoy branch?

Also, would the same issues that prevent official recognition of any role for the former Italian royal family likewise apply to France due to the fact that French royalists are split among Legitimists, Orleanists, and Bonapartists?

What about Germany? Is formal recognition for their royal family easier to imagine? Or do they still have ancestral guilt for World War I as well as for Crown Prince Wilhelm's support for Hitler in the early 1930s?

 

[BigLenny]

Imagining the establishment of new monarchies

I know some countries used to be monarchies with defined claimants in case they become monarchies again, but what about those that don’t? In that case, I imagine that such countries would establish new dynasties when switching to monarchies. Below are some countries and my bizarre imaginations for them. I’m not including countries with known claimants to abolished thrones (e.g. Serbia). Also, the monarchies I’m talking about are of the constitutional kind unless otherwise noted.

Disclaimer: I am in no way using this thread to advocate for the restoration of abolished monarchies or establishment of new ones. Its sole purpose is to have fun and relax.

• Argentina: Princess Alexia or Ariane of the Netherlands would make a fine queen of Argentina, mainly because of their mom being Argentinian. If that’s the case, whoever gets picked to be monarch should marry an Argentine to cement blood ties with the country even more. Alternatively, elevate the Zorreguietas (Queen Maxima’s family) to Argentina’s royal family should Alexia and Ariane refuse.
• Armenia: I can’t see Kim Kardashian accepting the role of queen because she would balk at the idea of reducing herself into a mere figurehead. I’d say make Kim and Kanye’s daughter North West queen and marry her to a European prince or noble boy as her prince consort. She should pick an Armenian name like Hripsime or Zabel for her regnal name, and go with Kardashian for her dynasty name because it’s an Armenian last name and very famous worldwide.
• Azerbaijan: The Aliyevs have been accused of turning their country into a monarchy in all but name. What if they officially declare their country one, eh? I bet they’ll abuse loopholes to gain more power regularly.
• Belarus: Due to the protests against Lukashenko, I can’t help but imagine a scenario in which Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya becomes queen. Maybe she’ll establish her family as a royal family named the House of Tsikhanousky.
• Botswana: The Khama family would make the country’s ideal royal family. After all, Seretse Khama himself was the kgosi (king) of the Bamangwato, a prominent chieftaincy in Botswana. Moreover, his descendants are prominent in Botswana, so why not?
• Colombia: What if Andrea and Tatiana Casiraghi become King and Queen of Colombia? After all, Tatiana’s family is a major conglomerate family from Colombia.
• Cuba: I can totally see Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg plotting to overthrow Cuba’s communist regime and install a monarchy in its place, with either Alexandra or Sébastien as its monarch. She would then [-]pressure[/-] encourage her kid to marry a Cuban like her in the name of [-]cementing blood ties with the country[/-] love.
• East Timor: Someone play matchmaker for a Liurai (a tribal chief in Timor) and Infanta Maria Francisca. If they really love each other, they should marry and establish a dynasty that rules East Timor.
• Ecuador: I fancy one of the three younger children of Crown Prince Pavlos and Crown Princess Marie-Chantal of Greece becoming Ecuador’s first king. This obviously has to do with Marie-Chantal being half-Ecuadorian.
• Estonia: A descendant of president Lennart Meri would make an ideal monarch of Estonia because Meri’s leadership helped turn Estonia into one of the former Soviet Union’s success stories. In a twist of fate, said descendant marries one of the Earl of Wessex’s kids because some Estonian “royalists” consider making Edward their king. Alternatively, just make Louise or James Estonia’s new monarch.
• Gabon: Ali Bongo Ondimba became president after his dad died, so it would be amusing to see him declaring himself king and his son Noureddin as crown prince.
• India: Any of the former royal families in India would be a fitting choice to rule all of India as an empire, given the country’s size and power. Alternatively, the Nehru-Gandhi family should totally declare themselves India’s imperial family because of their power and influence in India.
• Indonesia: I like the idea of the Hamengkubuwonos ruling all of Indonesia, though they seem to be content with just Yogyakarta. If the latter’s true, I’d say a descendant of Sukarno as monarch.
• Kazakhstan: The Nazarbayevs would make the ideal royal family. After all, they’re fairly entrenched in Kazakhstan’s public sphere since independence. Not to mention that Nursultan Nazarbayev’s late ex-son-in-law Rakhat Aliyev said that Kazakhstan should consider becoming a monarchy.
• Mali: Anyone up for the establishment of Mali as a kingdom? Rechristening it as the Mali Empire would be too pretentious because of the country’s average size and widespread poverty. The only question is who would be the ideal monarch. Obviously a Malian national, of course.
• Pakistan: Prince Hassan and Princess Sarvath of Jordan’s son Prince Rashid would make a fine sultan of Pakistan because of his mother’s Pakistani roots.
• Panama: Prince Alfons of Liechtenstein would make a fine king of Panama because his mom’s Panamanian, which will give him a leg up in identifying with the country’s people.
• Peru: I’d say Prince Christian of Hanover, his wife Princess Alessandra, and their kids would be the perfect royal family for Peru because of Alessandra’s Peruvian nationality. Bonus points if subsequent heirs marry in indigenous Peruvians, especially the Quechuas.
• Philippines: The Jaworski family would make a fine choice. The oldest two sons of Robert Jaworski, Jr. and Mikee Cojuangco would make perfect husbands for Princess Leonor and Infanta Sofia of Spain, respectively. The oldest, Robbie, can be Leonor’s consort while the middle kid Rafael can be crown prince (and eventually king) of the Philippines.
• Singapore: If Singapore were to become a monarchy, it would be a principality like Monaco due to its small size. The princely family would be that of Lee Kwan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong because these two prime ministers have served in Singapore for so long. In fact, Lee Kwan Yew’s policies helped develop Singapore into an economic powerhouse since independence, and his family has played a prominent role in shaping Singapore ever since.
• Tajikistan: Apparently, Emomali Rahmon is grooming his son Rustam Emomali as his successor. It sounds like Rahmon better be cajoled into declaring himself king and Rustam crown prince. They would probably have to go for a semi-constitutional monarchy if they want to cling to power, though there’s a change they’d go for an absolute one instead.
• Togo: How about making Alexandre Grimaldi-Coste the king of Togo? After all, his dad is Prince Albert II of Monaco and his mom Nicole is Togolese, which would give him some leg up in case he becomes king.
• Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan: These two countries are currently ruled by strongmen who might as well use their power to make themselves semi-constitutional or absolute monarchies, most likely the latter. They might need creative ways to stay in power, especially from China, whose communist government isn’t exactly fond of monarchism.
• Venezuela: I realize that this example crosses into serious territory, because the crisis since 2014 sometimes makes me wonder whether the country could do well as a monarchy that keeps politicians accountable, maintains much-needed stability, restores unity, and hopefully improves Venezuela’s economy and international image. My top choice for monarch would be human rights activist Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, who is a descendant of Venezuela’s first president Cristóbal Mendoza and of Simón Bolívar’s sister Juana Bolívar Palacios. He can use his middle name Leonardo as his regnal name. This most likely means Nicolas Maduro must go because of the damage he has wrought to Venezuela.