• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Monarchy in decline?

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 27, 2000
Messages
26,850
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Monarchy has been widely distributed in space and time over humanity's larger-scale societies. Many such societies have entered written history as monarchies, so the age of monarchy may be hard to determine. One could try to push the date further with archeological evidence and cultural extrapolation, but that method has rather obvious difficulties.

The first literate societies, Sumer and Egypt, had been monarchies, making monarchy at least 5000 years old. Some monarchies have had a more-or-less continuous existence for centuries. The Pharaonic and Chinese ones had been in existence for over 2500 years.


Despite monarchy being common, some notable premodern and early modern societies had rejected monarchy, like some Classical-era Greek city states and the Roman Republic. Those places are where we get the words "democracy" and "republic" from. Over the centuries, various other societies have been republics, usually city-states or other small nations. The oldest surviving republic is likely Switzerland at about 700 years.


But over the last century or so, it seems that it has gone out of style in much of the world, even in very large nations. Many remaining monarchs are figureheads rather than active leaders, making their nations de facto republics. In fact, some people call such monarchies "crowned republics".

Aside from Switzerland, the first European-derived nation to successfully reject monarchy was created by certain rebellious North American colonies. During their rebellion, they formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their efforts, but they decided afterward that they needed a stronger central government, so they composed their Constitution. George Washington, military leader of that rebellion, became the United States's first President. He refused to crown himself king, and he refused any titles fancier than "Mister President". After two terms as President, he retired.

Some of the American revolutionaries recognized the rather radical nature of their political experiment, notably John Adams, who wrote Defence of the Constitutions, 1787.


But in Europe, most revolutionaries who built nations still preferred monarchs, like those of Norway, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania. France was the main exception. But in the 20th cy., when monarchs abdicated or got deposed, that was the end of the monarchy in most cases: Portugal, Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, and Russia.

The only exception I know of is Spain. After Francisco Franco died, Juan Carlos I, grandson of the previous king, became king.

South of the Rio Grande River, in the Caribbean and Central and South America, monarchy is also gone.


Monarchy does continue in various Asian, Middle Eastern, and African nations. Japan is a European-style crowned republic, while the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States are the traditional sort of absolute monarch. But even there, in Libya, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and China, monarchs have been deposed and have stayed deposed.


I will close with noting some recently-created hereditary or attempted hereditary monarchies.
  • North Korea is the world's only Communist monarchy. Kim Il Sung was succeeded by his son Jong Il, who has in turn chosen his third son, Jong Un, as his successor.
  • Hafez Assad of Syria was succeeded by his son Bashar.
  • Muammar Khadafy of Libya wanted to be succeeded by one of his sons, likely Saif al Islam. But after overthrowing Khadafy's rule, the National Transitional Council is not likely to allow that.
 
Don't forget the ancient and tiny republic of San Marino.
 
The English Commonwealth Protectorate (1649-1660) appears to have been very successful, although accurate historical accounts are hard to come by, as everyone fell over themselves to be the most royalist of them all on the restoration of Charles II to the throne.

Cromwell repeatedly refused to become king; and as far as I can tell, his rule was prosperous and successful for the English. The Irish, of course, have a very different view, having been the victims of what today would be called 'ethnic cleansing'.

The Protectorate was doomed by a lack of a clear path to select a successor on the death of the Lord Protector; Oliver's son Richard had little of his father's political ability, and with a couple of years of his succession, the public feeling was that, if you must have a hopeless loser in charge, then you might as well have the one whose ancestors all had the job as far back as anyone could recall, rather than a guy whose only meritorious ancestors could be counted on the fingers of one finger.

Certainly many eyewitnesses to the Protectorate had great praise for Oliver (Samuel Pepys had many a good word for his rule). He was a Washington a century ahead of his time. Had Britain retaken power in the revolutionary states, no doubt the colonists would have fallen over themselves to declare their unbroken loyalty to the crown. Finding a Cromwell supporter in 1660s England was as hard as finding a card carrying Nazi in 1946 Germany - and even more dangerous to those few who admitted their earlier political position.

But if everyone in England during the civil wars really hated Essex, Fairfax, Cromwell, and their parliamentarian campaign against the king, how did they win power? And why did it take until two years after Oliver's death to get enough support to restore the Stuart dynasty?
 
What’s the Cure for Ailing Nations? More Kings and Queens, Monarchists Say - The New York Times
From the comfort of his country estate in Oxford, a distant relative of the Russian literary giant Tolstoy says he has the perfect solution for what ails the United States.

America, he declares, needs a monarchy.

In fact, Count Nikolai Tolstoy says, more kings, queens and all the frippery that royalty brings would be not just a salve for a superpower in political turmoil, but also a stabilizing force for the world at large.
The article continues with some people claiming that monarchies do better than republics. But I think that it is survivorship bias. Over the last century, monarchs that got deposed have usually not been succeeded by other monarchs, unlike the practice in nearly all recorded history before then. Monarchs have typically been deposed for being on the wrong side of some big political upheaval, so the nations that have been politically stable are nations that have kept their monarchs -- if they had monarchs. Politically stable republics have stayed republics. Switzerland has been a republic since the Middle Ages, for instance.

Between Napoleon's wars and World War I, European nation builders wanted monarchs for their nations: Belgium, Holland, Norway, Italy, Greece, Albania. But after WWI, they no longer did so, and the only restored European monarchy is Spain's. Elsewhere in the world, the only restored one is Cambodia's.

Monarchy in the 20th Century shows what happened over that century.  Abolition of monarchy has a big list of abolished monarchies and a much smaller list of restored ones.

Still-existing monarchies:

In Europe: the UK, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Spain, with microstates Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, and Vatican City

In the Middle East and North Africa: Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates

Elsewhere: Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Japan, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland, Thailand, Tonga

Queen Elizabeth II is not only the monarch of the UK, but also of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Belize, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-case-Nazis-tried-to-kidnap-Royal-family.html

The Queen Mother was so frightened of being kidnapped by Nazi parachutists during the Second World War she learned to shoot by practising on rats flushed out of Buckingham Palace, Margaret Rhodes has disclosed.


Mrs Rhodes, the Queen’s cousin, said the then-Queen Elizabeth had learned to shoot a pistol in the gardens of the palace, in order to protect her family from invading Germans.

Claiming her aunt had feared parachutists dropping into the grounds and “whisking them away”, she added the numerous rats scared out of their homes by bombs made the perfect target practice.



---

Royal rat hunt. This is why England needs a queen.
 
Queen Elizabeth II is not only the monarch of the UK, but also of...
No. Queen Elizabeth II is only the monarch of the UK. Elsewhere, at least in Australia, she is the Queen in... The monarchy has become as insignificant and symbolic in Australia as it can get without disappearing completely. The penultimate nail was hammered into the coffin with the proclamation of the Australia Act 1986, with which the last remnants of the UK's government's and monarch's powers were annulled. There were actually two of them, basically identical - one in the UK and one in Australia. They were proclaimed simultaneously. The ultimate, and essentially symbolic end of what has effectively ceased to be the monarchy in Australia since 1986 will occur at the next referendum asking Australians if they want their nation to become formally known as a republic.
 
The rise in the city state and monarchies in Europe was followed by a gradual restriction of the monarch's power leading to modern democracy.
 
The rise in the city state and monarchies in Europe was followed by a gradual restriction of the monarch's power leading to modern democracy.

That's rather reductionist. Pretty sure Monarchies in Europe grew in power during the early modern period and only began to decline after the collapse of the ancient regime. Even then it took two world wars to finally kill the European Monarchy with only a few holdouts that managed to hang on to power however briefly (Bulgaria comes to mind)
 
The only real purpose of a King is to prevent other Kings from coming in and taking people's stuff. The decline in Kings is directly related to to gradual loss of a King's military function. When society transformed from "Warrior Kings" to hereditary monarchy, military matters fell to professional soldiers. As with any profession, the professional serves whoever pays the bills. Hereditary monarchies are by nature more stable that Warrior King monarchies, so there is a lot of appeal, especially to the wealthy and landed classes. These same wealthy and landed classes are the first to see any King as an unneeded burden.

A nation or tribe my thrive for ten generations under a succession of wise and skilled kings, but it only takes one bad king to insure there will never be another. Sometimes it takes more than one, but you get the idea.
 
Queen Elizabeth II is not only the monarch of the UK, but also of...
No. Queen Elizabeth II is only the monarch of the UK. Elsewhere, at least in Australia, she is the Queen in...
Any official sources on that?

Documenting Democracy: "Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth)"
Significance

This document makes Queen Elizabeth II 'Queen of Australia', as the Assent to the Act changing the title set by the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. It also eliminated both the reference to the United Kingdom, and the title 'Defender of the Faith'.

The Schedule on page 1 states the new form in full as: 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth'.
So she's still the Queen of Australia.
 
It seems to me that Queen Elizabeth II has been successful as a ceremonial monarch because she has been very likable, and because she has been careful to stay out of big political issues. However, Prince Charles has been far from that, and the subject of numerous scandals over the years. He seems remarkably reckless, because he surely must know that if he makes big enough enemies, then that will be the end of the British monarchy. Meaning that the Windsors will join the Hapsburgs, the Hohenzollerns, the Romanovs, the Osmans, and other fallen royal families.

Past monarchies have survived worse monarchs, like Roman Emperors Commodus and Elagabalus, but only because there was not much alternative to them.
 
The only real purpose of a King is to prevent other Kings from coming in and taking people's stuff. The decline in Kings is directly related to to gradual loss of a King's military function. When society transformed from "Warrior Kings" to hereditary monarchy, military matters fell to professional soldiers. As with any profession, the professional serves whoever pays the bills. Hereditary monarchies are by nature more stable that Warrior King monarchies, so there is a lot of appeal, especially to the wealthy and landed classes. These same wealthy and landed classes are the first to see any King as an unneeded burden.

A nation or tribe my thrive for ten generations under a succession of wise and skilled kings, but it only takes one bad king to insure there will never be another. Sometimes it takes more than one, but you get the idea.
The medieval ideal society comprised three parts: The Peasantry, who grew food for everyone; The Clergy, who prayed for everyone; and The Nobility, who fought for everyone.

A king was supposed to be the ultimate protector of his people's physical safety, just as a pope was the ultimate protector of their spiritual safety. In return for which, neither artistocracy nor clergy need concern themselves with the daily grind of growing crops and raising livestock.

The first professional army in the modern vein was the Army of the New Model, formed to enable parliament to more effectively fight against the king. Before that, armies were raised as needed from the peasantry, by the various local nobles, who were each responsible for training and equipment - leading to very non-uniform results. The end of the monarchy led to the formation of the first modern professional armies, rather than the other way about; It became clear that an army cobbled together from whatever peasants were least effective at dodging the recruiting drive, and armed with whatever weapons were to hand, was rarely able to stand against a well equipped, well trained, and well paid force of professional soldiers.

This is the reason why the UK has a Royal Navy, and a Royal Air Force, but doesn't have a Royal Army.
 
The only real purpose of a King is to prevent other Kings from coming in and taking people's stuff. The decline in Kings is directly related to to gradual loss of a King's military function. When society transformed from "Warrior Kings" to hereditary monarchy, military matters fell to professional soldiers. As with any profession, the professional serves whoever pays the bills. Hereditary monarchies are by nature more stable that Warrior King monarchies, so there is a lot of appeal, especially to the wealthy and landed classes. These same wealthy and landed classes are the first to see any King as an unneeded burden.
There are so many things wrong with this post that I suspect it is the result of you having thought about the topic "monarchy in decline" for five minutes. At any rate, it bears little relation to history. Well, at least not to European history from Charlemagne onwards.

For most of this history the power of monarchs was contingent on their relation with the aristocracy. The reason for this is that monarchs generally did not raise armies. Their barons did that on their behalf, who in turn delegated the task of coming up with the manpower to their coteries of lesser nobility. So there always was a power struggle between monarchs and their respective nobility. In England this led to a sharp curtailment of the king's power as formalised in the Magna Charta. The aristocrats basically won that one, for the time being.

In France the nobility did not so well. Fresh out of the 30 Years War, aristocrats were in control of battle toughened armies, while the monarchy consisted of the regency of Anne of Austria (who was actually a Spanish Habsburg princess) since the death of her husband, Louis XIII. This seemed a good time for the aristocrats and parlements (basically the lesser nobility) to make a grab for power. It looked good on paper, but the upstarts did not reckon with the military and political nouse of Cardinal Mazarin, who cleverly created and exploited divisions within the overwhelming opposition. A series of civil wars, collectively known as the Fronde ensued, which the monarchist forces won comprehensively. When Anne's son came out of his minority to become Louis XIV, he made sure to keep his enemies close and his friends closer by trapping them all in his gilded cage at Versaille. He became the embodiment of the absolute monarch. "L'état, C'est Moi." He may not have actually said that, but he might as well have.

Elsewhere in Europe results were mixed, but strong monarchs were few and far between, particularly so in post reformation Italy and Germany.

In addition to majorly misunderstanding the function a monarch historically had in matters military, you have no idea concerning "the only real purpose of a King". On the negative side kings were not as much preoccupied with the safety of the subjects as protecting, and whenever possible, enlarging their own power. On the positive side, if it can be called positive, monarchs were to serve as the secular arm of the church. It made for a powerful and durable symbiosis known as a theocracy, a unitary form of government, and for a long time the best way of squeezing peasants, tradesmen, artisans and merchants for what they were worth. Again, it was the aristocracy that served as the vital means with which the system was kept functioning. Taxes, excises, fees, rents, plain extortions and whatever plunder could be thought of, including le droit du seigneur just kept flooding upwards.

Only three scenarios could spoil this cosy (for the privileged) arrangement. One was a surprisingly more powerful neighbour. Another, when bickering among the rulers caused serious splits. Thirdly, when some unexpected new factor enters the equation to which the traditional rulers are incapable of adjusting - such as, say, the gradual replacement of a largely agrarian economy with a capitalistic mode of production of goods and the rise of a new, hitherto unknown social stratum - the bourgeoisie.
 
Any official sources on that?

Documenting Democracy: "Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth)"
Significance

This document makes Queen Elizabeth II 'Queen of Australia', as the Assent to the Act changing the title set by the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. It also eliminated both the reference to the United Kingdom, and the title 'Defender of the Faith'.

The Schedule on page 1 states the new form in full as: 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth'.
So she's still the Queen of Australia.
My assertion is based on no more than a vague recollection of something I read somewhere around the late seventies or early eighties. Maybe it was merely an opinion piece by some newspaper columnist or an article that was part of an argument raging around that time (and which resurfaces periodically) about whether the Queen or her representative, the Governor General is Australia's formal head of government.

Whatever is the case, yes, I got it wrong.
 
Aside from Switzerland, the first European-derived nation to successfully reject monarchy was created by certain rebellious North American colonies. During their rebellion, they formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their efforts, but they decided afterward that they needed a stronger central government, so they composed their Constitution. George Washington, military leader of that rebellion, became the United States's first President. He refused to crown himself king, and he refused any titles fancier than "Mister President". After two terms as President, he retired.

I believe Iceland has been a republic for longer than Switzerland.
 
Aside from Switzerland, the first European-derived nation to successfully reject monarchy was created by certain rebellious North American colonies. During their rebellion, they formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their efforts, but they decided afterward that they needed a stronger central government, so they composed their Constitution. George Washington, military leader of that rebellion, became the United States's first President. He refused to crown himself king, and he refused any titles fancier than "Mister President". After two terms as President, he retired.

I believe Iceland has been a republic for longer than Switzerland.

Iceland is the nation with the longest running form of government which has seen no substantial change in structure. The United States is in second place.
 
Back
Top Bottom