NationStates

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Krjder wrote:You are Dutch right? And I take you are referring to De achtenswaardige Koning Willem-Alexander. (Excuse my awful Dutch, I was sent away to British boarding school and never got to grips.

)

I'm not referring to him. I am referring to a dead guy, lying on our territory until the German monarchy returns. That moment is when he can be repatriated back to Germany.

Then why not briefly restore it so that he can return to Germany, then abolish it again?

Anyways, I'd say Bulgaria. Their last Tsar was also a PM.

Luziyca wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
)

I'm not referring to him. I am referring to a dead guy, lying on our territory until the German monarchy returns. That moment is when he can be repatriated back to Germany.

Then why not briefly restore it so that he can return to Germany, then abolish it again?

Anyways, I'd say Bulgaria. Their last Tsar was also a PM.

Impossible. The only reason that Coburg became a PM is because every four years the majority seek a "savior" to rid them of their misery and back in 2001 he was the best choice between the Socialists and the utterly failing right. Monarchy never had good roots here, it only survived because of our preference for autocracy.

Bulgar Rouge wrote:

Luziyca wrote:Then why not briefly restore it so that he can return to Germany, then abolish it again?

Anyways, I'd say Bulgaria. Their last Tsar was also a PM.

Impossible. The only reason that Coburg became a PM is because every four years the majority seek a "savior" to rid them of their misery and back in 2001 he was the best choice between the Socialists and the utterly failing right. Monarchy never had good roots here, it only survived because of our preference for autocracy.

Good point. His party died out around 2005 or so.

Bulgar Rouge wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:There is actually quite a strong demand for a "strong ruler" over here in Lithuania, and some royalists from Germany (Mindaugas II's grandchildren) want to reinstall a monarchy, but I doubt it will go anywhere.

Hopefully not. Here in Bulgaria there is a massive effort to whitewash pre-1944 governments and present them as "heroes" against "de evil commies". Monarchism is the pinnacle of these forces, and I'd imagine it's not very different in other former Eastern Bloc states.

Nope. There was republic before WW2 already, with already strong anti-monarchist (anti-Habsburg) sentiment in both government and society, but even there are (literally) few loud monarchist weirdos, dreaming about Karl Habsburg-Lothringen being King in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (last claim would surely piss off Poland, since we have just 10% or so historical Silesia).

One particlar weirdo even wrote 20 or so large fictions, how Habsburgs heroically restored Austrian realm as 'Danubian Federation', defeated both Stalin and Hitler and created super-conservative super-christian regime opposing both capitalism and communism.

Too bad it's just in my language, you would totally ROFL from that.

Rephesus wrote:Personally, I'd like to see the Portuguese Monarchy return, and have Brazil and Portugal (along with maybe Uruguay Mozambique and Angola?) have them as ceremonial head of states.

No, thanks.

Rephesus wrote:Very good for Brazil.

You've got no idea what you're talking about.

The American Monarchy. *nods*

Long life to Jean Christophe I Bonaparte.

America already has a monarchy under king Obama.

*nods*

Mcnernia wrote:Long life to Jean Christophe I Bonaparte.

You can call him Napoleon VII. Easier.

Greece and Romania.

District XIV wrote:The American Monarchy. *nods*

So, a new Emperor Norton?

Communal Earth wrote:America already has a monarchy under king Obama.

*nods*

America is part of Europe?

Neoconstantius wrote:Greece and Romania.

Heard somewhere that King of greece wasn't interested...

Russian

and it would have my full support, the world needs more stonk nations

I thought the Russian monarchy was basically without a living heir? Anyway, I'd rule them out. Sctotland? Maybe. If they get their independence.Otherwise, no idea. The chances are slim anyway as you pointed out in the OP.

Indira wrote:I thought the Russian monarchy was basically without a living heir? Anyway, I'd rule them out. Sctotland? Maybe. If they get their independence.Otherwise, no idea. The chances are slim anyway as you pointed out in the OP.

There are many 'legitimate' Romanovs Remember, Nicholas II. had two brothers who escaped the revolution and some cousins if i remember correctly. Until last year, there was even more than two claimant lines of House Romanov, but Putin's pal, patriarch Kirill, recognized just one line to be legitimate heirs to Russian Imperial Throne.

Maria Vladimirovna has the support of most monarchist groups and followers, most societies of Russian nobles — including the Assembly of the Russian Nobility, and recognition of her claim by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill I Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia who, in a televised March 2013 interview, stated "Today, none of those persons who are descendants of the Romanoffs are pretenders to the Russian throne. But in the person of Grand Duchess Maria Wladimirovna and her son, Georgii, the succession of the Romanoffs is preserved."

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Indira wrote:
There are many 'legitimate' Romanovs Remember, Nicholas II. had two brothers who escaped the revolution and some cousins if i remember correctly. Until last year, there was even more than two claimant lines of House Romanov, but Putin's pal, patriarch Kirill, recognized just one line to be legitimate heirs to Russian Imperial Throne.

First of all Nicholas II brothers did not escape the revolution. His brother George died in 1899 and his other brother Mikhail died in 1918 he was killed on the 13th of June 1918. George died with no children. Mikhail had one child named George who died in 1931 and had no children. No living descendants of the brothers of Nicholas II is alive today.

But Nicholas II did have two sisters that escaped the revolution Olga and Xenia who both died in 1960 and the both have living descendants today.

Many of the Romanovs did manage to escape Russia. But not the brothers of Nichoals II as one of them died in 1899 and the other in 1918




Personally i do not think any European nation will bring back the monarchy but i do want to see the Romanovs back in power in Russia.

Estado Paulista wrote:

Rephesus wrote:Personally, I'd like to see the Portuguese Monarchy return, and have Brazil and Portugal (along with maybe Uruguay Mozambique and Angola?) have them as ceremonial head of states.

No, thanks.

Brazil should not have a Portuguese monarch on their throne, but they should restore the Brazilian monarchy. Pedro II was one of the greatest monarchs of all time.

The Flood wrote:Brazil should not have a Portuguese monarch on their throne, but they should restore the Brazilian monarchy.

You're in no position to say what Brazil should or should not do.

The Flood wrote:Pedro II was one of the greatest monarchs of all time.

No, he wasn't. And that's not an argument for the restoration of monarchy.

Estado Paulista wrote:

The Flood wrote:Brazil should not have a Portuguese monarch on their throne, but they should restore the Brazilian monarchy.

You're in no position to say what Brazil should or should not do.

The Flood wrote:Pedro II was one of the greatest monarchs of all time.

No, he wasn't. And that's not an argument for the restoration of monarchy.

There's also no argument against restoring it other then being jealous that one's self is not the monarch, which is a rather immature argument.

The historical connection, national unity, and tradition are worth it, and justify constitutional monarchy.

The Flood wrote:There's also no argument against restoring it other then being jealous that one's self is not the monarch, which is a rather immature argument.

What?!

Do you not understand that some people just don't want a monarch?

District XIV wrote:

The Flood wrote:There's also no argument against restoring it other then being jealous that one's self is not the monarch, which is a rather immature argument.

What?!
Do you not understand that some people just don't want a monarch?

Who gives a shit what they want, or rather don't want. If you don't care about the monarchy, ignore it, and let the people who do enjoy it have what they want, because it doesn't bloody affect the people that don't want it.

The Flood wrote:

District XIV wrote:What?!
Do you not understand that some people just don't want a monarch?

Who gives a shit what they want, or rather don't want. If you don't care about the monarchy, ignore it, and let the people who do enjoy it have what they want, because it doesn't bloody affect the people that don't want it.

"Who gives a shit about what they want"? Really? So if 95% of a nation does not support a monarchy, but 5% does, then just, oh, you know, disregard what that 95% says

District XIV wrote:

The Flood wrote:Who gives a shit what they want, or rather don't want. If you don't care about the monarchy, ignore it, and let the people who do enjoy it have what they want, because it doesn't bloody affect the people that don't want it.

"Who gives a shit about what they want"? Really? So if 95% of a nation does not support a monarchy, but 5% does, then just, oh, you know, disregard what that 95% says

Considering that having a monarchy does not adversely affect them at all, yes, screw em'. Their opinion is stupid and wrong, and should not be given the time of day, especially when their opinion is that they want to take something away from someone else, when there is no benefit to doing so, and no detriment to not doing so.