Monarchist discussion thread

[Britanania]

By having a civilian led military, of course. That's the same reason the US has never suffered a military coup, but every other Presidential system has: the military and government are rather separated. Germany's problem was that the military was basically a state in its own right, same with Japan.

Wasn't the Kaiser technically in charge of the military in the Imperial German/Prussian constitution?

Ehhhhhh

By the end of the Great War, Hindenburg was basically in control of the government.

[Salus Maior]

Wasn't the Kaiser technically in charge of the military in the Imperial German/Prussian constitution?

Ehhhhhh

By the end of the Great War, Hindenburg was basically in control of the government.

Well, de-facto that was true. But from what I can recall, legally speaking the Kaiser was the de-jure leader of the military.

Which Japan also copied (as they copied most of the German constitution as they modernized). But that still didn't stop the military from getting a stranglehold on the monarch and overturning their authority.

[Jochizyd Republic]

The Shah was a horrible person and a colonial puppet that oppressed everyone.

HIM Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was far from a colonial puppet. In fact the US quietly supported the revolution that overthrew him. The idea that he was a Western puppet is entirely a fabrication of the Islamists. Under the Shah, Iran modernised rapidly, becoming the Middle East's strongest economy and the foremost power in the region. He improved rights for women, greatly increased the literacy rate and invested massively in infrastructure. His rule was not some magical golden age, true; apart from the imperial government's "human rights violations", which paled by comparison to that of the ayatollahs, his "White Revolution" was often ill-planned and alienated traditionalists whilst also resulting in widespread unemployment for the newly educated young people for whom there simply weren't enough jobs available. His regime was also overly dependent on oil revenues, an issue hardly unique to Iran in the region. However his intentions were good and his authoritarian style of rule probably necessary in that time and place. As the Shah himself put it, "When Iranians learn to behave like Swedes, I will behave like the King of Sweden."

All in all, the Shah was vastly preferable to the current Iranian regime and your character assassination of him his manifestly unfair.

You're pro modernism? What?

I think his modernization of the country was a big part of why he was terrible. He did do good things I guess. So did Khomeini. That doesn't excuse everything else they pulled. I am, obviously enough, not one to sympathize with the crackdown on Islamists. But he suppressed far more people than just Islamists.
No side in that aside from the Ayatollahs that opposed both the Shah and Khomeini's new interpretation of Ithna'ashari philosophy, metaphysics and law, Strongly opposing Wilayat al Faqih (Which was up until fairly recently, most of them) post overthrow of the Shah was supportable from a reactionary Islamic perspective.
At least you have a balanced view of it and recognize the inarguably bad parts.

Why would you even want Iran to be like the modern west? That would make having a monarch meaningless.

[Britanania]

Ehhhhhh

By the end of the Great War, Hindenburg was basically in control of the government.

Well, de-facto that was true. But from what I can recall, legally speaking the Kaiser was the de-jure leader of the military.

Which Japan also copied (as they copied most of the German constitution as they modernized). But that still didn't stop the military from getting a stranglehold on the monarch and overturning their authority.

Japan also has a long history of military control over the Emperor and government. Emperor Meiji is the exception, not the rule.

[Salus Maior]

Well, de-facto that was true. But from what I can recall, legally speaking the Kaiser was the de-jure leader of the military.

Which Japan also copied (as they copied most of the German constitution as they modernized). But that still didn't stop the military from getting a stranglehold on the monarch and overturning their authority.

Japan also has a long history of military control over the Emperor and government. Emperor Meiji is the exception, not the rule.

True. But that still begs my question which is, how can a centralized monarchy prevent the military from overturning its authority?

[Salus Maior]

You're pro modernization? What?

I think his modernization of the country was a big part of why he was terrible. He did do good things I guess. So did Khomeini. That doesn't excuse everything else they pulled.
No side in that aside from the Ayatollahs that opposed both the Shah and Khomeini's new interpretation of Ithna'ashari philosophy, metaphysics and law, Strongly opposing Wilayat al Faqih post overthrow of the Shah was supportable from a reactionary Islamic perspective.

Define "modernization" as you're using it?

[Britanania]

Japan also has a long history of military control over the Emperor and government. Emperor Meiji is the exception, not the rule.

True. But that still begs my question which is, how can a centralized monarchy prevent the military from overturning its authority?

I reiterate, by giving the civilian sphere control.

That way a monarch can't abuse it, and without them being government agents they couldn't take control over the government.

[Old Tyrannia]

HIM Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was far from a colonial puppet. In fact the US quietly supported the revolution that overthrew him. The idea that he was a Western puppet is entirely a fabrication of the Islamists. Under the Shah, Iran modernised rapidly, becoming the Middle East's strongest economy and the foremost power in the region. He improved rights for women, greatly increased the literacy rate and invested massively in infrastructure. His rule was not some magical golden age, true; apart from the imperial government's "human rights violations", which paled by comparison to that of the ayatollahs, his "White Revolution" was often ill-planned and alienated traditionalists whilst also resulting in widespread unemployment for the newly educated young people for whom there simply weren't enough jobs available. His regime was also overly dependent on oil revenues, an issue hardly unique to Iran in the region. However his intentions were good and his authoritarian style of rule probably necessary in that time and place. As the Shah himself put it, "When Iranians learn to behave like Swedes, I will behave like the King of Sweden."

All in all, the Shah was vastly preferable to the current Iranian regime and your character assassination of him his manifestly unfair.

You're pro modernism? What?

I'm pro-modernisation. Yes, I think that modern hospitals, economic development, higher literacy rates and a stronger military are all good things. The question is, why do you not?

I think his modernization of the country was a big part of why he was terrible.

Why? What do you have against educating women and developing the economy? Would you prefer that Iran remained a rural economy with low literacy rates and little modern infrastructure? Iran couldn't deal with the USSR and the West on a close to equal footing without developing itself and accepting some aspects of modern living. Japan did the same thing in the 19th century; other nations such as Vietnam and Qing China were slower to do so and reaped the consequences.

He did do good things I guess. So did Khomeini. That doesn't excuse everything else they pulled. I am, obviously enough, not one to sympathize with the crackdown on Islamists. But he suppressed far more people than just Islamists.

I can live with Islamism being suppressed. The other groups that were supressed- communists, republicans and liberal democrats- don't engender a great deal of sympathy from me either. Personally I think that the Shah's promotion of pre-Islamic Iranian culture was a positive development. I don't necessarily agree with all of his reforms, but he was the Shah. You don't have to agree with your sovereign, you are expected to be loyal to them anyway.

No side in that aside from the Ayatollahs that opposed both the Shah and Khomeini's new interpretation of Ithna'ashari philosophy, metaphysics and law, Strongly opposing Wilayat al Faqih (Which was up until fairly recently, most of them) post overthrow of the Shah was supportable from a reactionary Islamic perspective.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

At least you have a balanced view of it and recognize the inarguably bad parts.

I like to try and look at history from a somewhat impartial perspective.

Why would you even want Iran to be like the modern west? That would make having a monarch meaningless.

I never said I wanted Iran to be like the modern west. I would like Iran to be a strong and developed country under its traditional form of governance, the monarchy. The Shah's reign saw a great Renaissance in Iranian culture and identity, accompanied by improvements in the quality of life of his people. How could that be a bad thing?

Well, de-facto that was true. But from what I can recall, legally speaking the Kaiser was the de-jure leader of the military.

Which Japan also copied (as they copied most of the German constitution as they modernized). But that still didn't stop the military from getting a stranglehold on the monarch and overturning their authority.

Japan also has a long history of military control over the Emperor and government. Emperor Meiji is the exception, not the rule.

The Meiji Emperor himself was far from an absolute monarch. Power in Meiji era Japan was firmly held by the oligarchy. It's unclear how influential the Emperor himself was.

[Jochizyd Republic]

I'm pro-modernisation. Yes, I think that modern hospitals, economic development, higher literacy rates and a stronger military are all good things. The question is, why do you not?

Oh. Well. Yeah. Those are good things but they came with very dangerous and harmful values. Khomeini also heavily funded things like that. And was very charitable to the poor and legitimately caring about medical development. Doesn't excuse what he brought with him

Why? What do you have against educating women and developing the economy? Would you prefer that Iran remained a rural economy with low literacy rates and little modern infrastructure? Iran couldn't deal with the USSR and the West on a close to equal footing without developing itself and accepting some aspects of modern living. Japan did the same thing in the 19th century; other nations such as Vietnam and Qing China were slower to do so and reaped the consequences.

Yeah but the modern western liberal values were very harmful to be brought along with reforms like that. Leading to cultural decay in Iran that is actually still there with high infidelity rates and an emphasis on materialism prevalent.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

I'm saying that the Ayatollahs that opposed Khomeini's Guradianship of the Jurist and the Shah's anti-traditional approach to rule in favor of a traditional Shi'a Islamic Monarchy were better options for monarchists to support.

I never said I wanted Iran to be like the modern west. I would like Iran to be a strong and developed country under its traditional form of governance, the monarchy. The Shah's reign saw a great Renaissance in Iranian culture and identity, accompanied by improvements in the quality of life of his people. How could that be a bad thing?

Because it was fundamentally based in materialism, anti-traditionalism and anti Islamic rule.

Revolutionary Modernism in all but name and outward appearance, really.

[Roderia and the Nirubatu Isles]

The people of Iran overthrew their oppressive monarch and hopefully the people of Saudi Arabia will do the same.

Didn't they also smash up the American embassy and make it so that noone would ever trust Iran ever again...

That's not really an improvement.

Like, I'm Australian republic for lyf, but Iran isn't the best example of Republicanism.

[Arachno-Satinism]

I find the concept of unified Indonesian monarchy too alien and hardly worthy to be taken seriously. For other countries, sure, maybe, though generally I prefer republicanism out of principle.

[Socialist Tera]

How is monarchy determined if the ruling family is killed?

[Old Tyrannia]

How is monarchy determined if the ruling family is killed?

Killing off absolutely everyone with a traceable relation to the royal house would be very difficult. If it were to somehow happen- i.e., if there was no one left with a validated claim to the throne- there are a number of possibilities depending on the country and culture in question.

I find the concept of unified Indonesian monarchy too alien and hardly worthy to be taken seriously. For other countries, sure, maybe, though generally I prefer republicanism out of principle.

I would like to see Indonesia as a federation of indigenous monarchies like Malaysia. It would be nice for the Dutch monarch to remain paramount king or queen, but the Malaysian model could work just as well, with the position of supreme head of state rotated among the various Indonesian state rulers.

[Dagashi Shojo]

How is monarchy determined if the ruling family is killed?

Killing off absolutely everyone with a traceable relation to the royal house would be very difficult. If it were to somehow happen- i.e., if there was no one left with a validated claim to the throne- there are a number of possibilities depending on the country and culture in question.

Didn't a lot of countries without a royal family invite someone from another country over to be their monarch? Royals have a history of assimilating extremely well.

[Sjealand]

Killing off absolutely everyone with a traceable relation to the royal house would be very difficult. If it were to somehow happen- i.e., if there was no one left with a validated claim to the throne- there are a number of possibilities depending on the country and culture in question.

Didn't a lot of countries without a royal family invite someone from another country over to be their monarch? Royals have a history of assimilating extremely well.

Yea, a lot of countries asked princes from my country (Denmark) to be their monarchs because Denmark was small and neutral

[Old Tyrannia]

Killing off absolutely everyone with a traceable relation to the royal house would be very difficult. If it were to somehow happen- i.e., if there was no one left with a validated claim to the throne- there are a number of possibilities depending on the country and culture in question.

Didn't a lot of countries without a royal family invite someone from another country over to be their monarch? Royals have a history of assimilating extremely well.

That was common practice in the 19th century, when having a monarch who was related to the other great houses of Europe and therefore "part of the club" was important for newly independent states to establish themselves diplomatically and gain prestige and acceptance. It's a very valid way to go about things if the monarch comes from a relatively similar culture and is invited by the people of the nation to assume the throne. Even better if the monarch actually has some sort of tie to the country.

[Socialist Tera]

Killing off absolutely everyone with a traceable relation to the royal house would be very difficult. If it were to somehow happen- i.e., if there was no one left with a validated claim to the throne- there are a number of possibilities depending on the country and culture in question.

Didn't a lot of countries without a royal family invite someone from another country over to be their monarch? Royals have a history of assimilating extremely well.

Are you referring to the myth of King Rurik I?

[Dagashi Shojo]

Didn't a lot of countries without a royal family invite someone from another country over to be their monarch? Royals have a history of assimilating extremely well.

Are you referring to the myth of King Rurik I?

No, I'm referring to monarchies between 18 - 20th century Europe. The American, Irish, and Baltic states all considered asking German princes to come and be their kings for instance.

[Thama]

I like UK style monarchies. The Queen has more power than you think

Personally though if I was in charge of anything, I'd be an absolute monarch, sorry not sorry.

If Poland were to become a monarchy with the old nobility reinstated, I'd be a duke, so honestly I like the idea, but it's quite unrealistic.
Maybe we'd get our castle back at least, even though it's a bloody ruin. Goddamn Commies ruining my house!

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Killing off absolutely everyone with a traceable relation to the royal house would be very difficult. If it were to somehow happen- i.e., if there was no one left with a validated claim to the throne- there are a number of possibilities depending on the country and culture in question.

Didn't a lot of countries without a royal family invite someone from another country over to be their monarch? Royals have a history of assimilating extremely well.

They did. The one I remember most closely is the Hohenzollern candidacy for the vacant Spanish throne which contributed to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War.

[Nusaresa]

HIM Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was far from a colonial puppet. In fact the US quietly supported the revolution that overthrew him. The idea that he was a Western puppet is entirely a fabrication of the Islamists. Under the Shah, Iran modernised rapidly, becoming the Middle East's strongest economy and the foremost power in the region. He improved rights for women, greatly increased the literacy rate and invested massively in infrastructure. His rule was not some magical golden age, true; apart from the imperial government's "human rights violations", which paled by comparison to that of the ayatollahs, his "White Revolution" was often ill-planned and alienated traditionalists whilst also resulting in widespread unemployment for the newly educated young people for whom there simply weren't enough jobs available. His regime was also overly dependent on oil revenues, an issue hardly unique to Iran in the region. However his intentions were good and his authoritarian style of rule probably necessary in that time and place. As the Shah himself put it, "When Iranians learn to behave like Swedes, I will behave like the King of Sweden."

All in all, the Shah was vastly preferable to the current Iranian regime and your character assassination of him his manifestly unfair.

You're pro modernism? What?

I think his modernization of the country was a big part of why he was terrible. He did do good things I guess. So did Khomeini. That doesn't excuse everything else they pulled. I am, obviously enough, not one to sympathize with the crackdown on Islamists. But he suppressed far more people than just Islamists.
No side in that aside from the Ayatollahs that opposed both the Shah and Khomeini's new interpretation of Ithna'ashari philosophy, metaphysics and law, Strongly opposing Wilayat al Faqih (Which was up until fairly recently, most of them) post overthrow of the Shah was supportable from a reactionary Islamic perspective.
At least you have a balanced view of it and recognize the inarguably bad parts.

Why would you even want Iran to be like the modern west? That would make having a monarch meaningless.

You see, Iran wanted to somehow emulate the success of this mystical monarchy named Japan, which was in a way a bastion of modernization and tradition. However, the modernization Reza Shah tried to pursue was ultimately conflicting with pre-existing social norms and alienated a lot of the more traditional Iranians. I'd say the early stages (pre 70s crisis) much of the anti-Shah movement was 'secular' traditionalist, not the sort like the Khomeinism of the late 70s.

Needless to say, I remain anti-Shah and would have liked it if Mossadegh was never toppled in a coup by the British and Americans. Mossadegh would have been more cautious to the needs of the traditional Iranian society while pursuing what would one hope a form of more suitable modernization.

I would like to see Indonesia as a federation of indigenous monarchies like Malaysia. It would be nice for the Dutch monarch to remain paramount king or queen, but the Malaysian model could work just as well, with the position of supreme head of state rotated among the various Indonesian state rulers.

[Negaraku and Malaysian Federation Intensifies]

[Implacable Death]

Didn't a lot of countries without a royal family invite someone from another country over to be their monarch? Royals have a history of assimilating extremely well.

They did. The one I remember most closely is the Hohenzollern candidacy for the vacant Spanish throne which contributed to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War.

Or how the Dutch king William III became the British king. It's interesting, you know. How closely linked all the royal houses were, which you would think would be advantageous in avoiding war, but in the end it usually ended up mattering nothing at all whatsoever.

[Sarcasteak]

Being in a monarchy-based country in S.E Asia, I have to say that I hate the monarchy. I view them as a useless puppet, siphoning people's money by simply doing nothing.

[New Communist and Socialist Unions]

Holy Roman Empire Style, with communism thrown into the mixture.

We have Tanistry succession so anyone that will get elected will be a member of our dynasty, although bastards might get elected... So yeah, Celtic succession...

[Old Tyrannia]

Holy Roman Empire Style, with communism thrown into the mixture.

We have Tanistry succession so anyone that will get elected will be a member of our dynasty, although bastards might get elected... So yeah, Celtic succession...

General is an out of character forum, for the discussion of real-life views, not your NS nation.