The first to go was the Portuguese overthrown in 1910. The Qing Empire (of China) was overthrown in 1912, though Puyi was restored in Japanese Manchukuo from 1934 to 1945. The Russian monarchy was famously overthrown in 1917 which directly inspired events in Germany a year later in November 1918. Austria-Hungary ceased to exist earlier in 1918 and the Hungarian throne was vacant until overthrown in 1944. The Ottoman Sultanate was abolished in 1922. The Hellenic (Greek) monarchy was abolished in 1924, restored in 1935, vacated in 1947 and abolished again in 1967. Serbia had become Yugoslavia in 1918 and the monarchy was exiled in 1941 then formally abolished in 1944. Romania and Bulgaria were overthrown under Soviet hegemony in 1947 and 1946 respectively. The Italian monarchy was abolished in 1946. Japan and Thailand remain, while the Spanish crown was vacated in 1931 and only restored in 1978. The other survivors are stable and quite geographically restricted, almost forming an arc: Britain (minus Ireland, 1921), Belgium (not depicted above, probably because Leopold II wasn't welcome in the club at the time), The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.
Residing as I do in a country where I am still technically a subject rather than a citizen, I really must ask if genetic lineage is really a legitimate basis for a government in the 21st century. I keep hearing the current monarch's (Elizabeth II) popularity founded on the basis that 'she does a good job'. Though in what way could she not be replaced by any other octogenarian woman? It's not as if you need to understand constitutional law since the monarchy has been stripped of power for a very long time which means there is essentially no check on the power of parliament (see every Queen's speech). If parliament is in fact kept in check by the mandate of the ballot box, then why is Royalty living like royalty? It seems bizarre if anything that a child should be born into fantastic wealth and luxury, and even if that is offset by the responsibilities of being a heir and ascending to the throne, what kind of life is that to be forced on a person? The reason children fantasise about being kings and princesses is precisely because it is a fantasy. It's unlikely your daughter is going to enjoy being married off to someone living on the other side of Europe and learning a new language.
If the monarch is so popular then there is no reason why they should not be selected by vote. It's called a presidency; and although many immediately think of power of the American system, most presidents are ceremonial exactly like the Queen. If the legitimacy of the monarchy is based purely on descent or 'blood-lines' (and that is the only basis), then it logically follows that the most royal blood must make the best royal. Unfortunately history utterly destroys that argument in the form of Charles II of Spain - El Hechizado (the bewitched). He was extremely royal, or to use the technical term - inbred. All eight of his great-grandparents were related. His aunt was also his grandmother, and his other grandmother was also his great-grandmother. There was madness in his family tree, and indeed to look at his family tree is to know madness. So royal was he that he was unable to fulfil his duties even in adulthood and fired blanks exclusively. I'm frankly amazed a marriage was secured (show your daughter his portrait) and when he died aged 38 without producing any children, Spain was consumed in a war of succession. Yes, best king ever.
So maybe dynastic purity isn't all there is to it. Still, it's pot luck who you get. Elizabeth II has had great longevity and probably could have achieved the same through a presidential system, assuming in an alternate universe she'd even decide to pursue that. The talents and qualities desired in a ruler cannot be innate. They must be the result of education and training, which just proves you could pick anyone and put them through that regimen without them having a regal background. Either the training failed, in the cases of Wilhelm II and Nikolai II, or you just get someone who isn't a very good monarch like Edward VIII. Stuck with them, you can either hope they abdicate or die of natural causes to make way for an heir or go about overthrowing them entirely, because you can't vote them out. Everyone raises the spectre of a President Blair, but you could always vote him out just as you could have voted him out in those two subsequent elections he was Prime Minister. But of course, finding someone who (indirectly by dint of the Westminster system) voted for Blair is like the opposite of finding alleged Woodstock attendees.
On account of not being immortal, Elizabeth II is unlikely to complete any more than a further two decades of her reign. If we're lucky we'll have a short reign of Prince Charles (in the same pattern as Victoria's heir after so long in waiting), but deep into the 21st century are we really going to be singing God Save The King to William or George? Most polls show support for the monarchy is in fact personal support for the Queen and is unlikely to extend to the next generations on an institutional level. In the above list of former monarchies you can see two clusters of abolition/deposition, both major turning points in history - the First World War, and the Second World War. It wasn't the war that overthrew them, but social change. Who knows what waves of change this century will bring.
[1008]
No comments:
Post a Comment