The rapid decline of monarchy

[chickenfeet]

Have you ever thought about how rapidly monarchy has gone out of fashion? Only a hundred years ago it was still considered a viable constitutional option for newly independent nations. Norway in 1905 is a nice example. Now, the only monarchies are those that have been around for a while and most of them are fairly shaky. It's pretty hard to find any country since 1918 that has voluntarily become a monarchy. Jordan and Iraq had kings thrust upon them by the British. Spain reinstalled its monarchy but in rather exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, out of all of the countries that have come into being as a result of the break up of assorted empires I can only think of one (Swaziland) that has chosen to become a monarchy. Given that monarchy was well nigh universal for a thousand years or more that's pretty remarkable.

Comments

[misia.livejournal.com]

Odd that you mention this today. I was just writing about it last night, in an e-mail to a doctoral student whose dissertation I'm outside-advising -- we were talking specifically about Turkey, and the tension that still exists between pre-Ataturk and post-Ataturk culture, but the subject of the discarding of monarchy as a viable governmental structure was in there as well.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the Spanish definitely redeem that rather sorry lot. I remember Juan Carlos on TV killing off the Tejero golpe in 1981; it wasn't half bad.

[lemur-man.livejournal.com]

Do emirates emerging from protectorateship count?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

No, because they were emirates before.

[lemur-man.livejournal.com]

Good point.

The only other ones that come to mind have been either re-instituted (Cambodia), predated the colonial era (Lesotho) or are in a grey area because they were elected in some form (Malaysia's revolving 'supreme head' system).

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

When I lived in Brussels - and since - it always amused me that after Belgium had been created, they decided to invent a king to go with it.

Along similar lines, a colleague of mine was on assignment once in Brussels, and being a football (soccer!) fan, he decided to go along to 3rd team international. Once there, to enliven a boring match, he invented the football chant of "buffer state bastards!" Well that's his story - and it made me laugh...

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

There was actually something about this on the radio today - there is alot of coverage of the Queen's eightieth birthday (tomorrow, I think).

Thing is, if we didn't have a monarchy, I really wouldn't have thought it would be useful. But since we do have it, why bother to replace it?

At least it saves us from more "presidential" politicians. (Although Eire seems to do pretty well with its presidents, it has to be said.)

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

At least it saves us from more "presidential" politicians

Until you need one and you discover that the monarchy's constitutional credibility is actually nil.

[geneticallydead.livejournal.com]

My initial thought was that the fall of monarchies from favour could be related to the rise of secular societies, because of the traditional relationship between the monarch and god/s. And that democratic societies require the seperation of church and state, which is not always the case in a monarchy.

But then I thought about America and that theory didn't pan out.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

or Poland or Indonesia etc

[piratehead.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the influential zealots in America resemble the regicides of Civil War England far more than the stately priests of a royal court.

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

the whole point of monarchy is that it is not a fashion, and that it is the option nations retain in preference to having to choose an corrupt, inadequate has been politician as President.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

When one looks at the recent history of countries like the Netherlands one sees that monarchy is no guarantee against corrupt has beens.

[gillo]

There's Mad Emperor Bokassa, I suppose. Not that his people had any real choice. In some ways the astonishing thing is the survival of so many monarchies in the face of pretty much united superpower opposition to them. It's hard to imagine America nodding benignly while a constitutional monarchy is installed.

Isn't there a King of Morocco too? Presumably that was a choice when the French left North Africa, even if the dynasty was already in place. That's the impression I get from Wikipedia, anyway. They installed monarchies in Albania and Yugoslavia after WW1, didn't they?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think Morocco was a protectorate (not sure). Albania was a monarchy before WW1 but had trouble sorting itself out. Yugoslavia was a product of the Versailles Treaty (ok Petit Trianon if we are being technical). Serbia had been a monarchy before the war. The other bits of Jug had been parts of either the A-H or Ottoman empires.

[gillo]

It looks as if Morocco was a protectorate, yes, but it also seems that the French attempt to replace the king and remove the monarchy was a major trigger for independence, so arguably the monarchy was chosen by the people.

Not that I'm really arguing with you, though. The disappearance of monarchy as a valid option for new states has been rapid. I think a lot of it is down to the dominance of the US.

"America was now Top Nation and history came to a ."