Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #1 
A lot of internet monarchists are Legitimists, who support succession to the thrones of former
monarchies following the old lines of succession. I'm a populist monarchist, who supports the descendant of the old royal dynasty with most popular support being elected king. I support allowing heirs to the throne marrying non-royals, and I support daughters of the king being placed ahead of brothers of the king in the line of succession. Some versions of Legitimism is practical republicanism, like present-day Jacobitism, present-day Carlism, support for the Kadjar (Qajar) dynasty in Iran and opposition to King Mihai's decision to introduce female succession to the Romanian throne. Kirillism (support for Grand Princess Maria Vladimirovna as the de-jure Tsaritsa of Russia) will become practical republicanism, if a Zemskiy Sobor elects a different person Tsar of Russia. Russian monarchists ought to be Soborniks (supporters of a Zemskiy Sobor choosing a new Tsar of Russia (I want eligibility to be restricted to descendants of Rurik, including female-line descendants of Rurik), Iranian monarchists ought to support Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who is very popular among Iranians, and Romanian monarchists ought to support Nicolae, the grandson of King Mihai, who is quite popular in Romania. British monarchists obviously ought to support Queen Elizabeth, and Spanish monarchists obviously ought to support King Felipe.


BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #2 

Part of the beauty of the Monarchy is that what I 'want' is irrelevant. 

 

God Save the Queen!


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

Part of the beauty of the Monarchy is that what I 'want' is irrelevant. 

 

God Save the Queen!


I agree with you concerning current monarchies. But concerning restoration of monarchies, I disagree with you. Shackling the monarchist cause to an unpopular pretender will ensure the continuation of the republic. Claiming, that Maria Vladimirovna is the only legitimate Tsaritsa of Russia is a bad idea. I want a Zemskiy Sobor to be allowed to elect any descendant of Rurik Tsar of Russia. If the Zemskiy Sobor prefers another Romanov to Maria Vladimirovna, a monarchist ought to accept that. Otherwise you becomes a practical republican, as modern-day Jacobites and Carlists are. On other forums, I have seen people oppose King Mihai's decision to introduce female succession to the throne of Romania, despite the fact, that the male-line Hohenzollern heirs to the Romanian throne have no connection to Romania and don't even pursue the Romanian throne. Some people claim, that the Pahlavis are usurpers of the Iranian throne, and ignores the great achievements of the Pahlavi Shahs and the current massive popularity of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. That's practical republicanism.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #4 

A favour restoration of monarchies, creation of a new monarchy from whole cloth is a more difficult task.  

 

In lands that have never had a Sovereign, or where election of high chieftains was tradition, by all means have at the attempt to create a new monarchy.  When there is a rightful heir, especially when that heir is unquestioned, to prompt some other usurper is not monarchy, but rather it is romance decked in nostalgia. 


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 370
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers

A favour restoration of monarchies, creation of a new monarchy from whole cloth is a more difficult task.  

 

In lands that have never had a Sovereign, or where election of high chieftains was tradition, by all means have at the attempt to create a new monarchy.  When there is a rightful heir, especially when that heir is unquestioned, to prompt some other usurper is not monarchy, but rather it is romance decked in nostalgia. 


I don't support usurpers. I support the people being allowed to choose their king among the members of the old royal dynasty in the event of a restoration. Commoners and even nobles must not be eligible to be elected king of a restored monarchy. In current monarchies, I don't support the people being allowed to choose their king. Prince Charles ought to become King of England and Scotland in spite of the fact, that many Britons prefer Prince William to Prince Charles.
According to Russian tradition, a Zemskiy Sobor must elect a new Tsar, when the Russian throne is vacant. The first Romanov Tsar was elected by a Zemskiy Sobor. Monarchists ought to propose no specific candidate for Tsar or Tsaritsa or Russia. Monarchists ought to support the convocation of a Zemskiy Sobor, who must elect a descendant of Rurik Tsar of Russia. To me, any descendant of Rurik, the Viking chieftain who founded the Russian state, is a legitimate Tsar of Russia.
Concerning Romania, supporting the family of late King Mihai is the only plausible option for restoring the Romanian monarchy. The male-line Hohenzollerns have no connection to Romania, and the Romanian people will definitely prefer a daughter or grandchild of their beloved King Mihai to a German royal, who is unknown in Romania.
Concerning Iran, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi enjoys massive popularity, while no significant support for a Qajar restoration exists in Iran.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.