Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bator
you could also have your own dynasty from barzinji or how his name is spelled...

Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji tried to establish a Kingdom of Kurdistan in the early 1920's, but he failed to establish a lasting kingdom. He sadly didn't manage to unite the Kurdish tribes, and he was defeated by Great Britain in 1924. I consider the Osmanoglus the legitimate royal dynasty of Kurdistan, because they were the last dynasty, to which the Kurds were loyal.
Today, Ottoman loyalism has disappeared in Kurdistan, and the Kurdish people unanimously wants a sovereign Republic of Kurdistan. But the Kurds aren't ideological anti-monarchists unlike the Americans and the French. Most Kurds consider monarchy foreign rather than wrong. The Kurds are very similar to the Irishmen concerning monarchism. Most Kurds admire the pre-Islamic Iranic empires, especially the Median Empire (the Medes were a Kurdish tribe) and King Keykhosrow (Cyaxares), the founder of the Median Empire, and most Kurds admire Saladin, who was a Kurd. The Irishmen admire the High Kings of Ireland, especially Brian Boru, but most Irishmen hate the Windsors, and most Kurds hate the Iraqi Hashemites. Ottoman nostalgia is insignificant among Kurds today, because of the strained relations between Kurdistan and Turkey. But the Ottomans were certainly preferable to the Hashemites from a Kurdish point of view, just as King James II & VII was preferable to King William III from an Irish point of view.
I would like the elected head of state of Kurdistan to use the title Shah, in order to uphold Iranic tradition. The head of state of Kurdistan using the title Shah will link modern Kurdistan to the pre-Islamic Iranic empires.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #17 
Outside of the 1914 borders of the Ottoman Empire, I support electing an Osmanoglu King of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because the Bosniaks were loyal to the Ottoman Sultans, and Bosnia lacks a native royal dynasty. If Prince Leka Zogu dies childless, I will support electing an Osmanoglu King of Albania, because Leka Zogu is the last living descendant of King Zog (but Leka Zogu dying childless will realistically be the death of Albanian monarchism too).
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 426
Reply with quote  #18 
Actually, though, I think that there are present-day surviving cognatic descendants of the old royal Kotromanic dynasty of Bosnia. I think that the Cilli (Celje) noble family of Slovenia had a female-line descent from the Kotromanics, and descendants of the Celjes spread throughout European royalty and nobility. The Kotromanics were a native Slavic Bosnian royal family. The present-day population of Bosnia, although divided between Orthodox, Catholic, and Moslem, is nevertheless mainly composed of Slavs (Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats), and a native dynasty of Slavic descent might be more appealing to them than a Turkish one.

I think that it's going a bit too far to say that most Irishmen "hate" the Windsors. I think that most of them are secretly quite fond of the present-day Windsors, though they surely won't publicly admit that. They did, however, hate the concept of the "Crown" government, and that is a legacy of the Famine, the clearances and evictions, and the deportations. It's one of the sad results of Ireland's troubled history.

__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #19 
The Emperor Sigismund's second wife was a Celje, and descent from the couple is universal in present-day European royalty. And you are right about the Kotromanic lineage, though the exact details of it are slightly obscure. But we are talking the 15th century here, and first half at that; it's a pretty remote trace, however multiple. My concern would be more about the Herzegovinan reaction to a Turkish, Muslim sovereign. Not good, I fear.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windemere
Actually, though, I think that there are present-day surviving cognatic descendants of the old royal Kotromanic dynasty of Bosnia. I think that the Celle (Celje) noble family of Slovenia had a female-line descent from the Kotromanics, and descendants of the Celles spread throughout European royalty and nobility. The Kotromanics were a native Slavic Bosnian royal family. The present-day population of Bosnia, although divided between Orthodox, Catholic, and Moslem, is nevertheless mainly composed of Slavs (Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats), and a native dynasty of Slavic descent might be more appealing to them than a Turkish one.

I think that it's going a bit too far to say that most Irishmen "hate" the Windsors. I think that most of them are secretly quite fond of the present-day Windsors, though they surely won't publicly admit that. They did, however, hate the concept of the "Crown" government, and that is a legacy of the Famine, the clearances and evictions, and the deportations. It's one of the sad results of Ireland's troubled history.

I admit, that speaking about the Irishmen hating the Windsors may be exaggerated. What I mean is, that the Irishmen hate Windsor rule in Ireland. Most Kurds don't hate the Iraqi Hashemites, but they don't have fond memories of the Hashemite kings of Iraq, because they oppressed us. King Faisal I of Iraq, the first King of Iraq, is remembered as a brutal oppressor of the Kurds. King Faisal II of Iraq, the last King of Iraq, was a decent young man, but he wasn't able to get rid of Crown Prince Abd al-Ilah and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, who were hated by both Kurds and Arab Iraqis for being lackeys of Western imperialism, especially British imperialism. Nuri al-Said supported Great Britain against Nasser in the Suez Crisis.
Most Kurds welcomed the overthrow of the Iraqi monarchy in 1958, because Abd al-Karim Qasim, the leader of the republican revolution in Iraq, was of partial Kurdish descent and he granted the Kurds increased linguistic rights and rejected pan-Arabism in favour of Iraqi nationalism. The relations between the Kurds and Abd al-Karim Qasim deteriorated, when he denied South Kurdistan autonomy in 1961. Abd al-Karim Qasim was overthrown and killed by Arab nationalists in 1963.
Hatred of the Iraqi Hashemites isn't very strong among Kurds today, because their crimes pale in comparison with the crimes of Saddam.
Monarchism is non-existent among Kurds today, and I'm content with Kurdistan being a republic, but I want the elected head of state of Kurdistan to be titled Shah in order to emphasize the Iranic heritage of Kurdistan.
My priorities concerning monarchism are defending existing monarchies, especially the Spanish monarchy, which is the most vulnerable current European monarchy, and supporting the restoration of the Russian and Iranian monarchies. A significant monarchist current exists in Russia, and Reza Pahlavi enjoy widespread support among Iranians. In addition, I support amending the Basic Law of Germany in order to allow the Länder of Germany to restore their monarchies.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The Emperor Sigismund's second wife was a Celje, and descent from the couple is universal in present-day European royalty. And you are right about the Kotromanic lineage, though the exact details of it are slightly obscure. But we are talking the 15th century here, and first half at that; it's a pretty remote trace, however multiple. My concern would be more about the Herzegovinan reaction to a Turkish, Muslim sovereign. Not good, I fear.

Which Herzegovinians are you speaking about? Do you mean the Bosnian Serbs? I personally support partition of Bosnia. Republika Srpska ought to join Serbia, while the rest of Bosnia-Herzegovina ought to remain independent.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #22 
I referred to the Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which latter political entity (including the Republika Srspka) is the one mentioned in your #17 introducing the topic. I have no opinion on which bits of Bosnia-Herzevogina should go where, or whether any of them should go anywhere. Nor do I plan to form such opinions, surely these questions are a matter solely for the inhabitants themselves to decide.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I referred to the Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which latter political entity (including the Republika Srspka) is the one mentioned in your #17 introducing the topic. I have no opinion on which bits of Bosnia-Herzevogina should go where, or whether any of them should go anywhere. Nor do I plan to form such opinions, surely these questions are a matter solely for the inhabitants themselves to decide.

I agree, that partition of Bosnia is a matter solely for the inhabitants themselves to decide. Most Bosnian Serbs wants unification with Serbia, but USA and EU prevents Serb secession from Bosnia.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #24 
The Kurdish Sheikh Said rebellion of 1925 in Turkey was the last attempt to restore the Ottoman monarchy. When the ethnic Turks had abandoned and exiled the Osmanoglus, the Kurds remained loyal to the Osmanoglus.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #25 
Most Western monarchists prefer the Hashemites to the Osmanoglus because of Lawrence of Arabia, the Turkish conquest of Istanbul of 1453, the Gates of Vienna and the Armenian Genocide (but the Ottoman Sultan was reduced to a figurehead, when the Armenian Genocide took place). But it is possible to support both the Hashemites and the Osmanoglus. You can support Osmanoglu restorations in Turkey and Kurdistan, while supporting the continued existence of the Hashemite monarchy of Jordan and supporting Hashemite restorations in Iraq and Syria. 
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #26 
Westerners disliking the Osmanoglus because of the Armenian Genocide is hugely unfair, because the Ottoman Sultan was a figurehead, when the Armenian Genocide took place. The culprits of the Armenian Genocide were the Committee of Union and Progress, a dictatorship, whose leaders were the Three Pashas (Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha). Blaming Sultan Mehmed V for the Armenian genocide is similar to blaming Emperor Hirohito for Japanese war crimes. I'm sick and tired of the widespread anti-Ottomanism on this forum. The Osmanoglus are one of the 7 greatest dynasties of the world (the others being the Windsors, the Borbons, the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, the Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia and the Japanese imperial dynasty). 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #27 
I can't recall anything particular being said here about the Ottomans for quite a long time, this thread aside of course. So I am not sure what you found to be sick of. Here's something that should send your blood pressure up, though, albeit it is pretty old. If writing today I would actually moderate some of the things I said, and in particular acknowledge that the Sultan was powerless at the time of the Armenian Genocide and bore no direct responsibility for it. But my feelings about the dynasty and the Ottoman Empire in general are still mainly negative, and I make no apology for this. You of course are entitled to your own opinion.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I can't recall anything particular being said here about the Ottomans for quite a long time, this thread aside of course. So I am not sure what you found to be sick of. Here's something that should send your blood pressure up, though, albeit it is pretty old. If writing today I would actually moderate some of the things I said, and in particular acknowledge that the Sultan was powerless at the time of the Armenian Genocide and bore no direct responsibility for it. But my feelings about the dynasty and the Ottoman Empire in general are still mainly negative, and I make no apology for this. You of course are entitled to your own opinion.

Are you opposed to an Osmanoglu restoration in Kurdistan (which is extremely unlikely to happen)? Byzantophile and pro-Hashemite Western monarchists opposing an Osmanoglu restoration in Kurdistan is unacceptable to me. Kurdistan was never part of the Byzantine Empire, and most Kurds dislike the Hashemites, especially King Faisal I of Iraq, who oppressed us. The Kurds were loyal to the Ottoman sultans, but the Kurds were NEVER loyal to the Hashemite kings of Iraq.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #29 
I'd be happy to see a new monarchy on the scene, and it being an Ottoman on the throne wouldn't make me opposed instead. Won't happen though, as you say. I just hope that whatever does improves the lot of the Kurdish people generally and gives them security for the future.
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 78
Reply with quote  #30 
Azadi, may I sincerely ask you how do you think the House of Osman (the Osmanoglu family) and the Ottoman Empire contributed to the general culture and development of your region/land?

As far as I gather, your ancestors were Christians, men and women who were treated like second-rate people until quite late in the Empire's existence. Am I right, at least about the former?

Still, I would also be happy about a brand new monarchy appearing in that part of Asia - but what about your ruler's religion, because aren't most Kurds Muslim?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.