Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 11     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I wasn't talking about Salic Law. I don't think getting rid of Salic Law will usually be that damaging, though neither will keeping it, unless there's a pressing need, as there is in some cases we have discussed in this thread. I'd be wary of talking about royal succession or even royal palaces, castles, and land as simply private property.

Peter claims, that the head of a non-reigning royal dynasty isn't entitled to change the law of succession to the throne, but the head of a non-reigning royal dynasty is allowed to make his daughter the heir to his private property, regardless of whether he is allowed to change the law of succession to the throne. Savarsin Castle and Peles Castle were legally the private property of King Mihai. 
Opposing the decision of Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, to introduce female succession to the Italian throne will do damage to Italian monarchism, because it will make monarchism appear to be anti-feminist to the Italians, but not advocating introduction of female succession to the Italian throne wouldn't have done damage to Italian monarchism, if Vittorio Emanuele hadn't introduced female succession to the Italian throne.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #62 
It might appear to be anti-feminist, but it might not, it will really depend on how it's framed in the public consciousness, should it ever be so. As the current heir is a cousin of the current King, it isn't like the latter's daughter is being passed over for some obscure, perhaps not even Italian alternative. Whilst I recognise that sometimes it must be done, if possible I would always like changes in succession to be more than a monarch, whether reigning or not, personal decision.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
It might appear to be anti-feminist, but it might not, it will really depend on how it's framed in the public consciousness, should it ever be so. As the current heir is a cousin of the current King, it isn't like the latter's daughter is being passed over for some obscure, perhaps not even Italian alternative. Whilst I recognise that sometimes it must be done, if possible I would always like changes in succession to be more than a monarch, whether reigning or not, personal decision.

I admit that Italy isn't comparable to Romania, because Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern, who is the heir to the Romanian throne according to Salic law, is a German with no ties to Romania, and he doesn't want to become King of Romania.
I support introduction of female succession to the Iranian throne, because Reza Pahlavi is very popular among the Iranians, while most Iranians don't care about Patrick Ali Pahlavi, the heir presumptive to the Iranian throne. In addition, the claim of Patrick Ali Pahlavi to the Iranian throne is dubious, because his mother isn't an Iranian. According to the old law of succession to the Iranian throne, the heir to the Iranian throne must be the son of an Iranian mother and he must not be descended from the Qajar dynasty.
I want absolute primogeniture to be introduced in Spain before Leonor, Princess of Asturias marries, because I don't want the son of Leonor to be displaced in the line of succession by his older sister.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 449
Reply with quote  #64 
Offhand, although I'm not absolutely certain,  the only instance I can think of when an heir-apparent was displaced in the line of succession was when, on Jan. 1, 1980, Sweden became the first nation to introduce absolute primogeniture, and the heir-apparent, Prince Carl Philip (only a few months old), was replaced by his elder sister, who is now Crown Princess Victoria. That was because the absolute  primogeniture law was made retroactive.  I can't think of any other instances when an heir-apparent was displaced due to a change in the laws of succession.
__________________
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."
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #65 
Italy is the only European monarchy, which has been abolished, because the majority of the population voted in favour of abolishing the monarchy in a free and fair referendum. I don't care about restoring the Italian monarchy, because the Italian monarchy was replaced by a democratic republic, unlike the Russian and Iranian monarchies. But I'm not opposed to restoration of the Italian monarchy. I will endorse restoration of the Italian monarchy, if a referendum on restoring the Italian monarchy is held. 
The Italian Republic committed terrible injustices to the Savoias after the abolition of the Italian monarchy. Exiling all male descendants of the Savoia dynasty was utterly wrong, and expropriating the private property of the Savoias was wrong. The Savoias were fortunately allowed to return to Italy in 2002, but the Italian Republic refuses to return the seized private property of the Savoias. The Italian Republic ought to return seized private property to the Savoias. The Hohenzollerns have been treated far better by the German republic than the Savoias have been treated by the Italian Republic. The Hohenzollerns were allowed to keep their private property in Germany after the abolition of the German monarchy, and Crown Prince Wilhelm was allowed to return to Germany in 1923.
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 157
Reply with quote  #66 
But the Italian referendum from 1946 wasn't the only free and fair one in which the majority of the population voted in favour of abolishing the monarchy. What about the Bulgarian one from the same year? It was so fair, that a second referendum was considered in the early 1990s only by Simeon II himself. [rolleyes]

So by your logic, I shouldn't care about the Bulgarian monarchy, because I now live in democracy? Wrong.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #67 
Interestingly, the Italian referendum was very much split between north and south. Southern Italy voted to retain the monarchy.

Anyway, yes, the language is rather strange. I don't say that a monarchist has to believe monarchy is universally the best or only valid for of government, but surely they should think it generally a good idea. I don't see why a referendum should matter. Not in the sense that referenda should simply be ignored, but that its results not be regarded as final. I'm not a democrat, but I can certainly appreciate the idea that a referendum should be honoured and implemented, but a referendum is not a final and irrevocable decision. After sufficient time - and nearly seventy-five years seems long enough - under the right circumstances, it may be held again, or some mechanism other used, and monarchists can hope to win next time.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon
But the Italian referendum from 1946 wasn't the only free and fair one in which the majority of the population voted in favour of abolishing the monarchy. What about the Bulgarian one from the same year? It was so fair, that a second referendum was considered in the early 1990s only by Simeon II himself. [rolleyes]

So by your logic, I shouldn't care about the Bulgarian monarchy, because I now live in democracy? Wrong.

The Bulgarian referendum on abolishing the monarchy in 1946 was rigged by the Communists, while the Italian referendum on abolishing the monarchy in 1946 was free and fair. In addition, caring about restoring your own monarchy is different from a foreigner caring about restoring the Italian monarchy. I support electing an Osmanoglu Shah of Kurdistan, despite it being even less likely to happen than a restoration of the Italian monarchy. I prefer Kurdistan being a republic to the Shah of Kurdistan not being an Osmanoglu. 
I don't care about restoring the Hohenzollern monarchy of Germany, because Liechtenstein is a current German-speaking monarchy. But I support amending the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany in order to allow the Länder of Germany to restore their monarchies.

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Interestingly, the Italian referendum was very much split between north and south. Southern Italy voted to retain the monarchy.

Anyway, yes, the language is rather strange. I don't say that a monarchist has to believe monarchy is universally the best or only valid for of government, but surely they should think it generally a good idea. I don't see why a referendum should matter. Not in the sense that referenda should simply be ignored, but that its results not be regarded as final. I'm not a democrat, but I can certainly appreciate the idea that a referendum should be honoured and implemented, but a referendum is not a final and irrevocable decision. After sufficient time - and nearly seventy-five years seems long enough - under the right circumstances, it may be held again, or some mechanism other used, and monarchists can hope to win next time.

I consider a republic to be a legitimate form of government, because I support popular sovereignty. Supporting popular sovereignty isn't incompatible with being a monarchist, because a hereditary figurehead monarchy is compatible with democracy.  The people is entitled to abolish the monarchy by a referendum, and the people is entitled to choose the new king from among the descendants of the formerly reigning dynasty without regard to the old law of succession, if the monarchy is restored.
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 157
Reply with quote  #70 
If we have a look at the world, we will see that practically all (or almost all) societies believe in some concept of monarchy, even if they don't call it that way or even if it's not hereditary. This should mean that monarchy is for all intents and purposes universal.

Some republics could be considered legitimate, though. A prime example is the Republic of San Marino. It is very old and was originally part of a de jure republic. Its government appears to be efficient.

The Italian Republic is democratic, that's true. It was born after a referendum, which had been officially initiated by the King himself to see if his subjects were still loyal to him after his father had tolerated and supported a fascist regime for twenty years. A wrong move, in my opinion. 

Two successive monarchs make a mistake and the monarchy is abolished. What happens when two successive presidents make a mistake? The hipocrisy is easily apparent.

This reminds me of the so-called "monarcho-fascism", about which Bulgarian children were taught at school during Socialism. Incidentally, a referendum cannot bring the Bulgarian monarchy back, only a Grand National Assembly can. Democracy works in strange ways, does it not?
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon
If we have a look at the world, we will see that practically all (or almost all) societies believe in some concept of monarchy, even if they don't call it that way or even if it's not hereditary. This should mean that monarchy is for all intents and purposes universal.

Some republics could be considered legitimate, though. A prime example is the Republic of San Marino. It is very old and was originally part of a de jure republic. Its government appears to be efficient.

The Italian Republic is democratic, that's true. It was born after a referendum, which had been officially initiated by the King himself to see if his subjects were still loyal to him after his father had tolerated and supported a fascist regime for twenty years. A wrong move, in my opinion. 

Two successive monarchs make a mistake and the monarchy is abolished. What happens when two successive presidents make a mistake? The hipocrisy is easily apparent.

This reminds me of the so-called "monarcho-fascism", about which Bulgarian children were taught at school during Socialism. Incidentally, a referendum cannot bring the Bulgarian monarchy back, only a Grand National Assembly can. Democracy works in strange ways, does it not?

Claiming that I'm not a monarchist is wrong. I support keeping the current monarchies, I support restoring the Russian and Iranian monarchies and I support electing an Osmanoglu Shah of Kurdistan. But restoring other royal dynasties than the Romanovs, the Osmanoglus and the Pahlavis to the throne isn't very important to me. The Romanovs, the Osmanoglus and the Pahlavis are my favourite non-reigning royal dynasties.
I would like Emanuele Filiberto to be elected King of Italy. But it's far less important to me than restoring the Romanovs, the Osmanoglus and the Pahlavis.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,827
Reply with quote  #72 
I certainly acknowledge that a republic is legitimate, in the sense that loyalty and obedience can be rightfully owed to it. But I think monarchists in general naturally think monarchy is usually preferable. But, yes, obviously, they don't have to be worked up about particular foreign countries. I too am not invested especially in what happens in Italy (or Kurdistan!).
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I certainly acknowledge that a republic is legitimate, in the sense that loyalty and obedience can be rightfully owed to it. But I think monarchists in general naturally think monarchy is usually preferable. But, yes, obviously, they don't have to be worked up about particular foreign countries. I too am not invested especially in what happens in Italy (or Kurdistan!).

I'm usually not opposed to restoring formerly reigning royal dynasties to the throne, but restoring the monarchy makes far more sense to me, when the monarchy was replaced by a totalitarian regime, as in Russia and in Iran, than when the monarchy was replaced by a democratic republic, as in Italy. Restoring the Russian monarchy makes sense to me, because it will be a symbolic rejection of the Bolshevik Revolution and it will connect present-day Russia to its pre-revolutionary past. 

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #74 
I support restoring the Petrine law of succession to the Russian throne, if the Russian monarchy is restored. The Tsar shall be allowed to choose his successor from among the Romanovs with the consent of the State Duma and the Federation Council. The Tsar shall be allowed to choose a female Romanov as his successor.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,334
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
The Bulgarian referendum on abolishing the monarchy in 1946 was rigged by the Communists, while the Italian referendum on abolishing the monarchy in 1946 was free and fair


That is completely wrong.  The Italian referendum was the opposite of free and fair.  Just because it was conducted under the aegis of the West does not mean it was fair or free.  The Allies had determined that someone needed to be punished for Italy's role in World War II.  However, unlike Germany and Japan where war crimes trials had occurred and the leading officials of the fallen regimes executed or given lengthy prison sentences, the Allies decided they could not afford to punish Italian Fascists.  The Fascists had committed horrendous war crimes in Ethiopia and Libya, including mass murder, chemical warfare, torture, etc.  Just in Ethiopia, the massacres of thousands in February 1937 in Addis Ababa and it's surroundings, the mass killing of all the monks and pilgrims at the Debre Libanos Monastery, the firebombing of the cave in northern Shewa where hundreds of civilians had gone to hide from air bombardment, the public execution of two Orthodox Bishops, the execution of two of the Emperor's sons-in-law, the execution of the three eldest sons of the head of the senior cadet line of the Imperial Dynasty, the execution of the heir of the old Zagwe dynasty, are just atrocities in the first year of Ethiopian occupation.  The use of mustard gas and other chemical agents prohibited by the Geneva Convention during the war was another.  However, the Italian communist party was increasingly ascendant in Italy, and the allies feared that without the Fascists, they would never be able to keep them at bay.  So it was determined that they would not hold any Fascist war crimes trials, and would instead punish only the House of Savoy by rigging the referendum, and expelling the king and male dynasts from the country permanently. War criminals like Marshals Badoglio and Graziani the butcher were consulted and drafted to help set up the opposition to Italian communism, including the setting up of the Christian Democratic party.  They were protected and coddled.  African victims were discounted and no justice or compensation was ever rendered.  It is ironic that the Italian royals should suffer punishment for the fascists when the elder line Savoys had always had disdain for Mussolini.  Nothing about that referendum was fair, just, or free.

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.