Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 11     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist


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.

Monarchists ought to condemn monarchies being abolished without a referendum rather than being sore losers, when the majority of the people votes in favour of abolishing the monarchy in a referendum. Most former European monarchies were abolished without a referendum. No evidence of the referendum on abolishing the Italian monarchy being rigged exists. Exiling the male Savoias from Italy was indeed unfair, but the male Savoias were fortunately allowed to return to Italy in 2002.
I'm not defending Italian fascism. Mussolini's racial laws were wrong, and the Italian invasions of Ethiopia and Albania were wrong. 
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,344
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Monarchists ought to condemn monarchies being abolished without a referendum rather than being sore losers, when the majority of the people votes in favour of abolishing the monarchy in a referendum.


A majority?  Ha! The vote was virtually a 50/50 result, the republic barely squeezed by, and that was achieved by encouraging the republican Northerners to vote in masses, while suppressing the vote in central and southern Italy where the monarchy had strong support.  Had there been a clear playing field the result's could very well have been quite different.  I am no great fan of the Savoys who have made it a habit to steal other peoples thrones from Spain, to Croatia, to Albania to Ethiopia, but I don't think Humberto II was dealt with fairly.  A referendum that is not run in a ethical and evenhanded way is no referendum.  It is not being a "sore loser" to decry a blatantly unfair referendum that was basically a fix.

__________________
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.)
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 457
Reply with quote  #78 
Thanks for that information. In addition, the newly installed Italian republican government included a strange provision (Article 139) in the new constitution that stated that the republican form of government could not be changed by amending the constitution. In other words, it meant that the monarchy couldn't be restored by amending the constitution, and so any possible monarchical restoration would  have to involve a whole new constitution. While I'm not in any way familiar with constitutional law, I don't offhand know of any other nation's constitution that contains any provision precluding any part of it from being changed by amendment. To the best of my knowledge, any part of the U.S. Constitution is able to be changed by the amendment process.

Postscript: I  may be wrong about no other nations' constitutions having provisions that cannot be changed by amendment. I did a bit more internet research. The German and Greek constitutions evidently contain  provisions called eternity clauses, which  cannot be changed through amendment, and those evidently include the republican form of government.  And the U.S. Constitution includes certain provisions called entrenched clauses, which   makes changes by amendment very difficult. I was previously unaware of this.

__________________
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  #79 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist


A majority?  Ha! The vote was virtually a 50/50 result, the republic barely squeezed by, and that was achieved by encouraging the republican Northerners to vote in masses, while suppressing the vote in central and southern Italy where the monarchy had strong support.  Had there been a clear playing field the result's could very well have been quite different.  I am no great fan of the Savoys who have made it a habit to steal other peoples thrones from Spain, to Croatia, to Albania to Ethiopia, but I don't think Humberto II was dealt with fairly.  A referendum that is not run in a ethical and evenhanded way is no referendum.  It is not being a "sore loser" to decry a blatantly unfair referendum that was basically a fix.

Italian monarchists have often claimed, that the referendum on abolishing the Italian monarchy was rigged, but no evidence of electoral fraud during the referendum on abolishing the Italian monarchy exists. The Italian monarchy was abolished, because King Vittorio Emanuele III of Italy supported Mussolini. I agree that King Umberto II of Italy didn't deserve to be deposed, because he was a decent man, who disliked Italian Fascism. All male descendants of the Savoia dynasty being exiled from Italy was unfair, but the male descendants of the Savoia dynasty were allowed to return to Italy in 2002.
Claiming, that the Savoias stole the throne of Croatia is wrong, because no native Croatian royal dynasty exists.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,344
Reply with quote  #80 
Quote:
Claiming, that the Savoias stole the throne of Croatia is wrong, because no native Croatian royal dynasty exists


The legitimate royal house with a claim to Croatia were the Hapsburgs.  The Karadjordjevics  had a claim based on Croatia having been part of Yugoslavia.  The Savoy's had zero claim to it before it was awarded to them by the Nazis and their illegitimate puppet state in Croatia.

__________________
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.)
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #81 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist


The legitimate royal house with a claim to Croatia were the Hapsburgs.  The Karadjordjevics  had a claim based on Croatia having been part of Yugoslavia.  The Savoy's had zero claim to it before it was awarded to them by the Nazis and their illegitimate puppet state in Croatia.

Croatia has never been an independent Habsburg monarchy. It was part of the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918.
The Ustasha regime was an illegitimate totalitarian regime, which persecuted Jews and Serbs, but blaming Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta, for the crimes of the Ustasha regime is wrong. Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta, never lived in Croatia. 
Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 214
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windemere
Thanks for that information. In addition, the newly installed Italian republican government included a strange provision (Article 139) in the new constitution that stated that the republican form of government could not be changed by amending the constitution. In other words, it meant that the monarchy couldn't be restored by amending the constitution, and so any possible monarchical restoration would  have to involve a whole new constitution. While I'm not in any way familiar with constitutional law, I don't offhand know of any other nation's constitution that contains any provision precluding any part of it from being changed by amendment. To the best of my knowledge, any part of the U.S. Constitution is able to be changed by the amendment process.

Postscript: I  may be wrong about no other nations' constitutions having provisions that cannot be changed by amendment. I did a bit more internet research. The German and Greek constitutions evidently contain  provisions called eternity clauses, which  cannot be changed through amendment, and those evidently include the republican form of government.  And the U.S. Constitution includes certain provisions called entrenched clauses, which   makes changes by amendment very difficult. I was previously unaware of this.


Thank you for that, Windemere. I had a look at the current Bulgarian constitution and the relevant article is 158 (bold mine):

Art. 158.
A Grand National Assembly shall:
1. adopt a new Constitution;
2. resolve on any changes in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria and ratify any international treaty envisaging such a change.
3. resolve on any changes in the form of State structure or form of government;
4. resolve on any amendment to Art. 5 paras 2 and 4 and Art. 57 paras 1 and 3 of this Constitution;
5. resolve on any amendment to Chapter nine of the Constitution.

As I see it, a democratic way for the restoration of the Bulgarian monarchy would be the following:

1) A monarchist party wins the elections with a majority (at least 121 MPs);
2) Elections for a Grand National Assembly are organized and Parliament dissolves itself;
3) The new elections are won by the monarchist party again with a majority (at least 201 MPs);
4) A monarchist constitution is adopted OR the current one is amended in the necessary places.

This procedure is not realistic in the least. Even in 2001 the possibility of that was very slim.

Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 457
Reply with quote  #83 
Thanks for that information about the Bulgarian Constitution. It seems that a monarchical restoration within an existing constitutional framework is well-nigh impossible. In most countries, it seems that  it would take a Constitutional Convention to restore a monarchy, and would need a huge amount of public and political motivation and support. It would be an almost overwhelmingly complicated and time-consuming process. 

In my own lifetime, monarchies have been abolished in Greece, Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, Central Africa, Burundi, Rwanda, Laos, Vietnam, Sikkim, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Maldives,  Zanzibar, and most recently, Nepal. The only restorations have been in Spain and Cambodia.

__________________
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  #84 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windemere
Thanks for that information about the Bulgarian Constitution. It seems that a monarchical restoration within an existing constitutional framework is well-nigh impossible. In most countries, it seems that  it would take a Constitutional Convention to restore a monarchy, and would need a huge amount of public and political motivation and support. It would be an almost overwhelmingly complicated and time-consuming process. 

In my own lifetime, monarchies have been abolished in Greece, Libya, Egypt, Ethiopia, Central Africa, Burundi, Rwanda, Laos, Vietnam, Sikkim, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Maldives,  Zanzibar, and most recently, Nepal. The only restorations have been in Spain and Cambodia.

Restoration of monarchies are more likely to happen in authoritarian regimes than in democratic republics. The Spanish monarchy was restored by Franco. The Russian monarchy is far more likely to be restored than the Italian and German monarchies, because Russia is ruled by an authoritarian regime, while Italy and Germany are democratic republics. Some prominent supporters of Putin are monarchists.
The Iranian monarchy being restored is quite likely to happen, because Iran will have to adopt an entirely new constitution, if the Ayatollah regime is overthrown. Reza Pahlavi supports holding an institutional referendum, in which the options will be a constitutional monarchy and a secular republic.
The Ugandan monarchies were restored in 1993, and the Montenegrin monarchy was partially restored in 2011. The head of the Petrovic-Njegosh dynasty was granted a salary equal to that of the President of Montenegro and he was made an official representative of Montenegro.

Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,344
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Croatia has never been an independent Habsburg monarchy. It was part of the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918.
The Ustasha regime was an illegitimate totalitarian regime, which persecuted Jews and Serbs, but blaming Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta, for the crimes of the Ustasha regime is wrong. Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta, never lived in Croatia. 
.

I never said Croatia was an "independent Habsburg monarchy" yet your claim that it was "part of the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 is incorrect.  The title of the Emperor made it very clear that Croatia was a separate entity.  The title of the Emperor was Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, CROATIA, Slavonia and Galicia, Lodomeria, and Illyria, and King of Jerusalem etc... it is a listed separate crown among several of the Habsburg monarchy.  None of them were independent, and only Hungary had the co-equal status with Austria. 

You again put words in my mouth by implying I blamed Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta for the crimes of the Ustasha.  No where have I said it or implied it.  I do blame him however for accepting a throne that was not his.  The fact that he never lived in Croatia doesn't mean much either way. 



__________________
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.)
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #86 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
.

I never said Croatia was an "independent Habsburg monarchy" yet your claim that it was "part of the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 is incorrect.  The title of the Emperor made it very clear that Croatia was a separate entity.  The title of the Emperor was Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, CROATIA, Slavonia and Galicia, Lodomeria, and Illyria, and King of Jerusalem etc... it is a listed separate crown among several of the Habsburg monarchy.  None of them were independent, and only Hungary had the co-equal status with Austria. 

You again put words in my mouth by implying I blamed Aimone, 4th Duke of Aosta for the crimes of the Ustasha.  No where have I said it or implied it.  I do blame him however for accepting a throne that was not his.  The fact that he never lived in Croatia doesn't mean much either way. 



No Croatian branch of the Habsburgs exists. A Hungarian branch of the Habsburgs exists. Archduke Joseph August, who was briefly the regent of Hungary in 1919, belonged to the Hungarian branch of the Habsburgs. 
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,344
Reply with quote  #87 
Quote:
No Croatian branch of the Habsburgs exists. A Hungarian branch of the Habsburgs exists. Archduke Joseph August, who was briefly the regent of Hungary in 1919, belonged to the Hungarian branch of the Habsburgs. 


That has nothing to do with the point that Croatia was a separate crown.  There was no "Galician Branch" or a "Lodomerian Branch" or a "Illyrian Branch" of the Habsburgs either.

__________________
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.)
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #88 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist


That has nothing to do with the point that Croatia was a separate crown.  There was no "Galician Branch" or a "Lodomerian Branch" or a "Illyrian Branch" of the Habsburgs either.

The Habsburgs have a stronger claim to the Croatian throne than the Savoias, but a Savoia being elected King of Croatia is hardly unacceptable, because Croatia has never been an independent Habsburg kingdom. Claiming that the Savoias stole the Croatian throne from the Habsburgs is similar to claiming, that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas stole the Bulgarian throne from the Osmanoglus.
You claim that the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is the best country in the Middle East, but the Hashemites have stolen Kurdistan and East Jerusalem. The title Shah of Kurdistan was part of the title of the Ottoman Sultan, and no king is allowed to rule Jerusalem except a descendant of King David. The Hashemites have fortunately lost Kurdistan and East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is part of Israel, and Donald Trump wants the Temple Mount and the Old City of Jerusalem to remain parts of Israel, and the current President of Iraq is a Kurd.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
no king is allowed to rule Jerusalem except a descendant of King David.

Quick, run and tell the Hasmoneans, the Idumeans, the Byzantine Emperors, the Crusader kings and the Ottomans. Sorry guys, history has been cancelled.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #90 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

Quick, run and tell the Hasmoneans, the Idumeans, the Byzantine Emperors, the Crusader kings and the Ottomans. Sorry guys, history has been cancelled.

Only a descendant of King David can be a legitimate King of Israel according to Judaism. Israel is currently a Jewish republic, and Israel ought to remain a Jewish republic.
The Hashemites are the only currently reigning royal dynasty, which I dislike. I dislike the Hashemites, because they oppressed the Kurds and expelled the ancient Jewish community of Jerusalem, which had lived in Jerusalem during the Ottoman era, from the Old City of Jerusalem.
I don't support abolishing the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, because the Hashemites have always treated their Arab subjects decently, but I'm opposed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan regaining East Jerusalem and I'm opposed to the Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq being restored, as long as Kurdistan is part of Iraq, because the Hashemites have always been Arab chauvinists. 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.