Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #1 
The continent of Antarctica was discovered by a Russian called Fabian Bellingshausen on January 27 1820. Bellingshausen discovered and named two Antarctic islands: Peter I Island, which Bellingshausen discovered on January 21 1821 and named after Tsar Peter I the Great, and Alexander Island, which Bellingshausen discovered on January 28 1821 and named after Tsar Aleksandr I, who was the reigning Tsar of Russia, when Bellingshausen discovered Alexander Island.

In the future, parts of Antarctica will likely become deglaciated. In that case, human settlement of Antarctica will be possible. I would like the Romanov Tsardom being re-established on Peter I Island and Alexander Island in that case. Russian monarchists can settle the islands and elect a Romanov Tsar of the Tsardom of Antarctica. LONG LIVE THE TSARDOM OF ANTARCTICA!
bator

Registered:
Posts: 251
Reply with quote  #2 
well they never claimed the area as far as i know, but we have the british antartic territory with elizabeth ii as queen. so we already have a monarchy there in some parts of it. it should just be extended to all of antarctica in my opinion.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #3 
I prefer a Romanov monarchy in Antarctica to a Windsor monarchy in Antarctica, because the Romanovs rule no other lands, while the Windsors rule 16 states outside Antarctica. Establishing a Romanov monarchy in Antarctica may be the only way to re-establish the Romanov monarchy. It's true, that Russia never annexed those territories, but by naming those territories, Fabian Bellingshausen implicitly claimed them for Russia. Peter I Island is claimed by Norway, while Alexander Island is claimed by Great Britain, Argentina and Chile.

After deglaciation, Peter I Island and Alexander Island will be a perfect location for Anton Bakov's Russian Empire project. Anton Bakov actually claims all of Antarctica as part of the territory of the Russian Empire based on the right of discovery. King Harald of Norway and Queen Elizabeth of England and Scotland ought to be magnanimous and cede Peter I Island and Alexander Island to Tsar Nikolay III (Karl Emich of Leiningen), the legitimate Tsar of Antarctica.
andrujsh

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #4 
I have always thought that if the icecaps melt then Greenland, owned by Denmark, would become prime real estate.  Since Denmark proper might end up under the waves, then New Denmark with descendants of the royal house in residence would become a great power.  That deserves a science fiction story right there.
__________________
Andrew J. Shaffer
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrujsh
I have always thought that if the icecaps melt then Greenland, owned by Denmark, would become prime real estate.  Since Denmark proper might end up under the waves, then New Denmark with descendants of the royal house in residence would become a great power.  That deserves a science fiction story right there.

Why not write a science fiction story, which is set in a world, in which massive global warming has occurred. The ice caps of Greenland and at least parts of Antarctica have melted, and sea levels have risen significantly. The royal family of Denmark and the government of Denmark has moved to Greenland, and Russian monarchists have colonized Peter I Island and Alexander Island in Antarctica.   
andrujsh

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #6 
It certainly is doable, but the problem would be what kind of transportation--ships or boats--would predominate, how would people communicate over vast distances of water, what would agriculture be like.  I have an idea for a plot already, but we'll have to see.
__________________
Andrew J. Shaffer
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,288
Reply with quote  #7 
If all this ice melts you'll have a great deal more to worry about than who reigns over Antarctica.  A good portion of existing monarchies and republics around the world would be under water.
__________________
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: 794
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
If all this ice melts you'll have a great deal more to worry about than who reigns over Antarctica.  A good portion of existing monarchies and republics around the world would be under water.

Of course it will be a disaster. But I'm not speaking about the entire ice sheet of Antarctica melting, which is fortunately unlikely to happen during the next centuries, but about melting of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet, which is far smaller than the East Antarctica Ice Sheet. The West Antarctica Ice Sheet is mostly grounded below sea level, while the East Antarctica Ice Sheet is grounded above sea level. The West Antarctica Ice Sheet is considered very unstable by climate scientists, while the East Antarctica Ice Sheet is considered quite stable by climate scientists. The two islands, which Fabian Bellingshausen named, are adjacent to West Antarctica. 
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #9 

If the ice melts 'there', it will likely just accumulate 'some where else'....

 

An open northwest passage would be nice.

Farms restored on Greenland.

 

It might be like to Holocene Thermal Maximum... 


__________________
"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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #10 
Great Britain ought to relinquish its Antarctic claim, which is overlapping with the Argentine and Chilean Antarctic claims, in exchange for Argentina relinquishing its claim to the Falkland Islands. Defending the rights of the Falkland Islanders is far more important than territorial claims to Antarctica.
I personally don't support any claims to territory on the continent of Antarctica, because I want the continent of Antarctica to remain an international zone, but I disagree with the Antarctic Treaty concerning the islands situated to the south of 60 degrees southern latitude, which the Antarctic Treaty treats as parts of Antarctica. I don't consider those islands, including Peter I Island and Alexander Island, parts of Antarctica. That's why I support Romanov claims to Peter I Island and Alexander Island, despite opposing territorial claims to the continent of Antarctica.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 309
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
Great Britain ought to relinquish its Antarctic claim, which is overlapping with the Argentine and Chilean Antarctic claims, in exchange for Argentina relinquishing its claim to the Falkland Islands. Defending the rights of the Falkland Islanders is far more important than territorial claims to Antarctica.

Why on Earth would we do that when we have a perfectly valid legal claim to both territories and Argentina has no way of taking them from us? 

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

Why on Earth would we do that when we have a perfectly valid legal claim to both territories and Argentina has no way of taking them from us? 

In order to end the Falkland Islands dispute. I consider the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands illegitimate, because the Falklanders are loyal to Great Britain, and the Falkland Islands never had an aboriginal population, but the UN and most Latin American countries support the Argentine claim to the "Malvinas". Ending the Falkland Islands dispute will improve Great Britain's relations with Latin America. I don't consider the Antarctic claim of Great Britain valid, and I don't consider the Antarctic claims of Argentina and Chile valid either, because I want Antarctica to remain an international zone. The Antarctic Treaty freezes all territorial claims to Antarctica. Antarctica remaining an international zone will protect the pristine environment of Antarctica. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,421
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum

Why on Earth would we do that when we have a perfectly valid legal claim to both territories and Argentina has no way of taking them from us? 


I'm leaning strongly towards the answer is trolling.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 794
Reply with quote  #14 
Antarctica ought to remain an international zone in order to protect the unique environment of Antarctica. Recognizing claims to sovereignty over Antarctica will legitimize extraction of natural resources on Antarctica, which will be an environmental disaster.
Great Britain doesn't have de facto control of its Antarctic claim, because Antarctica is demilitarized. Argentina actually has a lot of bases on the Antarctic Peninsula, which Great Britain and Argentina both claim.
To me, Great Britain renouncing an Antarctic claim in exchange for Argentina renouncing its claim to the Falkland Islands make sense, because it will improve relations between Great Britain and Latin America.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.