Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #1 
In current republics, where more than one dynasty claims the vacant throne, which dynasty do you support. I support the following dynasties:

Russia: A descendant of Rurik elected by a Zemskiy Sobor.
France: The Bonapartes.
Hungary: A Habsburg, who identifies as a Hungarian.
Czechia: A descendant of Franz Ferdinand and his Czech wife.
Romania: A descendant of King Mihai.
Albania: The Zogus.
Iran: The Pahlavis.
Kurdistan: The Osmanoglus. The Romanovs are my second choice.
Kazakhstan: The Nazarbayevs (they are Genghisids).


Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 55
Reply with quote  #2 
Let's see...

Russia: The House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, of course. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna seems to have the best claim, so I would support her.
France: The Capetians, naturally. It is true that the House of Bonaparte was the most recent to reign there, but in this case I support the older dynasty. Which pretender, however, is a different question.
Hungary: A member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, who is not Archduke Karl, because I can't imagine the Hungarians wanting to have the same monarch as the Austrians (and vice versa).
Czechia: Ditto.
Romania: It would be most practical to follow the wishes of the late King - Princess Margareta seems a good choice.
Albania: The House of Zogu by default, basically.
Iran: The House of Pahlavi, due to it being more recent than the House of Qajar. To my knowledge, Iran has never quite had a single dynasty, so in any case they would be better than the current regime.
Kurdistan: Well, that's a bit difficult. I'm not sure.
Kazakhstan: Hmm, I personally wouldn't have much against the idea of a presidential family becoming a royal one with time. It's obviously better than the other way around.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtagon
Let's see...

Russia: The House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov, of course. Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna seems to have the best claim, so I would support her.
France: The Capetians, naturally. It is true that the House of Bonaparte was the most recent to reign there, but in this case I support the older dynasty. Which pretender, however, is a different question.
Hungary: A member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, who is not Archduke Karl, because I can't imagine the Hungarians wanting to have the same monarch as the Austrians (and vice versa).
Czechia: Ditto.
Romania: It would be most practical to follow the wishes of the late King - Princess Margareta seems a good choice.
Albania: The House of Zogu by default, basically.
Iran: The House of Pahlavi, due to it being more recent than the House of Qajar. To my knowledge, Iran has never quite had a single dynasty, so in any case they would be better than the current regime.
Kurdistan: Well, that's a bit difficult. I'm not sure.
Kazakhstan: Hmm, I personally wouldn't have much against the idea of a presidential family becoming a royal one with time. It's obviously better than the other way around.

Russia: The Romanovs are descendants of Rurik. Female-line descendants of Rurik ought to be eligible too. Maria Vladimirovna's claim is opposed by most of the Romanov family. I support a Zemskiy Sobor being allowed to choose the Tsar, because that's the traditional Russian way of electing a Tsar, when the throne is vacant. Mikhail, the first Romanov Tsar, was elected by a Zemskiy Sobor.
France: Most Frenchmen hate the Ancien Regime and admire Napoleon. I'm a Bonapartist, because I consider Napoleon the greatest French hero ever. Napoleon preserved the achievements of the French Revolution, like freedom of religion and abolition of serfdom, while ending the excesses of the French Revolution.
We agree on Hungary.
Czechia: Franz Ferdinand was a Habsburg. A Habsburg of Czech descent is obviously preferable to a Habsburg, who isn't of Czech descent.
We agree on Romania, Albania and Iran.
Kurdistan: The Osmanoglus (the House of Osman) are the legitimate royal dynasty of Kurdistan, because it is the last dynasty, to which the Kurds were loyal. The Kurds never accepted the rule of the Iraqi Hashemites.
Kazakhstan: The Nazarbayevs are descendants of Genghis Khan, but that's hardly unusual in Kazakhstan.


azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #4 
I have changed my mind on France. A Bonaparte restoration in France is pointless, because the current Bonapartes aren't descendants of Napoleon. The best option for a restored French monarchy is Orleanism, because the Orleanists don't reject the legacy of the French Revolution entirely, unlike the Legitimists. French monarchists rejecting the legacy of the French Revolution entirely is a bad idea, because most Frenchmen cherish the legacy of the French Revolution.
I don't care much about restoration of the French monarchy, because I want to turn back the clock to 1914 regarding the existence of monarchies. In 1914, the Osmanoglus ruled Kurdistan, the Hohenzollerns ruled Germany and the Romanovs ruled Russia, while France was ruled by the Third Republic. In addition, most Frenchmen consider republicanism an important part of French national identity. This pride in republicanism makes France different from Germany and Russia. Monarchism is insignificant in Germany, but most Germans aren't convinced anti-monarchists. They merely don't care about restoring the Hohenzollern monarchy. Tsarist nostalgia is widespread in Russia. 

bator

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #5 
we should not accept the french republic and let down our french monarchist friends
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 387
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bator
we should not accept the french republic and let down our french monarchist friends

I'm not opposed to a restoration of the French monarchy. But to me, restoring the French monarchy is far less important than restoring the monarchies, which existed at the outbreak of World War I, because World War I caused republics to become the prevalent form of government in Europe.
I dislike French legitimism, because of its extremism and its complete rejection of the French Revolution. I dislike Jacobinism, and Robespierre certainly deserved to be executed, but some of the leaders of the French Revolution were moderates, such as Lafayette and Mirabeau. France was a constitutional monarchy from 1789 to 1792. The French Revolution introduced freedom of religion and abolished serfdom.
Charles X was a horrible king, who had learned nothing from the French Revolution, and Henri, Comte de Chambord refused to accept the Tricolore in order to become King of France.
But I like Orleanism, which is pragmatic and which accepts parts of the legacy of the French Revolution, such as the Tricolore and parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Louis Philippe was a far better King of France than Charles X. I will support a restoration of the Orleans monarchy in France, despite it being of far less importance to me than a restoration of the Russian monarchy. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.