AHC: A world without monarchies

Philip

Donor
But Vatican City is still considered a monarchy so it has to not exist. If you can get the Pope elected by universal suffrage, it would be allowed to exist.

So if Vatican City limits its citizenship to the cardinals, it's good?

Alternatively, get Vatican City to not be considered a monarchy? Is Vatican City even a monarchy? It's more of a theocracy, but it seems it still is considered a monarchy by the world.

I would call it an elective monarchical ecclesiocracy. Theocracy is not really appropriate since the pope does not claim divine inspiration with regards to the civil government.
 
It's interesting, since there were quite a number of dual executives/diarchies in the Western Mediterranean world; the Roman consuls and the Spartan kings are famous, but you also had lots of Gallic tribes who had two elected chief magistrates, and Carthage had its annual two Judges. Maybe at least in the western world, a dual head of state can become a cultural 'default'?
 
It's interesting, since there were quite a number of dual executives/diarchies in the Western Mediterranean world; the Roman consuls and the Spartan kings are famous, but you also had lots of Gallic tribes who had two elected chief magistrates, and Carthage had its annual two Judges. Maybe at least in the western world, a dual head of state can become a cultural 'default'?
Medieval Turkic nomads such as the Khazar Khaganate had dual kingship also, consisting of a îšâ/shad/bäk and a qağan/xâqân. The former managed and commanded the military, while the greater king's role was primarily sacral, less concerned with daily affairs. This seems quite similar to Sparta.
 
Medieval Turkic nomads such as the Khazar Khaganate had dual kingship also, consisting of a îšâ/shad/bäk and a qağan/xâqân. The former managed and commanded the military, while the greater king's role was primarily sacral, less concerned with daily affairs. This seems quite similar to Sparta.
Definitely; the main functions of rulers in general tended to be military and religious, though IIRC both Spartan kings were expected to fill both roles. Maybe triumvirates could be popular too, so you could have a high priest, a warlord, and a lawgiver.
 
No, those can exist. Only official monarchies count (whose heads of state are called king/queen, emperor/empress...)

Aristocratic/Oligarchic republics can exist, as long as the head of state is 'elected' in some way.

But the only elective monarchies in existance are still kind of hereditary. There isn't a single monarchy where the people elect the monarch. All elective monarchies that exist are some kind of limited council/assembly that chooses the monarch out of a single family or people who are already monarchs. An elective monarchy can ONLY exist if he/she is elected by universal suffrage (basically a president with a monarchical title).
In which case we change the name of the Holy Roman Emperor and voila it fits the challenge.
 
In which case we change the name of the Holy Roman Emperor and voila it fits the challenge.
I don't see how the HRE is relevant here. It's not very likely to survive to the present-day if it existed in the first place in the timeline.

Also changing the title of the Holy Roman Emperor doesn't make sense. In order to fit the challenge in which a HRE exists it would have to become a republic and get rid of all nobility. Alternatively the emperor/empress would have to be elected by universal suffrage. It would likely end up being renamed Germany and become a secular state or dissolve into several states.

Just easier to have it not exist in the first place but it would likely collapse someday before the present even if it did exist.

Also I may have forgotten to mention even if the country has an elected monarchy by universal suffrage, there can be NO nobility or royalty in these countries (no princes/counts/dukes/maharajas...)
 
Why is universal suffrage required? Places like the USA have their head of state elected by an electoral college not fully accountable to the people. Others are chosen by Parliament, like the Israeli President being chosen by the Knesset. Nonetheless such states are generally seen as republican/nonmonarchial regimes. What do you find the cutoff to be?
 
I don't see how the HRE is relevant here. It's not very likely to survive to the present-day if it existed in the first place in the timeline.
Plenty of states have survived longer.
Also changing the title of the Holy Roman Emperor doesn't make sense. In order to fit the challenge in which a HRE exists it would have to become a republic and get rid of all nobility. Alternatively the emperor/empress would have to be elected by universal suffrage. It would likely end up being renamed Germany and become a secular state or dissolve into several states.
But you said: Aristocratic/Oligarchic republics can exist, as long as the head of state is 'elected' in some way.

Also I may have forgotten to mention even if the country has an elected monarchy by universal suffrage, there can be NO nobility or royalty in these countries (no princes/counts/dukes/maharajas...)
Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
The reason I asked about aristocratic republics is that those were the norm of republics, all present day republics with universal suffrage descend from them.
And a lot of present day republics don't have their Head of State because they're parliamentary republics and parliament elects them.
 
But you said: Aristocratic/Oligarchic republics can exist, as long as the head of state is 'elected' in some way.
Are there even any official 'oligarchic' republics today? I'm pretty sure all republics in existence are either presidential, parliamentary or something in the middle. You also have dictatorships but those are fine. What I mean is there can be NO official royalty or nobility in any country in the world at the present-day.
Thus contradicting what you said earlier.
The reason I asked about aristocratic republics is that those were the norm of republics, all present day republics with universal suffrage descend from them.
And a lot of present day republics don't have their Head of State because they're parliamentary republics and parliament elects them.
No, I never allowed the existence of nobility/royalty. If you thought so, you are mistaken.

Also if the elective monarchy by universal suffrage is too complicated, we could just drop it. The challenge is changed to no monarchies at all in any form.
 
So essentially the challenge is no present day monarchies?
Difficult. Most monarchies were removed by revolution or occupation. The odds are against doing that to every country.
Best reduction method I can think of is competition between successful colonising republics.
 
Are there even any official 'oligarchic' republics today? I'm pretty sure all republics in existence are either presidential, parliamentary or something in the middle. You also have dictatorships but those are fine. What I mean is there can be NO official royalty or nobility in any country in the world at the present-day.

No, I never allowed the existence of nobility/royalty. If you thought so, you are mistaken.

Also if the elective monarchy by universal suffrage is too complicated, we could just drop it. The challenge is changed to no monarchies at all in any form.

Well, the challenge now is how to prevent something like the Assads or the Kims from being dynasties.
 
Well, the challenge now is how to prevent something like the Assads or the Kims from being dynasties.

You can butterfly Kims and Assads away but you inevitably get some hereditary presidential dictator dynasty. Even in OTL is some others too like Duvaliers in Haiti altough it didn't last long after death of first Duvalier.
 
So you’ve basically got three regions today with monarchies*- Europe, the Middle East, and Asia (East and Southeast); plus a couple in South Africa, as well as Morocco and Tonga, but we can put those aside for the time being.

Since Europe seems like the easiest (what with wwi taking out so many OTL), let’s start there - Britain, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, and Monaco - and divide them further into five categories of Britain, Spain, the Lowlands, Scandinavia, and tiny countries. Since the Spanish monarchy was only recently restored, we can put it aside easily enough; the small monarchies seem like they’d fall easily enough in time if they were to become the only crowned heads in Europe, so we can ignore them as well. The Lowlands were completely defenseless during the works wars, so having a foreign power overthrow their monarchies for good at some point isn’t difficult in the slightest. That really just leaves the OTL three royal houses of Scandinavia, which seem like it had a po if intersting potential in its own right, as well as one of our favorite AH tropes, a Republic of Britain (or a Republic of England, with Scotland and Ireland going their own way, whichever you prefer).

Then you have Asia - Japan, Thailand, Cambodia, and Bhutan. Like Spain, Bhutan’s monarchy was recently reestablished OTL, so we can check that easily enough. Getting a Republic of Japan seems like it should be doable independently, with a different end to WWII seeming like the most recent opportunity; Thailand I have no idea, and even less of one about Bhutan. The Middle East, in general, seems to have plenty of potential for wiping monarchy from the face of the region entirely - from the way the Ottoman Empire fell, to the potential of Nasserist and Baathist rebellion or invasion.

If we look at monarchies that have been abolished since WWII, it’s a fairly short list - Greece in Europe; Iraq and Egypt in the Middle East; and Cambodia and Laos in Asia. but when you look at the challenge here in piecemeal fashion like this, it becomes apparent that a world without monarchies is actually quite doable, even with a fairly late, post 1900 PoD.

*not counting countries like Canada who have their monarch based in Europe, who would most likely default to republicanism should the monarch in the “home” nation fall
 
Last edited:
That really just leaves the OTL three royal houses of Scandinavia, which seem like it had a po if intersting potential in its own right

IIRC, there were radical elements in the Scandinavists (the group, mainly intellectuals, agitating for political union in mid 19th, that effectively died with the Second Schleswig War) that had republican thoughts
 
IIRC, there were radical elements in the Scandinavists (the group, mainly intellectuals, agitating for political union in mid 19th, that effectively died with the Second Schleswig War) that had republican thoughts
What about later? Could, for example, Norway have gone republican after the end of personal union in 1905? Could Danish Royal family have fallen in wwii? Or could Swedish have sided with Germany in either of the world wars, compromising the date of their royals in the aftermath? Or could any of these monarchies have fallen even later, in the 1970’s say?
 
What about later? Could, for example, Norway have gone republican after the end of personal union in 1905?

Don't see why it couldn't if the environment was different in Europe, they could easily have gone a similar route as Finland becoming a republic after a false start (there were actually someone offered the Finnish crown but Finland retracted the offer before it was bought to fruition

Could Danish Royal family have fallen in wwii?

Kinda difficult... Denmark was seen as a ethnic model society by the nazis, and Denmark covered a navally easily accessable flank, that could be threatened if the Danes went into a hostile occupation, which meant that they was disinclined to unseat the Danish King... which in turn got away with some quite impressive snobbing at the Nazis, and were only just barely subtle enough that they couldn't get away with disappearing him and the other royals in line, meaning that no one in the resistance had any outstanding issues with him (except if they were radical communists), and often attributing him stronger resistance activities than really can be documented.

Or could Swedish have sided with Germany in either of the world wars, compromising the date of their royals in the aftermath?

Possibly? ... don't really know enough about the Midsummer Crisis to comment

Or could any of these monarchies have fallen even later, in the 1970’s say?

Can't quite see what should be the reasoning behind this...

All that said, by 1900 I'd say the ship have sailed if your target is to abolish monarchism in Scandinavia, outside some massive butterflies entering from other places
 
Vatican City is pretty impossible as a republic (a democratically elected pope? by all Catholics?) so I think it would not have to exist. It's both a monarchy and a theocracy so try to not have it exist.

So this is really not my forte but wasnt there a movement in the catholic church during the middle ages that wanted to place at the head of the church the synod instead of the pope? (im not sure of the terminology in my own language let alone trying to translate it to english but I hope you will understand what i meant) That would still leave a pope but would bring the goverment of the church as close to democraic as possible.
 
Asia would be hard.

Japan was not taken over by any colonial empire so Napoleon will not help. The only possibility there is if the US abolished it after ww2. I am sure it would revert back to being a monarchy once the US left.
Thailand also, in theory ???, was never taken over either.
 

Abosishment of Scandinavian monarchies is quiet difficult. When Norway became again independent nationt hen monarchy was default form of government. It would be very difficult to become monarchy.

Sweden was theorically possible but still bit unlikely. Sweden wasn't easily going to participate to world wars. Even if Russians manage provocate Sweden to WW1 (this is for me only way get Sweden to the war and even that is not so sure) this would be quiet big game changer. Not sure would monarchy fall even if Entente wins the war. Bulgarian monarchy too survived despite that it was wrong side and Ottomans lasted some years after the war.

Only way get Sweden to WW2 is that Germany occupy the nation and even Hitler realises that it would be bad idea. And Nazis don't dare do anything to popular Danish Royal Family.

Abolishment in 1970's is absolutely too late. Scandinavian monarchies were already totally parliamenarist nations, families were highly respected, economy was good and society was peaceful. Republican's haven't any chances overthrown monarchies. In 1970's in Scandinavia wasn't very strong Republican movements. Even Swedish Social Democrats haven't ever tried abolish monarchy despite tha<t it has been their goal since end of 19th century.
 
Even Swedish Social Democrats haven't ever tried abolish monarchy despite tha<t it has been their goal since end of 19th century.

In Denmark there are probably only two parties (left wing Unitylist, and centre-left social-libarals) that are against monarchy, and in both cases it’s more out of principled dislike of a aristocratic class rather than strong opinions on the persons involved, and frankly it only comes up when there’s nothing better to discuss or when someone (almost always not in direct line) in the royal house makes a massive faux pas, and the queen aren’t seen publicly slapping them down
 
Top