AHC: Have hereditary monarchy the main political theory

IOTL, the main political theory is unquestionably popular sovereignty, in that most people automatically assume that election is the best/only way a government can be legitimate, and that even undemocratic regimes tend to pay lip-service to the idea of popular sovereignty. Your challenge is to come up with a scenario in which the same holds true of hereditary monarchy. Note that there's nothing wrong in terms of the OP conditions with government being seen as a two-way deal, where the people have a duty to obey their legitimate sovereign and the sovereign has a duty to rule justly and in accordance with law and custom; nor even if there anything wrong with most monarchs delegating actual running of the country to elected Parliaments. The important thing is that the monarchs are seen as deriving their legitimacy from hereditary right, not from popular will or the consent of the governed.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
I think you need a very different development of political theory during the Enlightenment - more Hobbes, less Locke and Rousseau. Might be doable for those ideas to fizzle out if both the American and French revolutions are averted, but it seems political thought was moving in that direction anyway.
 
It isn't that hard considering how Monarchy was the main thought for so long. I think if we avert the american but still allow the french revolution to happen, with all of the associated brutality it would go a long way to discredit the idea of democracy. Also other republics, like the Swiss, need to run into problems to help discredit the idea.
 
We don't need to go back to the French revolution guys and gals, just look to 1913. The only republics in Europe were France, Portugal and Switzerland. Without World War I happening, or lasting as long as it did, most of Europe would probably still be monarchies today.
 
I think you need a very different development of political theory during the Enlightenment - more Hobbes, less Locke and Rousseau. Might be doable for those ideas to fizzle out if both the American and French revolutions are averted, but it seems political thought was moving in that direction anyway.

I was wondering if a less individualistic Enlightenment would do the trick -- if Enlightenment thinkers focused more on man as a naturally social animal than on man as an autonomous individual who just so happens to have formed a society to help him defend himself, that could butterfly away the popularity of the social contract theory of government, and hence the emphasis on popular consent.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
One way would to have the American revolution put in place a system similar to Britain's with a monarch as the executive, to reduce the influence of outside actors. Then have the French and Latin American revolutions go the way they did in history. This would successfully put the nail in the coffin of full democracy for at least a couple centuries until the rise of Communism and Fascism.
 
We don't need to go back to the French revolution guys and gals, just look to 1913. The only republics in Europe were France, Portugal and Switzerland. Without World War I happening, or lasting as long as it did, most of Europe would probably still be monarchies today.

A slightly later possibility would be a relatively quick Central Powers victory in late 1915/early 1916 or a stalemate with a status quo ante bellum peace around that same timeframe. An earlier POD might be a Union loss in the American Civil War, but honestly that wouldn't necessarily result in hereditary monarchies still being prevalent by today's date.
 

Jbenuniv

Banned
We don't need to go back to the French revolution guys and gals, just look to 1913. The only republics in Europe were France, Portugal and Switzerland. Without World War I happening, or lasting as long as it did, most of Europe would probably still be monarchies today.

1913 is too late... by then, nationalism and the idea of representative democracy, not to mention Marxism, have already gained credence among portions of the intellectual classes, even in Germany and Austria. Perhaps their monarchies could be saved, but it would evolve in the direction of strictly limited constitutional monarchy like Britain and the remaining European monarchies today rather than a strictly hereditary monarchy as the dominant political paradigm.
 
A slightly later possibility would be a relatively quick Central Powers victory in late 1915/early 1916 or a stalemate with a status quo ante bellum peace around that same timeframe. An earlier POD might be a Union loss in the American Civil War, but honestly that wouldn't necessarily result in hereditary monarchies still being prevalent by today's date.

Although America gets split, I could see their brand of presidential republican constitutions being less attractive as a model for other countries to copy. Possibly in such circumstances we might see more British-style constitutional monarchies instead.
 
Guy Fawkes succeeds.

The English Parliament is weakened with respect to the Crown. The English Civil War never happens. The 1688 Revolution never happens. From there, it's reasonable that the American Revolution never happens.

Does the French Revolution or something like it still take place? Perhaps, but we've slain the idea of a constitutional monarchy until the nineteenth century at least, which in turn severely inhibits the idea of a representative democracy.
 

jahenders

Banned
I can only think of two main ways for this to happen:
1) A country (or countries) that really practice this gain/maintain strong dominance for quite some time. Weaker neighbors emulate their winning formula

2) Change the way the Catholic Church handled the various succession contests such that they always solidly support the hereditary heir and refuse to recognize non-heirs as ordained kings. However, this would likely just marginalize the church since, if they didn't support some non-hereditary king who had taken over, they'd have less influence.
 
Good job Fabius Maximus. You posted the topic so I wouldn't have to type a few extra words and make it myself! :p

I often wonder about this kind of topic. Given that 20th century history had technologically advanced countries which were Leninist or fascist instead of representative democracies, I would doubt that industrialized societies need anything approaching representative democratic values to exist (if dysfunctional) like some people in the Alien Space Bats "update a fantasy setting" threads seem to think.

One question would be about how hereditary monarchy would be seen as superior to, say, the elective monarchies that Scandinavia and Poland used. Also, inbreeding may be an issue as marriage alliances between royal families would remain relevant. (See the Hapsburgs) Also, how to keep those pesky nobles down? (The number one concern of any Crusader Kings II monarch :)) Perhaps if rulers imitate what Louis XIV did with Versailles, their power could be curbed.

*Looks over OP a second time*

So the minimum requirement is at least constitutional monarchy, except with legitimacy coming from the bloodline or God rather than the people? :confused:


(Eh, giving the monarch more "crown authority" is the more fun way, if harder. . .)


Correct me if I'm wrong about these points.
 
Last edited:
Top