AHC: Have The Monarch Power Remain In Practice In A Constitutional Monarchy

Lately when I've heard people talk about the remaining monarchies in Europe, especially Great Britain, is that they are effectually 'rubber-stampers' in the system.

What I mean is that while a constitutional monarchy gives the monarch a 'de jure' role behind the power of the government, in practice most politicians and the citizens themselves either choose to ignore or forget this and thus the practical power lies with the elected official themselves.

Further, they say, that the moment that the monarch does use any of their reserved power, even if it was legal and justified at the time, it would essentially end of them ever stepping into the affairs of government again.

Essentially their the old grampa that is allowed to 'chose' what he wants for breakfast, but has that allusion removed once they chose something we would never give them.

So my challenge is have it so that even into the mid to lat 20th century, the use of reserved power by the reigning king or queen would be seen as something that may be a necessary action that is not undermining democracy, rather than an attempt to restore government of the middle ages (rough view people seem to have)
 
Central Powers victory, monarchies remain more popular and prestigious (and parliaments have a harder time wresting powers away from the monarchs anyway). If one or two communist revolutions occur just to establish the red threat, and then later communists (or at least some faction that is vaguely radical and progressive) end up gaining power through parliament and subverting bourgeois democracy from the inside, that's an even greater argument in favor of the use of royal powers, which can prevent such "unfortunate" things from occurring.
 
Theoretically the public might be more open to the monarch having power if the monarch regularly listens to petitions from the public. If the role of the monarch is just a sinecure than there is really no reason for the public to expect the monarch to use any theoretical power, if they see that power being used daily in the interest of the people they might be more open to it.
 
Theoretically the public might be more open to the monarch having power if the monarch regularly listens to petitions from the public. If the role of the monarch is just a sinecure than there is really no reason for the public to expect the monarch to use any theoretical power, if they see that power being used daily in the interest of the people they might be more open to it.

That could be a way to maintain it in the 20th century. The only issue I see coming up is if the petition indicates the want something the may be considered morally or ethically bad, do they ignore it until the public (which could take years) or go against it.
 
Do these monarchies have to be free and democratic like OTL Europe's constitutional monarchies currently are? If not then a Central Powers victory in WWI would probably be best since they would help maintain the idea of constitutional monarch with real political power as a viable one in Europe, especially if there are no successful communist revolutions. If they do have to be free and democratic then I doubt that would be possible since the constitutional monarch would likely be a hereditary monarch (though popularly elected monarchies would certainly be interesting) which means that the people will have no say in policy making like in more "rubber-stamp" constitutional monarchies. This could be especially problematic if the monarch intervenes frequently in the affairs of the elected legislature.
 
The fundamental problem here is that you still have the same problem any monarchy has--much depends on the personal character of the monarch. When kings are expected to rule more or less absolutely with parliaments or noble councils being adjuncts and perhaps somewhat checking it, but the monarchy is itself still the center of government, then there are frequent plots and intrigues to make weak kings into puppets or usurp the crown completely; the fact that a faction might make a king into a mere figurehead is not that different from the alliance of factions a strong king would organize and maintain.

But if there is some body comparable to a parliament in the modern European sense, of a broadly elected body that a large majority of the population can elect the members of and which holds the balance of power normally, so that the nation can be said to be a democracy of sorts, what are the odds that the nominal monarch will have any talent for managing the nation better than such a body could manage to on its own without royal help? If the parliament has evolved to the point that it is competent to govern but comes to this condition in conjunction with a line of highly competent monarchs, for a time a mixed constitution will exist and seem natural, even a stroke of national genius--but sooner or later the king will get out of step and then either the royalist party must abolish the parliament or anyhow reduce it to impotence--or the parliament must check the royal power if not abolishing it completely.

FWIW, I do suspect the maintenance of the apparently ceremonial monarchs typical of much of modern Europe do indeed represent a possible contingency of return to dictatorial rule in their name, a fall-back position in case of "national emergency." But the sort of emergency that would lead to their resumption of monarchial power seems increasingly far-fetched, except for circumstances that would probably amount to most of the nation being dead.

I have on the other hand imagined the possibility of a canny royal line taking an analytical look at the transformations of society happening in the 18th and 19th centuries and, instead of either succumbing gracefully to the tides of bourgeois forms of democracy and retreating to a ceremonial role, or stubbornly trying to cling to a past where they were essential on old terms that leave their realm increasingly bypassed by modern developments and vulnerable to the upstart bourgeois-parliamentary nations, instead reinvent their royal house to claim kingship over the nation as a whole, strategically seeking to pre-empt radical democrats by championing certain interests of the commoners against the rising middle classes. If they can make the parliamentary movement one limited to the bourgeoise itself and the old nobility, while presenting themselves as defenders of the poor and working classes, they might pre-empt the inclusion of these lower commoners in the representative bodies, making the royal institutions indispensable as referees between capitalists and working people. Thus, they can open the nation up to capitalist development which however the royal institutions govern and guide according to a more or less scientific development plan. By selectively recruiting talented commoners from humble origins into royal service and developing a monarchial bureaucracy acting in the name of the king, perhaps the monarchial power can perpetuate itself in counterpoise to a representative body that is universally seen as representing only the privileged classes.

The pitfalls of such a scheme would be many of course; the natural tendency of the king (or queen) and inner circle of high-level royal servants would be for them to identify with the rich and powerful, the most successful business leaders and the old nobility that is to say, and then populist discontent would naturally tend to see them all as one and to either overthrow them all together, or infiltrate and coopt the whole edifice to more democratic purposes.

I gather to some extent many new dynasties have some tendency to play this game of "king and commons against the rich SOBs" and that Louis Bonaparte aka "Napoleon III" based his power to some extent on this very mystique (if not so much among urban proletarians, than strongly in the countryside among the peasantry). These examples show how it is an unstable and transitory thing; for it to work for generations and be sustained, the monarchy would have to maintain itself distinct from the aristocracy and stick to a plan passed down by careful education of each generation of heirs. The royal bureaucracy might carry the system through the reign of a weak monarch--but if the dynasty does not produce kings or queens who can inspire the masses with their indispensable benevolence and shrewd, wise yet bold decisionmaking that reliably proves sound in the long run, then eventually the royal institution will be called into question, in favor of a merger with an expanded-franchise parliament or the takeover of the dictatorial bureaucracy by insurgent radical democratic forces instituting scientific socialism in the name of the people directly.

Some kind of alliance with religious authority is probably necessary to maintain the sort of modernist philosopher-kingship I'm talking about; the king's own bureaucracy would probably have to be largely staffed with some kind of clerics and his do-gooding among the common people presented as the king doing God's will via humbler servants of God.

I've suggested the notion for various timelines that the Hapsburgs might revitalize themselves along these lines in attempting to hold and develop Austria-Hungary, with the help of a Catholic order or three doing the investigative, administrative and ideological work. I've also wondered if other German monarchs of the 19th century might have tried this path.
 

Cryostorm

Monthly Donor
Another thing you have to do is change the successes of full republics such as the US. One way to do this is somehow reduce the anti-monarchical nature of the revolution so that the when the constitution is written they make the executive a hereditary, or semi hereditary (elective), kingship. This would fit in the whole reducing the effects of the popular will like the electoral college (which would not need to exist) and states appointing senators. This way you have an elected, directly and indirectly, legislature that is answerable to the people, an appointed judiciary that has to be agreed upon by both the executive and legislature, and a hereditary executive that is less influenced by outside factors, such as foreign nations, corporate donations, and other factors that influence those who want to get elected. This would allow the executive to be detached from political factions to a certain degree (which has been the greatest problem in the US system since Washington) and act as more of an neutral arbiter when the political process gets bogged down.
 
I guess my main theme that underlies the challenge is this: As I've heard a few describe it, in most constitutional monarchies, the people elect those that will run the country daily while the ruling monarch is in a background with a gun pointed at 'parliament' that they can 'fire' if it is going off the deep end. Basically don't do stupid stuff, and you don't get shot at.

However it seems now, with no monarch exercised this and related powers for such a long time, that even if they fire at a nut-they shoot their own head because it's now viewed as an act of a dictator.

As for the democracy, I would like for them to get at the same level or close to the democracy as OTL, but so long as many of the ideals of democracy and modern rights are preserved, then it would be fine with me.

Democracy is a good thing, but I don't mind someone not concerned with winning a election to step in if required.
 
Personally I think that either a central powers victory or an earlier end to World war I would have tramendious differences. Not in Britain obviously (by WWI the British Monarch was already hamstrung) but in Germany, Austria the Ottoman Empire and Russia things would be very different. Look at early 1914. Most, with the acceptation of Russia, of these monarchies were moving towards truly constitutional monarchies. In Germany the Chancellor had to have a majority in the Reichstag to get anything done, though legally he wasn't answerable to them in practice if he lost the confidence of the legislature his government wouldn't be able to last long. Austria-Hungary, with all the minorities was in a more difficult position, because the Parliament was dominated by national factions, not parties. Not to mention the crap with Hungary. However, both Franz Ferdinand and Archduke Karl supported the creation of a more federalized version of government and, despite what many people believe, it had a high chance of being successfully implemented without a war.

Turkey would be a bit more difficult, considering the Sultan was a puppet of the Young Turks by this point, but in theory it should be possible. However, as to modern times, I think that monarchies could retain their powers as a sort of stabilizing force, a middle man if you will. In my opinion a modern monarch could act as a safety valve, secure from party politics and able to do things for the national interest, instead of for the Labour, Conservative or liberal parties. Maybe in normal day to day operations the Monarch keeps a hands off approach, but with major issues, like the economy or healthcare or deploying troops overseas, he or she should be involved. Hope this makes since and isn't that rambling:eek:, I'm a bit tired.
 
Another thing you have to do is change the successes of full republics such as the US. One way to do this is somehow reduce the anti-monarchical nature of the revolution so that the when the constitution is written they make the executive a hereditary, or semi hereditary (elective), kingship. This would fit in the whole reducing the effects of the popular will like the electoral college (which would not need to exist) and states appointing senators. This way you have an elected, directly and indirectly, legislature that is answerable to the people, an appointed judiciary that has to be agreed upon by both the executive and legislature, and a hereditary executive that is less influenced by outside factors, such as foreign nations, corporate donations, and other factors that influence those who want to get elected. This would allow the executive to be detached from political factions to a certain degree (which has been the greatest problem in the US system since Washington) and act as more of an neutral arbiter when the political process gets bogged down.

Well to me this touches on an unaddressed issue between modern monarchies and Presidential Republics. Modern monarchies are by and large Parliamentary in nature, with the executive and legislative powers invested in more or less the same branch. The Prime Minister is more dependent on a smaller group of people then the nation at large, which is the opposite of Presidential republics, as the President is only beholden to the electorate, not Congress. So in my opinion it would create more stable governments if the modern Monarchies functioned in a similar way to the US executive branch, albeit with maybe lesser powers. The Parliament can run the day to day government but any major issues will have Royal input, on behalf of the entire nation, not just the various political parties or the ruling Prime Minister.

I guess my main theme that underlies the challenge is this: As I've heard a few describe it, in most constitutional monarchies, the people elect those that will run the country daily while the ruling monarch is in a background with a gun pointed at 'parliament' that they can 'fire' if it is going off the deep end. Basically don't do stupid stuff, and you don't get shot at.

However it seems now, with no monarch exercised this and related powers for such a long time, that even if they fire at a nut-they shoot their own head because it's now viewed as an act of a dictator.

As for the democracy, I would like for them to get at the same level or close to the democracy as OTL, but so long as many of the ideals of democracy and modern rights are preserved, then it would be fine with me.

Democracy is a good thing, but I don't mind someone not concerned with winning a election to step in if required.


I understand what you mean. Over the last century active monarchy has became more and more associated with Dictatorships, not a unifying and stabilizing force like it really is. Despite the fact that I tend to expose Legitimist and monarchist views, I'm not anti-democracy by any means, but I do feel that having an unelected Head of state does have its positive features, as they don't have to worry about pissing off their constituents when trying to do the right thing for the nation. That's the true flow of Democracy: the Politicians pander to voter's prejudices and rather narrow minded views instead of acting for the nation at large. Now mind you this is my views for my own country, the US, and not for any other country but the same facts tend to pop up in many democracies. Take the gun-control issue for instance. Because so many members of Congress are afraid of losing office if they oppose the gun lobby, there can't be comprehensive reform for that issue. Now if we put a monarch, beholden to no electorate, in a position to make decisions for the good of the nation, we wouldn't have that problem. I don't mean to offend anyone on the site and if my views do I apologize.
 
I understand what you mean. Over the last century active monarchy has became more and more associated with Dictatorships, not a unifying and stabilizing force like it really is. Despite the fact that I tend to expose Legitimist and monarchist views, I'm not anti-democracy by any means, but I do feel that having an unelected Head of state does have its positive features, as they don't have to worry about pissing off their constituents when trying to do the right thing for the nation. That's the true flow of Democracy: the Politicians pander to voter's prejudices and rather narrow minded views instead of acting for the nation at large. Now mind you this is my views for my own country, the US, and not for any other country but the same facts tend to pop up in many democracies. Take the gun-control issue for instance. Because so many members of Congress are afraid of losing office if they oppose the gun lobby, there can't be comprehensive reform for that issue. Now if we put a monarch, beholden to no electorate, in a position to make decisions for the good of the nation, we wouldn't have that problem. I don't mean to offend anyone on the site and if my views do I apologize.
Which brings us back to the initial issue. Yes, a monarch could intervene and do something against the popular will, but doing so would be, by definition, doing something against the popular will. And of course, monarchs have a bad tendency to get isolated from the real world ("let them eat cake" is a myth, but the underlying truth is that your average hereditary monarchy has less experience with the lives of ordinary people than even the richest Congressperson).

Any government with a strong tradition of popular sovereignty is going to have people upset with an unelected person (and you may not like calling them dictator, but that's how their actions, even if perfectly legal, are susceptible to being portrayed) overrule the popular will. Look at the grief e.g. the US Supreme Court gets over unpopular rulings, and remember that the Justices at least have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Imagine the reaction to similar actions by a monarch, who has no accountability to anyone and got his/her position just by coming out of the right womb. It would be easy for any halfway decent politician to demagogue, and IMHO they would have a fair point.

So, to meet the OP's challenge, we need a government with less popular legitimacy, or less of a tradition of popular sovereignty. A related example is Thailand, where the monarchy plays a key part in the political structure, e.g. legitimizing military coups after the fact. A situation in which suffrage is seriously restricted might see the monarch playing off against the oligarchs, e.g. in a situation where the House of Lords still had teeth. Basically, you need to weaken the power of democratic and egalitarian forces.

If the OP would allow politically influential monarchs who use their informal powers, that's somewhat easier. I've already mentioned the King of Thailand, and of course the Allies post-WWII used the Emperor of Japan to legitimize their restructuring of Japanese politics and society. One could certainly imagine a situation in which the modern tradition of monarchs avoiding straying too far into politics didn't exist, and e.g. the Queen would support or oppose certain candidates, either directly or through campaign contributions (an important tool for the Hanoverians to shape Parliament to their liking in the 18th century, where a few bribes could easily sway a pocket borough with only a handful of legal voters). The problem is that this behavior leaves the monarch vulnerable to the opposition candidates should her endorsements backfire.
 
Romania would have been this had it not gone communist, perhaps thanks to a POD as late as the battle of France. King Michael would still be on the throne today (if the added stress didn't kill him early).

Bulgaria would probably be in a similar situation, and perhaps Yugoslavia as well, although I'm not so sure about that.
 
Lately when I've heard people talk about the remaining monarchies in Europe, especially Great Britain, is that they are effectually 'rubber-stampers' in the system.

What I mean is that while a constitutional monarchy gives the monarch a 'de jure' role behind the power of the government, in practice most politicians and the citizens themselves either choose to ignore or forget this and thus the practical power lies with the elected official themselves.

Further, they say, that the moment that the monarch does use any of their reserved power, even if it was legal and justified at the time, it would essentially end of them ever stepping into the affairs of government again.

Essentially their the old grampa that is allowed to 'chose' what he wants for breakfast, but has that allusion removed once they chose something we would never give them.

So my challenge is have it so that even into the mid to lat 20th century, the use of reserved power by the reigning king or queen would be seen as something that may be a necessary action that is not undermining democracy, rather than an attempt to restore government of the middle ages (rough view people seem to have)

It would probably help if you had some sort of (minor, but not entirely ceremonial) role which the monarch could perform on a reasonably regular basis, so that the idea of the ruler being involved in politics isn't a completely foreign one to people, even though the government as a whole is democratic. Then again, I'm not sure what such a role could be. Something to do with the armed forces maybe? Or maybe some kind of state cult like in ancient Rome, where the priests are also politicians. The monarch could be in charge of overseeing this cult.

Alternatively, maybe have a tradition where the king himself is publically neutral, but the heir apparent is given various political roles so that when he becomes king himself he has more experience with which to advise his prime ministers. Again, this would help to keep the idea of royals in politics in the public mind, so it would be less shocking for the monarch to intervene, even if this doesn't happen often.

Or maybe you could engineer a situation where the prime minister and cabinet are more independent of parliament. Assuming that parliament still gets to pass laws and budgets the country would still be largely democratic, but since the executive would be more independent, the monarch, whilst they would have to appoint someone who can work with parliament, nevertheless wouldn't be so constrained by the wishes of their MPs.
 
Well to me this touches on an unaddressed issue between modern monarchies and Presidential Republics. Modern monarchies are by and large Parliamentary in nature, with the executive and legislative powers invested in more or less the same branch. The Prime Minister is more dependent on a smaller group of people then the nation at large, which is the opposite of Presidential republics, as the President is only beholden to the electorate, not Congress. So in my opinion it would create more stable governments if the modern Monarchies functioned in a similar way to the US executive branch, albeit with maybe lesser powers. The Parliament can run the day to day government but any major issues will have Royal input, on behalf of the entire nation, not just the various political parties or the ruling Prime Minister.
You do realise that Parliamentary states in general have had more stable governments than Presidential ones right?
 
Top