AHC: Make executive consitutional monarchy the norm

Basically what the title says; make most of the monarchies in the world executive constitutional monarchy, where they still wield some measure of control in the decision making process of a country, but not enough to disrupt the democratic process.
 
Basically what the title says; make most of the monarchies in the world executive constitutional monarchy, where they still wield some measure of control in the decision making process of a country, but not enough to disrupt the democratic process.

Well IDK about most of the world, but for Europe you need to remove the revolutions during WWI. Before the Great war nearly all of Europe, with the exceptions of Portugal, France and Switzerland, had monarchies. And I'm sure there's a way to get a restoration in Portugal and France.
 
The obvious question: What counts as disrupting the democratic process? Arguably a monarch with some actual power is anything but democratic by definition.
 
Maybe the elective monarchies hold larger sway earlier on. If both the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth can somehow dodge decentralization - a tall order, granted - and the inherent problems with electoral monarchs - succession crisis after succession crisis - they can serve as models for functional elective monarchies instead of the relatively monarch-less states which cropped up OTL.
 
Basically what the title says; make most of the monarchies in the world executive constitutional monarchy, where they still wield some measure of control in the decision making process of a country, but not enough to disrupt the democratic process.

As a practical matter, you probably need some method of dealing with the problem of heredity--having strict hereditary rules is going to look increasingly anachronistic, especially when the heir is a boob. So you need some kind of elective principal. Your monarch could be straightforwardly elected via democratic means, or via a college of nobles or something, or the monarchy could even be conceived as a kind of royal corporation and the family and other interested parties have their own internal procedures for selecting a successor.

You also need a method for getting rid of your executive when things go sour. The whole trend towards executive prime ministers in the first place was because it was nice for the king to have somebody to blame and fire as a focus of popular resentment other than the king. But long-term if the king is the real executive, firing a potemkin prime minister won't cut it. Maybe a tradition of the King/Queen abdicating on the happening of a certain event develops. The event could be something procedural, like a vote of no confidence, or else substantive--like a tradition that recessions, depressions, and war losses require abdication. Or you could have term monarchy.

In short, if a real executive monarchy happens, I think you'll see some convergence to OTL presidency or prime ministership.

A more competent or fortunate George III might get you part of the way to your desired outcome.
 
Wait, so an executive constitutional monarchy is one with the monarch as a head of state and government?

Oops, than that's not what I mean at all. I'm basically meaning where there's a parliament and a prime minister, but the monarch wields more than ceremonial powers, is still a part of the decision making process.

Speaking of WWI, what if Russia was successfully reformed before such a war, so that the USSR doesn't form. Than when the dust clears, the victors set up puppet monarchies throughout Europe? Would this make sense at all, particularly in the sense of newly created states?
 
Liechtenstein is an executive consitutional monarchy since the new constitution adopted by referendum in 2003. Monaco has basically the same kind of monarchy. I guess it's easier for small countries.
 
Last edited:
First World War is after 1900.
Between 1871 and 1910, Europe had two significant republics. Switzerland - an old republic with historical special society - and French 3rd republic.

1870s France was a republic that was mostly monarchist.

If France pulls off a kingdom in 1870s rather than the OTL 3rd republic - what are the butterflies in rest of Europe? Like 1910 Portugal?
 
First World War is after 1900.
Between 1871 and 1910, Europe had two significant republics. Switzerland - an old republic with historical special society - and French 3rd republic.

1870s France was a republic that was mostly monarchist.

If France pulls off a kingdom in 1870s rather than the OTL 3rd republic - what are the butterflies in rest of Europe? Like 1910 Portugal?

Well France could be pulled off rather easily. Just have the Comte de Chambord accept the flag compromise. Rather silly in my book that the only real reason there wasn't a third restoration was because of a flag. As for Portugal, I can't really comment. It was really a combination of things, like ongoing political and economic instability, the continued power of the Church, the country bowing to British colonial demands and the expenses of the Royal family all contributed. Some of this could be fixed I suppose. Not easily but it could be.
 
As for Portugal, I can't really comment. It was really a combination of things, like ongoing political and economic instability, the continued power of the Church, the country bowing to British colonial demands and the expenses of the Royal family all contributed. Some of this could be fixed I suppose. Not easily but it could be.

Yes, but if French Republic is, like Spanish one, a brief failure in 1870-s, would the Portuguese go for republic in 1910, or try to make do with monarchy even if they change government, constitution or monarch?
 
Yes, but if French Republic is, like Spanish one, a brief failure in 1870-s, would the Portuguese go for republic in 1910, or try to make do with monarchy even if they change government, constitution or monarch?

Maybe. If France has a third restoration in the 1870s (it almost happened so its realistic) then there would be no other republic besides Switzerland then there would be no example. But the problem was the Portuguese instability. The republican party was highly organized and presented itself as the best alternative to the instability surrounding the monarchy. If Portugal can somehow be more stable then the monarchy wouldn't be overthrown. And remember the monarch they overthrew as Miguel II, who was barely 20 and had reigned for 2 years at this point, the male survivor of the Lisbon regicide. So its not like there was a brutal dictator-style monarch.
 
Actually, France wasn't monarchical in 1871. They never had a true majority because the election was rigged by the Prussian who wanted the monarchist in power (who wanted peace at any price) and not the republicans (who wanted to continue the fight). The first by election a few months after the first elections showed a result similar to the latter elections, as the monarchist only received 10% of the votes (they only received 26% in 1876, with 14% of bonapartist). Even if the monarchist "majority" pushed for a monarchy, the king would be deposed either peacefully or by a revolution very quickly.
 
Actually, France wasn't monarchical in 1871. They never had a true majority because the election was rigged by the Prussian who wanted the monarchist in power (who wanted peace at any price) and not the republicans (who wanted to continue the fight). The first by election a few months after the first elections showed a result similar to the latter elections, as the monarchist only received 10% of the votes (they only received 26% in 1876, with 14% of bonapartist). Even if the monarchist "majority" pushed for a monarchy, the king would be deposed either peacefully or by a revolution very quickly.

Unlike his ambassador Von Arnim, Bismarck wanted a republican regime in France in order to weaken France : http://books.google.de/books?id=w5a...onepage&q=von arnim bismarck republik&f=false
 
Actually, France wasn't monarchical in 1871. They never had a true majority because the election was rigged by the Prussian who wanted the monarchist in power (who wanted peace at any price) and not the republicans (who wanted to continue the fight). The first by election a few months after the first elections showed a result similar to the latter elections, as the monarchist only received 10% of the votes (they only received 26% in 1876, with 14% of bonapartist). Even if the monarchist "majority" pushed for a monarchy, the king would be deposed either peacefully or by a revolution very quickly.

Um it really doesn't matter. The national assembly was Royalist, it wanted to restore the Monarchy. Just because the Republicans were idiots and wanted to keep fighting a lost war doesn't meant that that was the only reason the Royalists got a majority. If was obvious that they were gonna restore the monarchy and it was only Chambords rather stupid insistence over the flag that derailed things. There wasn't any demonstrations against the potential Restoration, so saying that a revolution is likely is a gross oversimplification. Really besides Paris most French were apathetic about politics in general.
 
That flag was very important, Emperor Constantine! :mad:

Especially because, if Chambords was unable to get his way over a simple flag, then what's point is there in actually being King? Being a symbolic figurehead isn't exactly fun.
 
That flag was very important, Emperor Constantine! :mad:

Especially because, if Chambords was unable to get his way over a simple flag, then what's point is there in actually being King? Being a symbolic figurehead isn't exactly fun.

Um as a self described LEGITIMIST I'm FULLY aware of how important the flag was.:rolleyes: But it was a stupid fight. The assembly bent over backwards to compromise. The Bourbon flag would have been the Royal standard, flying over Royal residences while the tri-color flag remained the national one. Here's a flag believed to have been designed by the Duc de Bordeaux in his younger days:

512px-France_flag_-_Royalist_design.PNG

So this could be a good compromise. Or a tri-color with a Bourbon coat of arms in the center. So there was compromise options. France isn't gonna go back to a semi-absolute monarchy. Really if you read the French page on "Henri V" most of his ideas weren't that bad. He favored universal suffrage, minor decentralization, a less violent colonial policy in Algeria and opposed conscription, to name a few. Really these ideas wouldn't have been something the French people opposed.
 
Um it really doesn't matter. The national assembly was Royalist, it wanted to restore the Monarchy. Just because the Republicans were idiots and wanted to keep fighting a lost war doesn't meant that that was the only reason the Royalists got a majority. If was obvious that they were gonna restore the monarchy and it was only Chambords rather stupid insistence over the flag that derailed things.

No it wasn't. When you have a shift of more than 30% of the electorate that go from Monarchist to Republicans in 5 years, there is something else.

There wasn't any demonstrations against the potential Restoration, so saying that a revolution is likely is a gross oversimplification.

The Commune ? And it was only against a government that didn't even wanted restoration at that time. No way a restoration would happen.

Really besides Paris most French were apathetic about politics in general.

I guess the Communes in Lyon, Marseilles, St Etienne, etc were parties !
 
No it wasn't. When you have a shift of more than 30% of the electorate that go from Monarchist to Republicans in 5 years, there is something else.



The Commune ? And it was only against a government that didn't even wanted restoration at that time. No way a restoration would happen.



I guess the Communes in Lyon, Marseilles, St Etienne, etc were parties !

Not really. The French are highly fickle people. In 1870 82% of the electorate voted to approve the Second Empire and its liberal changes, with a 81% turnout I might add. So that in itself proves just how much fast the French can change.

As of the Commune, what about it? It was anti EVERYTHING. Really it was the last, desperate attempt of the Parisian mob to decide the fate of France and it predictably failed.

As to the other communes, a reaction to the Parisian mobs. The fact that none of them lasted beyond a few months is proof enough that the French people has no love for the Socialists. The might not have had much for the Royalists, and there might be a few riots or risings but nothing more. Look at 19th century France. All of the overthrows of the Government were done by Parisian mobs, not national ones. The best example would be the 1851 coup. Yes it was opposed, violently, by some but on the whole the French people accepted it. This is the most likely outcome for a Third Restoration.
 
Top