AHC: modern day absolute monarchy in Europe

How could Tsarist Russia survive 20th century with Tsarism intact?

Have *1905 go off too early to achieve anything except frightening the ruling elite, then get rid of Nick and have someone ruthlessly absolutist but with a head between his ears (like Grand Duke Sergei) take over and start repressing any dissent and setting up the structures of totalitarianism.

Not the only way, but it was the one I was thinking of.
 
Options should be:

-extremly backward stae (->Balkans without WWs & communism)

-military dictatorship disguised as monarchy (->White Russia, Spain if Nazis win WW II)

-enlightend dynasty that cared for small folks & supported the transformation from feudal to capitaist economy (Prussia or Russia with early POD)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Options should be:

-extremly backward stae (->Balkans without WWs & communism)

-military dictatorship disguised as monarchy (->White Russia, Spain if Nazis win WW II)

-enlightend dynasty that cared for small folks & supported the transformation from feudal to capitaist economy (Prussia or Russia with early POD)

For Prussia you'd either need for it to stay small or for Friedrich II to be immortal :p
 
-military dictatorship disguised as monarchy (->White Russia, Spain if Nazis win WW II)
Spain could possibly have been a dictatorial monarchy till very recently (or perhaps even still) if Juan Carlos didn't institute his democratic reforms. any objections?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Spain could possibly have been a dictatorial monarchy till very recently (or perhaps even still) if Juan Carlos didn't institute his democratic reforms. any objections?
Yes, if Juan Carlos was a very different man, Spain would probably be a dictatorship with a monarch. Don't know if it's an Absolute monarchy though, Mussolini's Italy had a monarch but wasn't an Absolute Monarchy. For it to be counted as an Absolute Monarchy, the monarch must be the one in charge, not a puppet of someone else.
 
Don't know if it's an Absolute monarchy though, Mussolini's Italy had a monarch but wasn't an Absolute Monarchy. For it to be counted as an Absolute Monarchy, the monarch must be the one in charge, not a puppet of someone else.


No, it was a constitutional monarchy. Kind of, to be honest, but that was the official definition.
If we're considering Italy as a viable candidate we can set the POD at the end of october, AD 1922: a small group of fascists organized the "March on Rome", threatening a coup d'etat. An actual coup was highly unlikely, but the fascist encountered no resistance: that consolidated in the public opinion the imagine of a passive, disorganized and corrupt government. When Mussolini demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister, there was little to none public opposition. King Vittorio Emanuele III was forced to choose between a seemingly well organized and pro-monarchy Fascist Party and the anti-monarchist Socialist Party...we all know what decided.

The king couldn't realistically order to rout the fascist marching on Rome: that would end with the Socialists still at the government. He knew that Mussolini was going to became a problem on the long run, but overestimated his ability to put him in check. One of the most bizzarre alternative options, briefly considered but then discarded, was to declare a state of emergency and quickly decrease the power of the Parliament creating a de facto absolute monarchy...considering the character of Vittorio Emanuele III we're dangerously near the border of ASB, I admit that, but it's a start.
 
Last edited:
And neither co-prince has had any power since Andorra adopted a constitution in 1993.

They still have to pay them a yearly tribute in ham, poultry and eggs, though. :D
 
Without some major changes very early down the line, I don't think an absolute monarchy in any large European state is possible. It would be conceivable in a small statelet, provided it didn't draw attention to itself and kept the population happy. OTL most of them adopted new constitutions or were never absolute in the first place, but only Mussolini thought it was a good idea to instate an absolute monarchy in 20th-century Europe, and even he only allowed it to rule a few hundred subjects, all of whom volunteered for the honour.

Most of those statelets weren't big enough to set up anabsolute monarchy in the first place. it's kind of hard to be a divinely appointed ruler beyond the reach of the law if your subjects all know you from childhood.
 
I was thinking along the lines of Franco choosing a Royal successor that abided by his absolutist views. But then, I don't know much about the transition to democracy in Spain... so I made it a AHC instead of a WI. Sorry if offense was caused

Oh no, sorry for my susceptibility. No offense taken.



Yes, if Juan Carlos was a very different man, Spain would probably be a dictatorship with a monarch. Don't know if it's an Absolute monarchy though, Mussolini's Italy had a monarch but wasn't an Absolute Monarchy. For it to be counted as an Absolute Monarchy, the monarch must be the one in charge, not a puppet of someone else.

There is no way to make it survive until 2010. In the case of Spain, even if we have a different Juan Carlos (or someone else like Luis Alfonso de Borbón) as much they can delay things until the mid 80's. The monarchy gained its legitimacy through the Transition to democracy undertaken by Juan Carlos. Without that boost of legitimacy, they are seen as an outdated and not reliable revival. Furthermore, the spanish society in the late 70's is not the kind of society where you can expect such a regime, Francoism was dying like Franco himself. Note that the reforms which led to democracy were started by people from inside the regime, because they understood that, considering internal and external situation, it was the best for their interests and for the country. Also, there was the risk of bloodseth if the reactionnary option had won. It's true that, to be fair, the attitude of most spaniards was rather passive, even when I'd say that most of them preferred to live in a country like France than to live in a country like Charles III's Spain. The return of many economic emmigrants from France, Germany, Switzerland etc, the arrival of tourists (there is a joke in Spain that says that democracy was brought by danish women wearing bikinis), certain latin-american intelectuals that decidided to reside in Spain (like Vargas Llosa or García Márquez) the scapades to Perpignan to watch films banned in Spain and the such had opened Spain to the outside world and to her own forgotten pre-war memories. You have a mostly urban society which had industrialized greatly in the two previous decades, with a new economical structure and new aspirations. There was also a decided commitment by the european powers (mainly France, Germany and Italy) to restore democracy in Spain. It's not by chance that Felipe González, first socialist president after Franco's death, was a Willy Brandt's pupil. Furthermore, the Carnation Revolution in Portugal had been a warning signal for spanish elites, plus the anti-francoist groups were becoming more and more active in the late years of the regime and the first years of the Transition, including those that considered violence as a valid mean.


And, as Carlton, I believe that it's true for most of european societies. Many of the social and economcial traits that prevent an absolutist Spain can be applied to most other european ountries in larger or lesser extent. Perhaps with a POD in the early 19th century you can change the things, but you should change the things a lot. For the micro-states is perhaps possible, but always in the weird way everything works in those micro-states generally crowed by jet-set bons vivants, doubtious fiscal ethics and casinos.


And neither co-prince has had any power since Andorra adopted a constitution in 1993.

They still have to pay them a yearly tribute in ham, poultry and eggs, though. :D

They should update it and pay their tribute in tax free tobacco and alcohol.
 
Top