I'm helping a friend work on their world for a video game, and part of it involves monarchism becoming a hot button issue during the cold war. Assuming that the USSR still collapses on schedule while monarchism is not only seen as a valid, but secures certain political alliances (at least England. A lot is still to be determined), which former SSRs are more likely to go monarchist? What royal families are likely to be restored for which countries? Are there enough Romanovs to go around? Could the Osmanoğlu family rise again in Central Asia? Are there native dynasties that would still been seen as legitimate?
 
None, monarchism isn't a thing outside of a few far-right wing Russian nationalists. Modern Monarchies are relics of a bygone era especially the European ones .
 
Last edited:
None, monarchism isn't a thing outside of a few far-right wing Russian nationalists.
In OTL sure, but that may not be the case here since this seems to involve an earlier POD.

What exactly is the state of monarchism during the Cold War? Do several other countries undergo monarchist restorations? Within that context you could probably justify Russia restoring the Romanovs, but more context would be needed. Outside of that, I think within the USSR Georgia's probably the best bet for restoring the monarchy, while outside the USSR but within the Warsaw Pact you could probably easily see the Romanian and Bulgarian monarchies restored since those houses were specifically removed by the Soviets after World War 2.
 
Georgia has an active effort to restore the Bagatroni dynasty to the throne, and opinion polling indicates that a referendum might be in favor of such a thing IIRC. The big problem is that ITTL (assuming we're still seeing the same SSRs as OTL) is that all of the SSRs are relatively recent states aside from Russia and Georgia. There aren't really any native dynasties to draw from, and aside possibly from Belarus and Russia, I couldn't really see the Romanov dynasty gaining any traction. The next best would be Armenia where the Savoyards of Italy claim the throne.

Ukraine and Lithuania have their transitory Hetmanate and Kingdoms, respectively, during WW1 which could give claims. However, I would have to imagine that these claims wouldn't go very far considering that both states were effectively just German puppet regimes. Similarly, the United Baltic Duchy could nominally give some possible claim for the Estonian and Latvian thrones.

As for Asia, I think it's a mixed bag. Azerbaijan had the Baku Khans who might be good candidates, similarly the Bukhara and Khiva could give a couple of central Asian candidates. The trouble is that we're dealing with nationalities who really didn't have nation-states before the Soviets carved them out. Whether these leaders would be considered I suspect has a lot to do with the opinion of the people who take charge of Central Asia. Also, considering how Central Asia tended towards serious despotism IOTL, if a similar trend occurs ITTL, we might see a few of them continue as republics because their new Presidents don't want to share the limelight. Or, perhaps the new heads of state might adopt royal titles. Someone like Saparmurat Niyazov would fit perfectly for this IMO, where instead of "merely" President, he would be Saparmurat I, King of the Turkmen, Founder of the Nation, etc. etc.

None, monarchism isn't a thing outside of a few far-right wing Russian nationalists.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them that much, IIRC opinion polls on the matter indicate ~1/4 to 1/3 of Russians think it's a good idea. It's probably just not an active political matter for them IOTL because Russia has a lot of other problems to resolve first.
 
In OTL sure, but that may not be the case here since this seems to involve an earlier POD.
You would need one dating back to the enlightenment for any independent restoration of European monarchies. Absentee that, you would need to maintain Belle Époque era of European politics.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them that much, IIRC opinion polls on the matter indicate ~1/4 to 1/3 of Russians think it's a good idea. It's probably just not an active political matter for them IOTL because Russia has a lot of other problems to resolve first.
There is little practically difference between a constitutional monarchy and republic. I don't see how you are going to get it to be a active political matter in any European Nation or greater numbers than otl without a extremally strong far-right Russian monarchist party.
Someone like Saparmurat Niyazov would fit perfectly for this IMO, where instead of "merely" President, he would be Saparmurat I, King of the Turkmen, Founder of the Nation, etc. etc.
In which case they would undermine their legitimacy to rule and look like insane megalomanics.
 
Last edited:
You would need really different world making people more monarchists. Monarchism wasn't anymore big deal after WW1. So perhaps if CPs win WW1 and Reds still win RCW. Then Soviet Union will fall apart decades later.

But even in that case I can see lot of former SSRs becoming monarchies. Perhaps Russia could restore Romanovs and Georgia Bargathions but I don't see Armenia, Azerbaijan and Central Asian SSRs having suitable options since them has not actual past royal families around and no one knows who would are heirs to ancient Armenian kings.
 
Ukraine and Lithuania have their transitory Hetmanate and Kingdoms, respectively, during WW1 which could give claims. However, I would have to imagine that these claims wouldn't go very far considering that both states were effectively just German puppet regimes. Similarly, the United Baltic Duchy could nominally give some possible claim for the Estonian and Latvian thrones.
In an ATL where monarchism is more widespread/popular, I could imagine a Ukrainian movement to restore the Rurikid dynasty.

Apparently there are enough Rurikid descendants around OTL to have started their own organization:

 
I've come up with a plausible timeline for an SSR going communist.

I won't comment on how the world bends towards monarchism and I'll just accept it as fact for this ATL. Though, I don't think these moanrchies are going to get alliances with the UK or any other monarchy for that matter. For you see, the transition from republic to monarchy I have in mind isn't the kind seen when the Bourbons get restored; rather more of a Jean-Bedel Bokassa.

Central Asia is the go to spot for this. Specifically Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan is the perfect place for such a transition. From 1991 to 2006 Saparmurat Niyazov was the leader of Turkmenistan(even as far back as 1985 he held some leadership albeit under the USSR). Turkmenistan under his rule after independence devolved into utter totalitarianism and a shameless personality cult around Niyazov. Niyazov's rule is widely considered to be one of the most ruthless of the recent past. His egotism knew no bounds. It's not that hard to make the jump from that to being an official monarch.

In this ATL, Niyazov starts his rule with the communist party even more egotistical and power hungry as well as more of a Boris Yeltsin type figure, a man who's only really in the party to get some power without believing a word of communism and privately wishes to do away with it(this ensures that in Niyazov's mind there's even less hypocrisy when he becomes a king).
Under the early years of his presidency(post dissolution) Niyazov is already fed up with the meagre title of being a simple president. By this time, Niyazov had just turned Turkmenistan into a totalitarian under his absolute control. With his book, the Ruhnama still in production, it's clear he had a vision. One wear where he was revered, one where lead the Turkmen people to reembracing of their own heritage, one where his every whim was obeyed without question.
For this, he reasons he needs to right title. But his ego decides that being president is too little. He goes royal instead.

In 1993, Niyazov proclaims the end of the Republic of Turkmenistan. In its place: the Kingdom of Turkmenistan, as its successor. For a king, he proclaims himself. He holds an elaborate coronation ceremony where he places his crown, inspired by traditional Turkmen crafts, on his head. For a title: he has two. One is King of Turkmenistan and the other being King of the Turkmens, with both held in personal union. Legally speaking, the kingdom has no constitution at all. Instead, Niyazov's word is law(well formally now that is).

I must say, this timeline can occur even without a global movement towards monarchism,
Sidenote: Niyazov's wife OTL wasn't ethnically Turkmen. So to have a future King of the Turkmen be only half Turkmen might be an embarrssment. So Niyazov would legalize polgyny, just for him. This is to allow him to take produce an heir that is fully Turkmen.
 
Last edited:

Crazy Boris

Banned
Until Danilo Skoropadsky (Pavlo’s son) was offed by Soviet agents, there was a significant faction of Ukrainian nationalists who wanted him as Hetman (unfortunately his son Borys hasn’t managed to inspire the same level of sentiment, but speaking as a Ukrainian-Canadian, I think he’d be a great Hetman.)

The Khivan and Bukharan houses are for sure possible, but the issue is both are based in what is now Uzbekistan, so which one is going to rule? There’s the option of a diarchy or Uzbekistan voluntarily splitting itself top properly revive each state, but I dunno. A lot of people associate Khiva with Turkmenistan, since they at least had nominal overlordship over the Turkmen tribes, but keep in mind their capital is in Uzbekistan.

I have heard of some guy who claims the throne of Belarus, claiming descent from the Princes of Vitebsk or Turov or one of the other minor Rus principalities, I think, but I think the jury’s out on his actual legitimacy or if he’s just some rando guy. That said though, a personal union with an Urach monarchy in Lithuania is possible given the strong historic ties between Belarus and Lithuania.

Georgia’s an obvious one given the OTL level of monarchism there is one of the best in the world, however, there’s two branches of the Bagrationi with equally good claims, which complicates matters. I don’t know if one or the other has the upper hand in support.

For Latvia, are there any descendants of the Dukes of Courland and Semigallia still around? I’ve never looked into it myself but that was the closest thing we’ve ever historically had to an independent Latvian monarchy.

Moldova can just reunite with a Romanian Kingdom, so that’s an easy one.

Azerbaijan, as mentioned, has a number of noble families from the old Khanates, but there’s several, so how that’ll work is kinda confusing. Maybe a Malaysia-style rotating monarchy or a UAE-style thing with one over-king.

As for Estonia and the remaining Central Asian republics, I have nothing, if Finland restores its monarchy Estonia might be down for a personal union. If all else fails, they can always import a foreign prince.

There is little practically difference between a constitutional monarchy and republic. I don't see how you are going to get it to be a active political matter in any European Nation or greater numbers than otl without a extremally strong far-right Russian monarchist party.

It’s already happening, monarchist sentiment is on the rise in a lot of republics, and a restoration on popular support is already plausible in places like Serbia, Georgia, and Nepal, and Montenegro and Burundi have already taken steps towards restoration with giving the Petrovic-Njegos family an official role and their new constitution promising a referendum on restoration, respectively (keep in mind, almost no monarchy was abolished with popular support, people seem to inherently have an affection for kings and queens, it may not be 100% rational, but humans seem to psychologically need things like that. To paraphrase something CS Lewis said, if you can’t honor a king then you replace it with some dingus, and the dingus is certainly not the preferable option.). And it’s certainly not inherently a far-right thing either, pretty much all monarchists despise fascism just as much as they do communism, and most from what I’ve seen are very moderate and a sizable number, (especially semi-constitutionalists and absolutists,) are outright apolitical outside of liking monarchy as a system. It might take fifty years or it might take five hundred, but I’m confident that the current time in the sun republicanism has is going to end eventually, there’s a reason monarchy worked across every corner of the world for thousands of years and republicanism was only able to overtake it by a wave of dictatorships, juntas, and colonialism imposed by a small number of naive idealists in what Hobbes called “the aristocracy of orators”. Republicanism had brief flourishing before in the ancient Mediterranean and medieval Italy, but just as it died before, it’ll die again, and with how massively apparent it’s flaws are due to the scale and scope of its spread in the current era, the next death of republicanism might be the one to permanently do it in and push it to the fringest of fringes.
 
As for Estonia and the remaining Central Asian republics, I have nothing, if Finland restores its monarchy Estonia might be down for a personal union. If all else fails, they can always import a foreign prince.

There was some probosals (altough probably not serious) that prince Carl-Philip of Sweden would had made king of Estonia. But small problem is that he would be 13 years old when Soviet Union is disbanded (assming that happening same time as in OTl) so there is need for regency. So perhaps there is Swedish-Estonian personal union until CP becomes to age. Well, it wouldn't last many years so no problem here.
 
Well when you're renaming months after your family and your book, the "insane megalomaniac" ship has already set sail.
All which can be framed as honoring a great leader. Modern dictatorships derive their legitimacy from popular sovereignty. Something a monarchy would go against. Being in charge is not legitimate grounds to become king on traditional or religious or political grounds. For example, I don’t see anyone claiming that Jean Bokassa was a legitimate emperor.
 
Last edited:
You would need one [PoD] dating back to the enlightenment for any independent restoration of European monarchies.
Technically this is true of my friend's timeline. The PoD is Margaret, Maid of Norway, surviving, the union of crowns happening, and Scotland retaining its independence to this day. I've bugged him about changing world politics a lot more, but he was rather determined to keep the World Wars and the Cold War pretty similar though, since Cold War politics are a big part of the game, and he specifically wanted Scotland, France, and Norway to be a separate faction from England ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Scotland overthrew their monarchy around the time of the French Revolution and, not wanting to redirect troops from their northern border in the war of 1812, England lost Canada to the US, so anti republicanism was more of a thing in English politics. They supported the Carlotists in La Plata and later helped restore Brazil's monarchy. Meanwhile, Alaska was never sold to the US, and the Russian monarchy was restored there, where the whites still held power. Britain still opposed Germany in both world wars, though. A lot of this might be a rather silly, I know, but if you can humor the scenario, I'd appreciate it.
 
If all else fails, they can always import a foreign prince.
Surprised this isn't coming up more. I mean, there was a plot to put an Ottoman prince in charge of Xinjiang in our timeline; Having one in Azerbaijan or Central Asia isn't out of the question, is it? The surviving Romanov family could also end up being romanticized, even if Russian rule left a sour taste in their mouths, especially if it was specifically Soviet lead rule that was bad for them.
 
All which can be framed as honoring a great leader.
It can argued as that. But whether it holds up another matter; it does not. Any argument for it amounts to thinly veiled megalomania. In addition, as far as I'm aware, he didn't even bother to justify it.
Modern dictatorships derive their legitimacy from popular sovereignty.
Well Niyazov declared himself President-for-Life, voiding the sham elections and in-name-only constitution he himself put in place. That's a clear rejection of popular/legal sovereignty. Instead, it places him beyond even long irrelevant legal limits on his term of office.
Something a monarchy would go against. Being in charge is not legitimate grounds to become king on traditional or religious or political grounds.
In truth, starting in 1991, Niyazov had no reason to care at all about creating a fictional popular base behind his rule.
He had all the power in the state.

He can do, and he did, things without needing legitimacy.
You're right in a sense that there is no ordinary grounds for legitimacy as with the Bourbons in France. But for Niyazov, being in charge is all the legitimacy he ever needs.

Unlike in times long gone, where a king with dubious claims ends up provoking a civil war; here if someone questions Niyazov, they can expect a knock from the police on their door.
For example, I don’t see anyone claiming that Jean Bokassa was a legitimate emperor.
While widely denounced, even in monarchist circles, you would still be surprised.
 
I'd argue that even if monarchism were more popular, you would be more likely to have people crown themselves monarchs rather than come from an overthrown dynasty. Think of the Roman Emperors or Napoleon.

I'd expect that will eventually be the endpoint of the Kim dynasty if it remains in power. Finally, one of the descendants will drop the "Supreme Leader" title and adopt "Emperor." Or "Supreme Leader" will become another title for Emperor like "Ceaser" and "Augustus" eventually became
 

kholieken

Banned
Supreme Leader can also be monarchical title. Princeps and Imperator is originally not monarchical. I think NK had closest approach to be "new monarchy", Kim il sung bloodline and births is celebrated.
 
Niyazov really would be the best candidate for this as none of the other post Soviet autocrats had quite the amount of gall that he had. Other than maybe Lukashenko, that is, but he is a bit too populist to have officially monarchist pretensions,

Karimov, Nazarbayev, Aliyev, they were all also party apparatchiks who were in the right place at the right time, but they also had countries with higher levels of development and security services loyal above all else to the institution. The Turkmenistan situation, it was so underdeveloped that there was little to loot beyond the government itself.

Putin may have a Tsarist fetish but above that he's also a security services man.

What may be possible is some country goes for a constitutional monarchy as it's form of government. Perhaps Russia itself after 1993 - they went with a very French like attitude towards their executive, but they could have opted for something else.
 
Republicanism had brief flourishing before in the ancient Mediterranean and medieval Italy, but just as it died before, it’ll die again, and with how massively apparent it’s flaws are due to the scale and scope of its spread in the current era, the next death of republicanism might be the one to permanently do it in and push it to the fringest of fringes.
I suppose the rise of authoritarian strong men and dictators is very similar to the rise of monarchies. Also, how is a republic a dictatorship of orators, but a monarchy is not a dictatorship? It's literally rule by birthright, not an ounce of merit or popular support comes into play.
 
Last edited:
Top