Monarchs seen as natural allies of the lower classes

Perhaps a theocracy of sorts, such as a Pontic Greek state or Lebanon led by an Orthodox Bishop--especially if the Bishop is one of the actual monastic types and not a pseuo-monastic. Hence, the King in this situation would be self-less, not marrying of daughters and such, and with a post 1848 POD could champion himself as a people's monarch.

Serbia had Bishops that led armies into the 1800s, so perhaps not as crazy as one would think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_Montenegro
 
Perhaps a theocracy of sorts, such as a Pontic Greek state or Lebanon led by an Orthodox Bishop--especially if the Bishop is one of the actual monastic types and not a pseuo-monastic. Hence, the King in this situation would be self-less, not marrying of daughters and such, and with a post 1848 POD could champion himself as a people's monarch.

Unfortunately, history suggests that clerics who wield political power are more likely to end up acting as politicians rather than clerics.
 
It is a recurring argument amongst traditionalists of all stripes that no matter what the actual motivation of a monarch is, be it cynical (allying with the people against the elite because the aristocracy threatens him far more than the commoners) or idealistic (genuinely feeling 'paternal' care for his subjects and wishing to protect them from exploitation), the result is practically the same. (Basically the same argument Smith makes for greed and capitalism: "private vices make public goods" -- doesn't matter whether a company invents a cure for cancer just for profit... the cure is made, and that's what counts!)

The same argument is usually assumed for democracy as well -- most politicians care largely about power, getting elected, and so on, but we still expect this to result in good policies more often than not.
 
Could it also happen in a post-industrial society, with monarchs instituting workplace safety and minimum wage laws to defend their people against the corrupt plutocrats who would exploit their workers?

Not if said Plutocrats are the ones paying the vast majority of the taxes. Then they have the power of capital flight or tax dodging/non compliance to strangle the social spending of the state.
 
The absolutist period in the Habsburg monarchy has some elements of this phenomenon; Maria Theresa and Joseph II wanted to curb the excesses of the great landowners in Bohemia and Hungary, who demanded heavy burdens of forced labor from their serfs. They wanted to make the peasantry more productive, and believed a nation of smallholders would be more efficient; while they didn't get that far, the abolition of serfdom and curtailing of aristocratic abuses was part of an absolutist initiative. When the army carried out the first national census in the Habsburg Monarchy, the peasants went to the army with their complaints, because they knew the army was fundamentally loyal to the dynasty, who could be their ally against the landowners. 'Popular monarchism' was not really so clean in practice, but in some cases it's not a total fantasy.
 
Unfortunately, history suggests that clerics who wield political power are more likely to end up acting as politicians rather than clerics.
Probably, because as Plato observed the people who run the ship of state are usually the ones fighting over the rudder. There are every once of a while people that truly men of the people...Ron Paul, Jimmy Carter, etc...but they're not remembered well and usually hated. Cyrus the Great allegedly was relatively selfless and generous (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanho...ip-lessons-from-cyrus-the-great/#4e5500a9b220), so this does not happen often, but I guess it can happen.

So, an ascetic that takes power is sort of what I am gunning for here, LOL.
 
I'm sorry, but how was Napoleon the Third a socialist? Are we talking about the same person? Perhaps my knowledge of history is inadequate, but the picture of him I had in mind was of a devout catholic, a nationalist as well as a conservative man, that at some point in his life used liberal, not socialist ideas to climb to power.

He was influenced by Saint-Simonism, which is often considered as part of socialist political thought, even though it's perhaps better described as free-trade interventionism/somewhat akin to the internal improvements the Whigs advocated for at the same time.

Also, Napoléon III is said to have considered himself a socialist, but the relevant quote might not be authentic. But in his youth he certainly sympathized with communist idea and, while in prison, wrote an economic fantasy about seizing fallow private land and organizing workers' commune to reduce unemployment.
 
Not if said Plutocrats are the ones paying the vast majority of the taxes. Then they have the power of capital flight or tax dodging/non compliance to strangle the social spending of the state.

Maybe if the State really is dependent on them, although IOTL capital flight and tax dodging hasn't prevent various welfare programmes and worker protection laws being passed.
 
Maybe if the State really is dependent on them, although IOTL capital flight and tax dodging hasn't prevent various welfare programmes and worker protection laws being passed.

I guess in the past there was less of it. When did the tax ha(e)vanes really take off? Somewhen post-WW2, I guess?
 
Here are some of the reforms of Louis XVI, made of his own free will beginning from the moment he ascended the throne. He was considered quite the Liberal in OTL.

- 1774 Louis XVI placed Turgot in charge of finances and introduced free circulation of grain. Founded School of Medicine in Paris.

- 1775 Droits d'octroi were reduced, prison reform begun, and the death penalty for deserters was abolished.

- 1776 The king signed the six edicts of Turgot comprising the abolition of the corvee. The parlements resisted the edicts, preventing them from becoming law. In the same year he reduced his household.

- 1778 More taxes reduced.

- 1779 The king abolished servitude and other reforms were made.

- 1780 Further reductions in the Royal household were made, hospital reform was begun, prison reform continued, most torture was abolished.

- 1784 Relief given to Jews.

- 1786 More hospital reform, aid to the deaf, and provisions made for lost children.

- 1787 Steps taken towards the total abolition of the corvee, more reductions in royal household, civil rights accorded to Jews and Protestants.

- 1788 All forms of torture were abolished, greater freedom given to press, steps towards abolition of lettres de cachet.

Anyone who thinks Louis XVI was a lazy, sluggish, do-nothing king need only examine the six volumes of laws passed during his reign. He wanted to reform the feudal tax system, which is why he called the Estates-General. If all the nobles and wealthy clergy had been minimally taxed, there would have been no deficit.

POD : King Louis XVI of France stays in power (read my other posts) under a constitutional monarchy system. After understanding that the Parisian Uprising was shadowly led by the Bourgeois and a part of the nobility (hi cousin), he decided to help the poor and peasants on the advice of his advisors, including former revolutionaries like Abbé Sièyes or Le Chapelier.

King Louis XVI chooses to gradually develop a basic "social welfare" system with the help of the church. His son Louis XVII will continue his legacy without it.

France welfare system around 1820 :

- end of unfair taxes and social privilegies (as Louis XVI did in OTL) - 1789
- creation of national stockpiles for food supplies - 1789
- bread price controls - 1789
- pensions for veterans and workers of the royal and national manufactures/factories. - 1790
- creation of national lawyers who work free of charge for the poor. - 1791
- poor relief (bureaux de bienfaisance) - 1791
- national poor houses - 1791
- public hospitals and schools - 1791
- child benefits to increase the kingdom population -1795
- public universities and Grandes écoles - 1800
- social contributions - 1800
- national labor unions controlled by the state - 1820

694 pages in French on social welfare from 1789 Revolution to Napoleon
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01226867/document
 
Last edited:
King Louis XVI of France stays in power (read my other posts) under a constitutional monarchy system. After understanding that the Parisian Uprising was shadowly led by the Bourgeois and a part of the nobility (hi cousin), he decided to help the poor and peasants.

Could have worked theoretically, but he'd have to be a different person for that. He wasn't that smart.
 
Could have worked theoretically, but he'd have to be a different person for that. He wasn't that smart.

He doesn't have to be. He can just be scared and listen to the liberal nobility like Lafyette who's national guard are the main picket between his throne and the radical mobs. I can easily see him restoring the bread price controls and restoring internal customs barriers (at least on the grain trade) to help get food prices under control in the cities, which is what 80%+ of the riots we're about.
 
I think Willhelmina of the Netherlands could be a "Maternal Autocrat" that actually tries to do the best for her people. She was anti Parliament because she felt that the Parliament was only a way for political parties to fulfill their private agenda (what I mean by private agenda is getting campaign fund and stuff, opposed to the public agenda of enforcing policies). With the right PoD she could fulfill this whole "Koningin van het volk" critieria.

But other monarchs tried these : Louis XVI was too shy, but he really tried to do his best.
 
He doesn't have to be. He can just be scared and listen to the liberal nobility like Lafyette who's national guard are the main picket between his throne and the radical mobs.

I just feel reminded of this anecdote: The sansculottes had forced him to appear on the balcony wearing the red sansculotte hat (you know, the one that looks like a smurf hat). One Corsican officer who was there muttered to himself "Che coglione!" (What a big idiot!)
 
This notion was really common everywhere. I think it even has a semi-official name in historiography ("popular monarchism").

The thing is, just because people would often assume that the King is their natural ally, doesn't mean that this was actually the case. Sometimes this "natural alliance" resulted in something tangible - more often it did not. There's a long list of mass movements and revolutions who put their trust in this "special relationship" between the monarch and the common people, only to be thoroughly betrayed.

Interestingly enough, the monarchs would sometimes buy into this myth themselves. Like the French pretenders (Henri V and Philippe VII), who sincerely paid a lot of attention to the problems of the working class...but their suggestions on how to solve it were, uh, very confused. The fruits of "popular monarchism" are hard to materialize even when there are genuine good intentions.

A big reason for that is they don't have a clue how normal people live.
 
i've got an idea for my ASB ATL where a Tlatoani of the revived Aztec Empire (i can't remember which off the top of my head, but he does have a decided-upon name already) becomes at least semi-sympathetic to socialist movements, coupled with a Cihuacoatl (read: prime minister) who is similarly sympathetic and their instruction of jaguar warriors to protect workers against strike-breakers results in the jaguar warrior becoming a socialist symbol within the country

general speaking, though, the term you're thinking of on "monarchs as natural allies to the lower classes" is noblesse oblige, the notion that because aristocrats or whoever got the golden ticket and are better-off in life than most then they have an obligation to help others and improve their lot in life, too. sadly, not many nobles and quasi-nobles both historically and today believe that....
 
Top