WI: Democratically Elected Monarchy

I think its unlikely but possible that 19th C. France may have evolved into a system where a parliament selected a new monarchical line when it lost confidence in the old one, from the trio of the Orleans, Bourbons, and Napoleons.

Orleanists would have been fine with that, while the Legitimists would boycott it ("executive authority derives from God alone!").
 
Does Haakon VII count? He didn't have to compete against other candidates, but the Norwegian voters did approve him in an up-or-down referendum.

Alternatively, elected monarchy is common in West Africa, particularly in Nigeria, with the electoral college being a group of aristocratic "kingmakers." In an alternate colonial era in which some or all of the Nigerian kingdoms survive as princely states, some might get the idea of letting all the citizens choose from among the adult members of the royal families (there's usually more than one). Of course, more of these kingdoms might arrange for the choice to be made by their parliaments, but a few might decide that a popularly elected king could be an effective check against the parliament. Nigerian monarchy, especially among the Yoruba, is all about checks and balances.
 
Orleanists would have been fine with that, while the Legitimists would boycott it ("executive authority derives from God alone!").

At least at first, I don't think it can be a formal system. But it still could work that way in practice. E.g., a monarchical majority parliament returns the throne to the Bourbons, who accept it because it is theirs by right. Some kind of partially elective assembly continues on in an advisory capacity, or because the Bourbons decree it (the theory of absolutism was OK with constitutions and parliaments, as long as the absolute monarch was the one who issued the constitution). Then, at some severe crisis, the parliament issues a vote of no confidence and the crown's advisors tell him to flee until order can be restored, he does, some other dynasty ends up being invited by the parliament to restore order. Then at some point, politics and the like leads to parliament accepting their old master back.
 
Does Haakon VII count? He didn't have to compete against other candidates, but the Norwegian voters did approve him in an up-or-down referendum.

Alternatively, elected monarchy is common in West Africa, particularly in Nigeria, with the electoral college being a group of aristocratic "kingmakers." In an alternate colonial era in which some or all of the Nigerian kingdoms survive as princely states, some might get the idea of letting all the citizens choose from among the adult members of the royal families (there's usually more than one). Of course, more of these kingdoms might arrange for the choice to be made by their parliaments, but a few might decide that a popularly elected king could be an effective check against the parliament. Nigerian monarchy, especially among the Yoruba, is all about checks and balances.

I wouldn't count Haakon VII if there were no potential challengers. They don't have to "campaign" for the challenge, just so long as there is more than one viable choice. By your description, Haakon's vote sounds more like a referendum on having a monarchy in the first place rather than who is going to be the king, right?

If Agricola is right about the Germanic tribes, we would have an OTL example of my challenge. Agricola was also right about the real issue in the challenge being "sovereignty of the people" as opposed to "divine right".
 
If Agricola is right about the Germanic tribes, we would have an OTL example of my challenge.

Unfortunately, we do not know much about these early german temporary kings and about the election process. Most probably a Thing.

Namely we know Ariovistus, King of the Suebi (or part of them) and Marobodus, King of the Marcomanni. But I do not know, if they have been elected. But these are 2 examples, when early german kings ruled relatively long and not just for one campaign. It is hard to believe, that they did not try to establish a dynasty. Perhaps somebody knows more about the early kings of the Alemans or the Franks until Childerichs dynasty?

Thats the main problem with such elected kings. If the power is with the king they try to establish a dynasty. Just look at the kings of the Holy Roman Empire in the early mid-ages. These kings were elected by the powerful aristocrats and not by the people, but they always tried to establish a dynasty. Another example are the Good Emperors of the roman empire from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius. Also not elected by the people, even if the plebs urbana was one of the so called 3 acceptance groups (plebs, senate, army). The system of choosing the optimum vir worked great until the first had a son: Commodus.

An elected king for lifetime, who does not try to establish a dynasty, must be a very weak puppet-king. A puppet of the ruling class and its council. But I am afraid, this is not, what you are looking for.

PS: another POD might be Iceland around 1000 AD. Perhaps the oldest non-ancient democracy, also based on a Thing. If these Vikings go for monarchy by whatever reasons, they might elect the king. But afaik, they were fundamentalistic anti-monarchists.
 
Last edited:
Alexander Cuza was elected Prince in Moldavia and Wallachia. After he was deposed, his successor as chosen by leading politicians.
 
In addition to all of the above, I could see such a thing happening in Britain, actually.

Scenario:
Glorious Revolution does less well, and when the Whigs fall from power in Parliament, the Tories invite a sane Jacobite pretender (note that no such person existed iotl, and if he had, William might never have gained the throne in the first place, still.)

There's a minor civil war, but the Tories win ('cause no one likes *Willliam very much anyway). Then the Jacobite pretender blots his copybook, and when the Whigs return to power, they re-invite William&Mary's son (again, who doesn't exist iotl, only ittl).

By this point, the fighting is more riots in the streets than civil war, and precedent has been established that a change of party means a change of monarch.

This evolves into an electoral system where 'monarch' is part of the whole electoral slate.


Really, really unlikely. You'd have to have JUST the right people at just the right times, and the civil wars to be, well, civil. But barely possibly, IMO.
 
Just give the US president a crown and an ermine cape. Call the position Quadrennial monarch or something and everything else pretty much can stay the same.

A rose by any other name and all that.
A lot of my fellow U.S. citizens kind of view the president this way!

And here's the point where we have to take a deep breath and be very careful. Back in 1980, I think a majority of my fellow citizens figured out that President Carter was too much of a micromanager. And in 1992, people figured out that Pres. Bush, Sr., was disengaged in the economy. So, people can be very smart in some areas. In areas which interest them. A playwright once told me that people don't know specific facts, such as what are the formal duties of an 'attending physician' in a hospital, but as far as picking up on subtle details of relationships people tend to be right on and very smart.

And look at our own website right here! We really focus on presidents, and not so much on other potential political PODs. Well, presidents give cleaner PODs, don't they? Maybe, but whether they do or whether they don't, we really focus on them. (not necessarily against these PODs, just like us to branch out and develop some good skills in other areas as well)
 
Top