In a timeline largely similar to ours (this means no Zollverein or anything), how many countries in Europe can be monarchies in the present day?
AHC: As many monarchies in Europe as possible
- Thread starter DPKdebator
- Start date
Italy almost kept their king and IIRC the election was close once you remove the election fraud by the republicans.
Perhaps during the war Victor Immanuel makes much stronger anti-Mussolini comments and is killed by the RSI before they fall. His successor would have public sympathy and the fact that his father was acceptably anti-fascist. Might sway the votes needed
Perhaps during the war Victor Immanuel makes much stronger anti-Mussolini comments and is killed by the RSI before they fall. His successor would have public sympathy and the fact that his father was acceptably anti-fascist. Might sway the votes needed
Italian decide keep monarchy after WW2. Perhaps Greeks can keep their monarchy.
Could Portugal restore monarchy after Salazar's regime like happened in Spain after Franco's regime? Perhaps Habsburg restoration in Austria. After Cold War some countries of former Eastern Bloc could restore monarchy too. Most plausible might be Romania, Serbia and Montenegro.
Could Portugal restore monarchy after Salazar's regime like happened in Spain after Franco's regime? Perhaps Habsburg restoration in Austria. After Cold War some countries of former Eastern Bloc could restore monarchy too. Most plausible might be Romania, Serbia and Montenegro.
Bulgaria is a possibility too. If Simeon does a better job as prime minister the Bulgarians could decide to change to a constitutional monarchy model. I'd say the best bets are the former communist countries. If after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact there's an even bigger backlash against the former regime and people start looking for as big a break with the past as possible.
Finland gets a king in 1917/18, either German or Russian.
Hungary in 1921 after Charles I gets luckier. Monarchy restored in the 1990's post communism.
Italy retains the monarchy in 1946, or alternatively restores it after one too many bunga, bunga presidents.
Greece retains the monarchy in 1967 after the king opposes the coup.
Portugal in the late 1970's after the Carnation Revolution.
Romania and Bulgaria in the 1990's after the fall of communism.
Albania sometime in the 1990's under Leka Zog.
Montenegro after 2006.
Serbia after 2010.
There are a few outsiders like France after the world wars, Czechoslovakia after WW2 and the former Yugoslav countries in the 90's and possibly Poland, (I once read a off hand comment in a book that a British duke was considered in the late 1930's), but I'd say these are kind of stretches.
Finland gets a king in 1917/18, either German or Russian.
Hungary in 1921 after Charles I gets luckier. Monarchy restored in the 1990's post communism.
Italy retains the monarchy in 1946, or alternatively restores it after one too many bunga, bunga presidents.
Greece retains the monarchy in 1967 after the king opposes the coup.
Portugal in the late 1970's after the Carnation Revolution.
Romania and Bulgaria in the 1990's after the fall of communism.
Albania sometime in the 1990's under Leka Zog.
Montenegro after 2006.
Serbia after 2010.
There are a few outsiders like France after the world wars, Czechoslovakia after WW2 and the former Yugoslav countries in the 90's and possibly Poland, (I once read a off hand comment in a book that a British duke was considered in the late 1930's), but I'd say these are kind of stretches.
Would this guy's dad (ergo Prince Charles-Casimir Poniatowski) have any potential claim on the Polish throne whatsoever during the interwar period? 
(Actually, Prince Charles-Casimir's father André lived until 1954, but the driving question is if their family could claim any legitimacy.)
(Actually, Prince Charles-Casimir's father André lived until 1954, but the driving question is if their family could claim any legitimacy.)
Last edited:
Deleted member 6086
There was no chance whatsoever of the Bulgarian monarchy being restored by the time Simeon became PM. In the initial post-1989 turbulence, maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. The Communists rigged the 1946 abolition referendum, but all signs point to republicanism having been a genuine majority by then, and once that ship had sailed I don't think it's coming back.
Stopping WW2 in the East and Balkans before it can get off the ground would certainly leave a lot more, though how long they still last past that might vary. Although I guess that wouldn't really be all that similar, unless you can get a Soviet Cold War bloc with less of Eastern Europe.
German, quite possibly. Swedish or Danish, why not. Maybe even British, though that is pretty unlikely.
But a Russian king for independent Finland? That is IMHO very hard to see at that point in time. This is when Finnish nationalism and independence would be necessarily built in direct opposition to Russia, being Russian and the policies of Russification, and I think by far most Finns would rather go for a republic if the only pretender/candidate to a Finnish crown would be a Russian royal.
Last edited:
Bernadotte king had some support in Sweden and Finland. But you are right that there not be way that Romanov could be on Finnish throne. There wouldn't be any support for Romanov. And for Russians too might be bit hard to accept Romanov as head of Finland. And this monarch should be ready to convert Lutheranism and learn Finnish and perhaps Swedish too.
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
Roumania?
Would it be completely implausible for the communists to leave King Michael in Roumania after World War 2, even if only as a figurehead? He was one of the very few recipients of 'The Soviet Order of Victory', after all.
Edit:
Yes, I know, old-fashioned spelling of Romania... What comes of reading mid twentieth century books about WW2...
Would it be completely implausible for the communists to leave King Michael in Roumania after World War 2, even if only as a figurehead? He was one of the very few recipients of 'The Soviet Order of Victory', after all.
Edit:
Yes, I know, old-fashioned spelling of Romania... What comes of reading mid twentieth century books about WW2...
Last edited:
Alternate History
Banned
Yes. Who would take the Soviets' ideological justifications seriously when they leave the aristocrat on the throne? Also, since monarchs have inherently conservative political interests, leaving him in would just result in a permanent fifth column wedged into the... "Romanian Socialist People's Monarchy?". The king represents the reaction - he's got to go. Simple as that.
Maintaining "as many" as possible might better involve finding a way to keep the many smaller kingdoms and principalities. They could still be parts of larger states but maintain their positions.
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
...
They left him there for a couple of years past the end of WW2... (And that was despite a brief attempt by him not to co-operate with the communist government, at least according to wikipedia, where in the end he caved in, so the communists had even started to get him 'house trained'.)
Alternate History
Banned
I'm sure that if the Soviets could have transformed the occupied countries into full People's Republics in one day, they would have done so, but they did take some time to give some kind of legal excuse for their takeovers everywhere from Poland to Bulgaria and in between. The Romanian kingdom defected to the Soviets during WW2, which probably didn't help matters either - it was harder to justify toppling him.
Would it be completely implausible for the communists to leave King Michael in Roumania after World War 2, even if only as a figurehead? He was one of the very few recipients of 'The Soviet Order of Victory', after all.
Edit:
Yes, I know, old-fashioned spelling of Romania... What comes of reading mid twentieth century books about WW2...
Monarchism and Communism not fit very well together. Well, North Koreans might disagree.
Well the obvious choice would be to avoid the Weimar Republic and all the German revolutions of 1918, that would be about twenty right there. Even if you use the most strict terms and just allow actual kings or queens regnant that would still be four of them. Perhaps the British are able to argue a position that a constitutional monarchy will be better and more stable than a republic and get the French to go along with them, Wilhelm II abdicating and going into exile.
The easy way is to let collapse the German Empire with out abolition of nobility and monarchies
Kingdom of Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony, Württemberg
the grand duchies like Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
the small duchies like Anhalt, Brunswick, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg, Gotha Saxe-Lauenburg and Saxe-Meiningen.
and the Principalities of Lippe Reuss-Gera,Reuss-Greiz, Schaumburg-Lippe, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen and Waldeck-Pyrmont
that are 23 candidates to become monarchies after 1918
Kingdom of Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony, Württemberg
the grand duchies like Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach
the small duchies like Anhalt, Brunswick, Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg, Gotha Saxe-Lauenburg and Saxe-Meiningen.
and the Principalities of Lippe Reuss-Gera,Reuss-Greiz, Schaumburg-Lippe, Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershausen and Waldeck-Pyrmont
that are 23 candidates to become monarchies after 1918