And of 7 Greek kings we had...True, but that's Greece for you, factionalism is ingrained. Since others brought up the question of the King intervening in the Parliamentary Monarchical system the Greeks were transitioning towards in the late 1800s, I'm now reminded of a conversation I had with someone a while back, in which the consensus ended up coming out to something like, it might've actually been better off for Greece if they'd left more power with the King - had the King actually been competent, of course.
Otto: Most certainly well meaning, but almost as certainly somewhere in the autism spectrum or having some kind of mental issues that counld not be diagnosed at the time IMO, mental problems seem to had run in the whole family.
George: Relatively competent what you'd expect any fellow of average intelligence thrust in his position. Tried to take advantage of his position at times, with stock exchange schemes, or hoping he'd get a princedom for each of his sons starting with Crete but he came through when he should.
Constantine: Mediocre general (officers supporting him nicknamed him none to flatteringly Douvar pasha, from douvari a word for wall... also used for people who cannot learn/are stupid) with fantasies he was an absolute monarch like his brother in law. The worst of the lot even if he meant well.
Alexander: Cared only for his cars and his girl and did mostly what he was told by the government. Compared to the rest that makes him a paragon of virtue. Competent? That's a different matter but at least knew his role,
George II: Gets overthrown, is lucky enough to be brought back after the 1935 mess. Gets accepted by the republicans only to install a royal dictactorship and all the support he had gained evaporates again... even among royalists. Is lucky enough for the communists to mess things up enough to give him a second chance. Dies before he can mess that up. Sorry but installing dictatorships is not a mark of competence.
Paul I: Probably a reasonable fellow on his own with that "minor" issue of his wife and their meddling in politics. Or for that matter the treasury of a country just out of 9 years of war being forced to pay extravagances like Sofia's marriage, when the royal family was still one of the richest in Greece.
Constantine II: In his own words from his memoirs on how Symeon of Bulgaria, then a cadet answered to him when he asked the guard on duty who was Symeon if he could call... Symeon "Are you an idiot?" Variants of people telling him this keep cropping in his memoirs... and mommy meddling didn't help him either.
No down with kings!
Shorta kinda. Even if you were not a communist you had legitimate reasons to be anti-American after 1974. After that... we'll get into modern politics,Funny, that's literally how someone described Greco-American relations to me, once; "Greece loves the Americans one decade, then the next decade they hate them and then back again."
He and Amalia were at the head of the charge, it wasn't just a matter of not being able to keep his people in check they encouraged things, I suppose with the best of intentions. An episode at about this time when Otto during the occupation of Piraeus and while his foreign minister was off for London he spent several hours explaining to the poor fellow not what he should do in London but the great issue of whether the army should use bungles or drums says it all. Or that the student rebels against him 30 years later were the ones organizing services in him memory... but would had nevertheless rebelled again against him.Sure, unfortunately, despite Otto's heartfelt desire to serve his people well, he wasn't a particularly competent King, hence his inability to rein in the Hellenic public's feverish desire to just charge in and grab whatever they could while the Ottomans were distracted. Unfortunately (as an addendum to my previous comment about power-sharing with the Monarchy), none of the Greek Kings were particularly outstanding at their job, hence why they kept falling from grace - though I seem to recall covering this earlier as well, with my comments on a Presidential Republic and how Greeks always like to go after who's on top, so moving on.
Little. The requests were there for decades in many cases. Prior to Venizelos they were just that, requests.Sure, but as I previously pointed out, most of his domestic reforms were Goudi..... "requests" which he just implemented after coming into power, yet that bit is always seemingly overlooked whenever someone brings him up. So while, granted, we can credit him as being a solid political figure, in terms of policy, how much of it can actually be credited to him, vs. the Goudi Military League organisation?
That presupposes the December elections were legitimate... they were not since the king had already dissolved parliament and snap elections had taken place in May (and since the argument has been made that the letter of the law did not forbid an indefinite number of dissolving parliament, modern Greek constitutions explicitly state this to be on the safe side)... and of course that the elections would be actually free when there was every fear the royal government was going to fix them, helped by the fact the army was mobilized. (in retrospect I'll note that the royalist did fix the 1920 and 1935 referendums with nice Soviet numbers supposedly in favour of the king). So the Liberals should have participated in the farce to legitimize the fait accompli?Agreed with this, well put (and lol at the ASB comparison). Though yeah, he shouldn't have boycotted the 1915 December elections, that's a dangerous move in peacetime
Now had the Salonica rebels not jumped the gun in fears of the French installing Serb civilian authorities in the city, ahead of the revolt in Athens....
No he did not. He's on record believing he would had won the election, being completely shocked at the result and of still fearing something similar at the time of his 1928 landslide. That people within the Royalists put as a serious argument "this evil Venizelos, had elections as we were loudly demanding, in order for us to form a government as we wanted to do, so we could screw up because screwup was certain" is an indictment on the quality of most of the opposition, nothing more...... wait, he what?