Could He Have Been A Good King?

[Andy T]

Many of the European Kings who lost their thrones in the C20th had either reigned for a very short time or were rather young, or both.
Manuel II Portugal
Charles I/IV Austria-Hungary
Petar II Yugoslavia
Simeon II Bulgaria
Umberto II Italy
Michael I Romania
Constantine II Greece

Had destiny not dealt them an impossible hand, which, in your opinion, could - or would - have gone on to become great monarchs?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In 1916 Charles I became the Emperor of Austria.
The First World War was well under way.
Charles went to work to restrain the conflict and ultimately bring it to a close.
He believed in peace. He believed the teachings of his church, the Catholic Church.

​

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Karl I was a good King and empreror. It is sad that the Habsburg Family never got a chance to reign again. Both Karl and Otto would have been great rulers.

If there is a country that i belive will ditch the republic someday it is Romania. It's sad that Mihai have spent almost his whole life as Ex-King

And to be honest. I would have really loved to see Princess Anne be Queen of England after her mother.

 

[fearghas]

Many of the European Kings who lost their thrones in the C20th had either reigned for a very short time or were rather young, or both.
Manuel II Portugal
Charles I/IV Austria-Hungary
Petar II Yugoslavia
Simeon II Bulgaria
Umberto II Italy
Michael I Romania
Constantine II Greece

Had destiny not dealt them an impossible hand, which, in your opinion, could - or would - have gone on to become great monarchs?

I think Karl of Austria, Simeon of Bulgaria and Michael of Roumania would have made excellent rulers.
Otto Habsburg would have been an excellent ruler as well.
I also think that Rupprecht of Bavaria, followed by his son, Albrecht and grandson Franz would all have been enlightened and excellent Kings of Bavaria.
Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia was in my opinion the best Hohenzollern and would have made a great Emperor of germany, though I don't think his father or brother would have.

 

[Biri]

What about Edward VI Tudor?

 

[wyevale]

I think Edward VI [had he lived into adulthood] would have made a disastrous monarch ! Headstrong and RABIDLY Protestant [although highly intelligent] he may well have have attempted to wipe out all remnants of Catholicism from his realm, and set it on a 'fundamentalist' path..
Fortunately after his and 'Bloody Mary's' timely deaths, the GREAT [and reasonable] Elizabeth succeeded.

 

[Biri]

But during Elizabeth's reign Catholics were persecuted and burned on stakes.

 

[wyevale]

They were [mainly because the Pope had excommunicated her, and issued a Papal Bull urging Catholics to murder her....]
Even so, Catholics were more at risk of being killed during Edwards short reign [5.500 in Cornwall ALONE], than under Elizabeths long one.

 

[Winnie]

I think Edward VI [had he lived into adulthood] would have made a disastrous monarch ! Headstrong and RABIDLY Protestant [although highly intelligent] he may well have have attempted to wipe out all remnants of Catholicism from his realm, and set it on a 'fundamentalist' path..
Fortunately after his and 'Bloody Mary's' timely deaths, the GREAT [and reasonable] Elizabeth succeeded.

Very thought provoking. I have to honestly wonder how that would have changed the world of today. Good/bad, right/wrong. Can make one's head hurt to imagine. Of course we will never know, both would have had their good points.

 

[Tho Hibbele]

I think maybe Simeon II would have made a great king. His forebears had tons of bad luck though. But they were politically savvy like he is.


Gerard

 

[eya]

I beleive this move to tangle with the policy and perhaps was not the best. But agree with you that maybe he was the great king.

For me King Michael of Romania it would be a great King. Let's hope they have the opportunity to reign some day Princess Margarita and Prince Nicolae (for others Nicholas Medforth -Mills).

What if Crown Prince Rudolf of Austro-Hungary had lived and his father had died before 1914? Rudolf held very different views from his father, the Emperor Franz Josef, and the assassassination at Sarajevo would have been avoided.

I think World War One was inevitable, considering the alliances and tensions of the European nations at the time, but Austria might not have played a leading role in starting the conflict off.

I agree about that. The World War One was sure inevitable and the assassination it was the occasion not the causes. And also about Rudolf who knows?

 

[Andy T]

I think Karl of Austria, Simeon of Bulgaria and Michael of Roumania would have made excellent rulers.
Otto Habsburg would have been an excellent ruler as well.
I also think that Rupprecht of Bavaria, followed by his son, Albrecht and grandson Franz would all have been enlightened and excellent Kings of Bavaria.
Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia was in my opinion the best Hohenzollern and would have made a great Emperor of germany, though I don't think his father or brother would have.

This is very much my opinion, too. I also think that King Manuel II would have been an excellent constitutional monarch in a more stable Portugal. King Umberto II may have suffered because of his personal life but King Peter II seems to have been the King most likely to have had problems. Then again, if he had been able to return to his throne, his life would most likely have been very different.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think maybe Simeon II would have made a great king. His forebears had tons of bad luck though. But they were politically savvy like he is.


Gerard

Well, he became a democratically elected Prime Minister (an unicum for a former reigning King), has sworn to upheld the (republican!) Constitution, did guide Bulgaria into NATO and EU but nevertheless lost the following elections and suffered impopularity. So I am not sure he has understood that modern kings better do not strive for real executive powers.

 

[Tho Hibbele]

Well, he became a democratically elected Prime Minister (an unicum for a former reigning King), has sworn to upheld the (republican!) Constitution, did guide Bulgaria into NATO and EU but nevertheless lost the following elections and suffered impopularity. So I am not sure he has understood that modern kings better do not strive for real executive powers.

Yes, but then again, I think he realizes that he's not a king anymore and that he made his choices with that in mind.
About his oath, every constitution has provisions about how to change that constitution and they are sworn by too. So an oath like that is never exclusively about the text of the day, but also about the constitutional process that may legitimately bring changes.

Gerard

 

[Andy T]

Yes, but then again, I think he realizes that he's not a king anymore and that he made his choices with that in mind.
About his oath, every constitution has provisions about how to change that constitution and they are sworn by too. So an oath like that is never exclusively about the text of the day, but also about the constitutional process that may legitimately bring changes.

Gerard

I think this point is excellent and a key one. Included in constitutions are the current rules and the rules by which they can be amended - or replaced.

 

[Curryong]

What if Crown Prince Rudolf of Austro-Hungary had lived and his father had died before 1914? Rudolf held very different views from his father, the Emperor Franz Josef, and the assassassination at Sarajevo would have been avoided.

I think World War One was inevitable, considering the alliances and tensions of the European nations at the time, but Austria might not have played a leading role in starting the conflict off.

 

[Andy T]

I totally agree about King Michael. Both Princess Margareta and Prince Nicholas would make excellent constitutional monarchs, too, I think.

Whoever succeeded Franz Joseph - Crown Prince Rudolf or Emperor Karl, whatever their personal strengths and qualities, would have been doomed to see the end of the Habsburg Empire. However, maybe a Kingdom of Austria (and a separate Kingdom of Hungary - with a monarch in situ) could have been salvaged had the inevitable war taken a different course.

 

[CSENYC]

King Michael I was and is an excellent leader. Public opinion polls speak for themselves: Romanians think very highly of him.


Simeon II was also good and he was in power recently, as prime minister.


Constantine II of Greece ruled long enough to know how he would have turned out: the Greeks voted him out.

 

[Admiral Horthy]

Constantine II of Greece ruled long enough to know how he would have turned out: the Greeks voted him out.

He was exiled and not allowed to campaign for himself. He was the fall guy. He was in power for a very short time. Greece was hardly stable at the time he was overthrown, and still isn't. I think he would have been a good King given the chance.

 

[Blog Real]

I believe that Manuel II of Portugal, Karl I of Austria, Mihai I of Romania, Simeon II of Bulgaria and Constantine II of Greece could have been good kings if they had had the opportunity to reign longer. Unfortunately they didn't have much time to show they could be good kings.

I also want to add Prince Luís Filipe of Portugal (brother of Manuel II) who was murdered, he was being groomed to be a good king. But he didn't get a chance to show that he could be a good king, because he was murdered on the same day as his father.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Would Emperor Karl I have had a better chance to regain the Hungarian throne if he had eventually moved to the United States during his exile?