German Restoration?

[Sancia]

And we should remind everyone that nobility and monarchy are no natural allies of today’s political conservatives.

Unfortunately, the nobles involved in politics are often members of conservative or very conservative organizations or parties and there are lot of nobles linked with "the kind of economics system which rule the world today". I don't have too many examples for Deutschland but there are a lot of examples in France.

 

[SchwarzerAdler]

Dear Sancia,

undoubtly I have to admit that You are so right. In Germany You can observe the same. I do not know whether they do not look into "how the system works" closely enough, or are to timid to found a new organisation or party (which would be the most bald action due to the attention it would get) or whether those nobles "betray their own" - I fear the most probable answer - as to the most citizens - will be: a lot of them will link theirselfs to parties or organisations where they THINK these would fit their interests.
To my mind social and ecological issues are to a great extent on "nobilities interests" but nobles in politics linking theirselfs with those politics even change their name to to appear noble again.
Unfortunately there is a great ideological barrier in the minds - it prevents most people from thinking, comparing AND acting accordingly.

Regards

Alex R.

 

[Alexandrovich]

It would be good if the German restoration happen if everything is all ready. And what about the other states; Wurttemberg, Baden, Saxony, Bavaria, etc. should they be restored as well? I think if restore all of them they should form the new government like India in the past but not the same at all. Each state has its own sovereign and the grand head of state is the German Emperor.

But, nevertheless, the Emperor of Germany is only the symbol of the country like Japan which is the unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, also the other sovereign state; Saxony, Baden, Wurttemberg, Hesse, Bavaria, etc.

Just my own opinion if the restoration become...^^

 

[Johann Salvator]

The main problem in Germany and the rest of Europe is lack of interest. Who would want to get politically active today to change the form the government? And for what? The Brits are born under a monarchy and why change. The Germans live in a republic and why change? People go out and protest for more earthly things, if/when they bother to protest in these very apathetic times.
My guess also is that not a single German prince would want to become the federal head of state.

 

[Johann Salvator]

You'll never get Bavarian monarchists to agree to a Prussian as our souverain...

Totally! A Hohenzollern again? Never

 

[Kataryn]

The main problem in Germany and the rest of Europe is lack of interest. Who would want to get politically active today to change the form the government? And for what? The Brits are born under a monarchy and why change. The Germans live in a republic and why change? People go out and protest for more earthly things, if/when they bother to protest in these very apathetic times.
My guess also is that not a single German prince would want to become the federal head of state.

One should not forget that those monarchies who still exist today have either been developped at times when a monarchy was the form a state simply had (even the rulers/ruleresses of church lands were not only Abbot/Bishop or Abbess but in some cases The Lady Abbess or The Lord Bishop who ruled their lands like a souverain, only responsible to the emperor. Or they were created to protect a country at a time when a monarchy with a reigning House menat that the country was safe from foreign powers: eg. The Habsburgian (first Spanish, then Austrian) Low Countries in 1815 became a kingdom of its own, Belgium comes to mind and in the 1900s Spain was created a kingdom in order to fix the authoritian rule of the Franco regime. Alas, the new king used the power Franco has left him to enforce the development of Spain into a democracy. Norway secured his independance through adopting a Royal family etc.

This latter form of securing a country through adopting the monarchical system is not longer an option in Europe, except maybe in Russia and some other Eastern states, where democracy is still not really introduced. But it's definately no option for countries like Italy, Germany, Portugal, Austria who have a stable political system in their republic.

 

[Johann Salvator]

Yes, you are right not in Western Europe. It happened in Spain in 1975, but as you rightly said, Spain then was not democratic. Don Juan Carlos is associated with the birth of a new democratic and prosperous Spain. This situation might be repeated in Serbia, and some other Eastern countries of Europe. We'll see.

 

[Renata4711]

feargas # 87 - Why would the German Chancellor have any dealings with Georg Friedrich ?

 

[fearghas]

There have been a couple of occassions to do with Hohenzollern histocrical occassions and I am fairly sure that once when QEII visited Germany, GF was invited to and attended a dinner at which the Chancellior was there as well.

 

[SchwarzerAdler]

There have been a couple of occassions to do with Hohenzollern histocrical occassions and I am fairly sure that once when QEII visited Germany, GF was invited to and attended a dinner at which the Chancellior was there as well.

Hi Fearghas,

well I am afraid not. On the occasion of her last visits to Germany Prince Georg Friedrich was not on the invitation list of Buckingham Palace. It was a visiting point in Brandenburg (sorry but I cannot recall what it was exactly) which was on behald of the Brandenburg government. The Primeminister of Brandenburg did invite Rince Georg Friedrich, the Queen did not.

Regards
Alex R.

 

[fearghas]

Well it may not have been that occassion but on a previous visit. I have been spending much of the day trying to find the evidence for thuis but haven't been able to. I still think I am right but cannot find the proof so will not argue it further.

 

[David V]

For Germans and Austrians, the best argument for monarchism is a genuinely reactionary one- namely reject the worst things of the 20th century that followed the fall of their monarchies. In Eastern Europe there is a desire to reject the horrors of Communism, and restoring monarchies in Serbia, Georgia, etc is abig part of that when it will happen. For Germany and Austria, one can say that accepting the existing republics is also an implicit acceptance of the legacy of Nazi Germany and the division of Germany that followed, which was awful for everyone. Restoration would thus mean national redemption- an emotionally powerful argument.

 

[Kataryn]

For Germany and Austria, one can say that accepting the existing republics is also an implicit acceptance of the legacy of Nazi Germany and the division of Germany that followed, which was awful for everyone. Restoration would thus mean national redemption- an emotionally powerful argument.

I don't see it this way and I know of noone else either here in Germany or in Austria who sees it that way.

Germany after 1918 was a democracy but the people suffered very much from the national and international financial crisises. So when Hitler came up and promised a better future and declared to restore the national dignity to the country which was still internationally seen as the looser of WWII he was demorcratically voted to necome the Chancellor of the republic. Having gotten that powerful position, he immediately declared an internal crisis and started his terror regime with the help of emergency decrees which gave him absolute power. On hoping to reduce this power to something more democratically manageable, most parties in parliament agreed to a new law, which was not as tough but still allowed the building up of a dictatorship. A similar experience had Austria but there the government was forced to agree to be integrated into Germany - which again was something a lot of Austrians wanted but which was nevertheless not democratically determined. Thus Austria was in fact the first victim of Nazi-Germany.

So reverting back to monarchies in order to overcome the Nazi-past would be the totally wrong signal. The German and the Austrian first republics were destroyed from within, with people choosing the wrong parties fro the wrong reasons. They were based on laws which could be used by those parties in control of the majority. The current republics of Germany and Austria are working democracies, with the majority of people wanting this form of democracy and with laws which protect the state from party takeovers. So revert back to monarchies would mean that there is still no trust in the countries' people, that they still have to be taken by the "right" hand in order not to fall prey to the "wrong" politcal activists. That is definately not the case, neither here nor in Austria AFAIK.

 

[Kit]

So revert back to monarchies would mean that there is still no trust in the countries' people, that they still have to be taken by the "right" hand in order not to fall prey to the "wrong" politcal activists. That is definately not the case, neither here nor in Austria AFAIK.

That's is absolutely correct! There is NO wish in Austria to return to a monarchy. This chapter of our history in definitely closed and shall remain so.

 

[latinist]

I must admit, I'm not at all familiar with what a federal republic, a federal state means, it seems to me like a very divided one. As far as I know, a monarch is an element of national unity, unlike the politicians, who are working under the "divide et impera" law.
I saw someone said that if monarchy was to be restored, you would have to choose a monarch in every Land, a "regional one". Please correct me if I understood it the wrong way.
I was rather thinking of maintaining the actual system, and only change the presidential institution with that of the constitutional monarchy.
You are a parlamentary republic anyway, the president does not have so much responsibility, the chancellor is the actual head of state. In this system, a monarch would have the role of unity and national pride ... as the tendentious ones would say, a "decorative" role.
You would only put the president's prerogatives in the monarch's responsibility. from what I understand, the chancellor chooses who is to be president, not the people by direct vote, so what would be there to lose?
We (I'm from Romania) have the problem of our communist past, that is still haunting us, there is still media propaganda, just in the old communist style, against the idea of monarchy. There is a stupid one that said, beginning with 1948, that the former king, Mihai I, would have gone abroad, exiled, with several railway carriages full of the "people's wealth, fortune" (this crazy idea is unfortunately still persisting in many people's minds, due to the decades of the propaganda), and another one, that is more recent, which says that by the act from 23 august 1944, he betrayed the marshal who was in alliance with the nazis (and the "interests of the nation") and that's why we, the romanians, had to live more than 40 years under the communists. As if the war could have eventually been won by the nazis! But of course, someone had to have the blame.
But still, now our king has a popularity and confidence of 42%, the highest since 1947, there are more and more of us who think that the restoration would be the only solution for our country, if we don't want to become like Russia or Belarus (you know, our president is much alike Putin).

 

[Kataryn]

I must admit, I'm not at all familiar with what a federal republic, a federal state means, it seems to me like a very divided one. As far as I know, a monarch is an element of national unity, unlike the politicians, who are working under the "divide et impera" law.

That's exactly the "problem" with a monarchy for Germany. Germany and being "German" had been for most of the time in history been more of a common cultural element than a fixed country. As Lucien pointed out in another thread we are different tribes who belong together due to a common culture. The areas were the tribes were alone with themselves were pretty peaceful over the centuries while those where several tribes settled were constantly at war. Think Bavaria/Tyrola or Bohemia/Saxony.

From the tribal phase derived the political diversity of Germany: from the 900s or so permanent dynasties have been able to form territorial states. Due to marriages all over Europe other parts of Europe became possessions of Germanic princes as well. The most important princes became prince electors and voted for a German king who could be crowned emperor (of the West-Roman empire which later became the Holy Roman Empire of German nations) if he went to Rome. But even though the king/emperor was the first prince of the countries, a lot of others were equal in terms of inherited power. It took a while till the Habsburg managed to get the prince electors to permanently vote for the next in Habsburg's line as new emperor. And without personal power the Habsburg would not have been voted for.

Good example is Joseph I. When his father emperor Franz I. Stephan died, the personal power in Austria and the other crown lands of Habsburg like Hungary and Bohemia still were in the hand of his mother, who was the reigning queen while her husband had been "only" the emperor. In order for the German princes to vote for Joseph, his mother had to share her power with him.

So traditionally a Habsburg would be German emperor. But Napoleon changed the balance of the system and started a process which forced a lot of princes to give up their souverainity to the mightier ones, forming independant princedoms and kingships in Germany and out of it (The Netherlands, Luxemburg). Since then the struggle was if Germany would include all Germanic tribes (especially those ruled by the Habsburg of the East) or only those in central Germany. In 1866 Prussia won a war against the Habsburgs and their German allies and pushed Habsburg out of Germany, taking control of the political decisions and forcing the other German rulers to support Prussia in forming the German empire with Prussia's king as German Emperor. But of course the other kingdoms and princedoms still existed.

Only WWI ended this. The Nazis managed to reorganize Germany in 1933 but mainly stuck to the old borders and after WWII the former kingdoms and princedoms were reorganized as Federal States (after the communist reign in East Germany these lands followed suit and splitted into 5 Federal Staes according to their old (medieval) borders: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, formerly the lands of the Mecklenburg-Dynasty and part of Prussian lands), Brandenburg, where the Prussian Dynasty reigned, plus the three countries where different lines of the Wettin-family reigned: Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia.

So today's Federal Republic of Germany consists of several Federal States who all have their own independant history going back to tribal times. And each region has their own formerly ruling dynasty. So who to choose? And why?

Even though I'm interested in Royalty, I believe our president should represent all German citizens and those people who live in Germany. So for me it is better to have a president voted for by the Bundesversammlung which consists of the parlamentarians of our parliament plus representatives send into it by the political parties of the Federal States. These are not necessarily politicians but can be honorable citizens who are chosen by a party.

 

[latinist]

I thank you for your presentation, because I really didn't have much information about the German Monarchy, I only knew that it has been abolished in 1918 after WW I, that you had emperors in stead of kings...and that one of the Hohenzollern princes became our King in 1866 ) Well, it was only 1881 when he was declared king, but still.
I have been reading in the press that HRH Georg Friedrich was the heir of the throne in Germany, prince of Prussia, so I thought things were much less complicated than they are. He is the descendant of the last Kaiser, so I thought it was only natural for him to become the new emperor in case of.
So, practically, you would have to restore all the "small" or regional princes, who then would have to elect one of them to be the new Kaiser. If that's the case, you, normal citizens would have nothing to worry about, they should know what to do and who to elect...I guess.
But I don't get it...how did they actually rule, one Kaiser from a family, and then, after his/hers death, they elected again who, from which family was to become Kaiser?

 

[Kataryn]

But I don't get it...how did they actually rule, one Kaiser from a family, and then, after his/hers death, they elected again who, from which family was to become Kaiser?

That was the original idea of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) but after the Thirty Years' War and its final peace treaty of 1648 it was pretty much clear that the Habsburgs were now the ruling dynasty.

Only when emperor Charles VI. died only leaving two daughters and his late brother and predecessor Joseph I. had only left two daughters as well, the princes became unsure who to vote for: Charles' son-in-law Franz of Lorraine, husband to the Habsburg-heiress Maria Theresia or Prince Elector Charles Albrecht of Bavaria, son-in-law of Jeseph I. At first the Bavarians managed to wrangle Bohemia from Maria-Theresia, thus taking her right to vote for the prince-electorship of Bohemia from her. The Bavarian dynasty of Wittelsbach held three prince-electorships: Electorial Bavaria (Kurbayern), Electorial Palatinate (Kurpfalz) and Electorial Cologne (Kurköln), thus Charles Albrecht became emperor Charles VII. in 1742. But the war with Austria continued and when Charles died in 1745, his son made peace with Austria. In return for his and the other Wittelsbach-votes plus Saxony's for Franz Stephan, Maria Theresia granted her two cousins (the eldeat daughter of Joseph I. was Electress of Saxony and Queen of Poland through marriage) land and money from the Habsburg inheritance.

After that till 1806 when the HRE ended due to Napoleon, the Habsburg Head of the House was voted for emperor. In 1804 emperor Franz II. had declared Austria into an empire with the Head of the House being the emperor and king of Hungary, Behemia a.s.o.

In 1871 after Prussia won the Franco-German (Or Franco-Prussian) War, the German princes elected the Prussia king as German Emperor (not as Emperor of Germany!) and made this position inheritable. Thus the eperor and the Crown Prince of Prussia had Their Imperial Highnesses as title, while the other Prussians kept their Royal Highness-styles.

So in case Germany referred back to a monarchy, it is not even clear who should have a right to vote? Or should the heir of the Prussian monarchy become emperor? Or who else? A Habsburg, as Otto von Habsburg (and his son) have had German citizenship as well?

Too many questions and really no need for answers....

 

[latinist]

I understand what you are saying, it could give you a headache, with so many possibilities. But I think all these problems could be put in an easier way, in that if the german citizens should want the monarchy back, they express their wish with the help of a national referendum, and as far as the issue of "who should become emperor?" is concerned, the citizens should say: "you royals deal with it! we want the monarchy back, so it's up to you to decide and elect between yourselves".
Maybe it could sound a little too simple when you put it in this way, but I strongly feel, as a monarchist, that if you, as a citizen really want this kind of change to take place, than all other issues can be resolved. As they were resolved in the past.
It's true, on the other hand, that you, in Germany, have a different type of republic, a much more normal one, you have a state, a country in which the ones who are in charge, elected by the people, don't steal and don't despise the ones they should serve (and not "rule")...and therefore, you most probably feel you are living in a perfect functional democracy and don't need a change like the monarchy...

 

[Stefan]

That was the original idea of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) but after the Thirty Years' War and its final peace treaty of 1648 it was pretty much clear that the Habsburgs were now the ruling dynasty.

Only when emperor Charles VI. died only leaving two daughters and his late brother and predecessor Joseph I. had only left two daughters as well, the princes became unsure who to vote for: Charles' son-in-law Franz of Lorraine, husband to the Habsburg-heiress Maria Theresia or Prince Elector Charles Albrecht of Bavaria, son-in-law of Jeseph I. At first the Bavarians managed to wrangle Bohemia from Maria-Theresia, thus taking her right to vote for the prince-electorship of Bohemia from her. The Bavarian dynasty of Wittelsbach held three prince-electorships: Electorial Bavaria (Kurbayern), Electorial Palatinate (Kurpfalz) and Electorial Cologne (Kurköln), thus Charles Albrecht became emperor Charles VII. in 1742. But the war with Austria continued and when Charles died in 1745, his son made peace with Austria. In return for his and the other Wittelsbach-votes plus Saxony's for Franz Stephan, Maria Theresia granted her two cousins (the eldeat daughter of Joseph I. was Electress of Saxony and Queen of Poland through marriage) land and money from the Habsburg inheritance.

After that till 1806 when the HRE ended due to Napoleon, the Habsburg Head of the House was voted for emperor. In 1804 emperor Franz II. had declared Austria into an empire with the Head of the House being the emperor and king of Hungary, Behemia a.s.o.

In 1871 after Prussia won the Franco-German (Or Franco-Prussian) War, the German princes elected the Prussia king as German Emperor (not as Emperor of Germany!) and made this position inheritable. Thus the eperor and the Crown Prince of Prussia had Their Imperial Highnesses as title, while the other Prussians kept their Royal Highness-styles.

So in case Germany referred back to a monarchy, it is not even clear who should have a right to vote? Or should the heir of the Prussian monarchy become emperor? Or who else? A Habsburg, as Otto von Habsburg (and his son) have had German citizenship as well?

Too many questions and really no need for answers....

Another problem when one would reinstate Monarchy in GErmany is that many of the smaller Kingdoms, Grand Duchies, Dukedoms don't exist anymore but are now part of one of the other federal states. Not even Prussia does exist anymore as much which was part of is it (and is still german territory) belongs to other federal States.

 

[lucien]

To cut a long story short,however they love to watch Royalty on tv,especially the Dutch RF and "their" Silvia of Sweden,that love goes only for Royalty abroad.The very idea of restoring a Monarchy does not sit well with the Germans,except the "handfull" in comparison with the total amount of germans.It is not an option to them,really isn't.What happens here,is day-dreaming aloud....No harm done......But I do agree on Georg-Friedrich and Sophie being excellent choices in case it would be restored.Far away and long ago tribal differences are really too far fetched and too rediculous to contemplate so save that for the Bundestag......grin....There is only one Germany...and the Bavarian Free State....

 

[Cory]

Is there a royalist Association in Germany?

 

[latinist]

I wonder what their reasons may be, for not wanting a monarchy to be restored...if they really like watching and reading about other royal families. Besides the fact that there are many options available, of who was to become Kaiser.
I wonder if they really know what a constitutional monarchy means, as a form of government.

 

[Kataryn]

can be resolved. As they were resolved in the past.
It's true, on the other hand, that you, in Germany, have a different type of republic, a much more normal one, you have a state, a country in which the ones who are in charge, elected by the people, don't steal and don't despise the ones they should serve (and not "rule")...and therefore, you most probably feel you are living in a perfect functional democracy and don't need a change like the monarchy...

Well, no. Our two last Federal presidents stepped down prematurely, one because he did not longer want to support the polical decisions of the government, the next was forced to retire because the prosectutors checked into his past dealings as the prime minister of a Federal state and found enough clues for corruption to ask parliament to take the president's immunity... Not really the stuff of dreams!

But then, at least the media exposed such potentially corrupt politicians, no matter their rank, the prosecution starts an investigation and the person accused steps down - and this is a clear warning to all others.

Let's see who's next... In all probability Mr. Gauck, a very honorable gentleman, apart from the fact that he has a mistress since 12 years ago while being seperated from his wife since 21 years... I guess he will have to clean up his act pretty soon, especially as his former occupation is being priest of the protestant church. But then, it's nothing unusual that a monarch is seperated from his wife and has a mistress, no? At least in history. Problem is: who will be our First Lady? Divorce and remarriage is okay, but he still has a wife which is not his "first lady"... We'll see.

 

[Kataryn]

To cut a long story short,however they love to watch Royalty on tv,especially the Dutch RF and "their" Silvia of Sweden,that love goes only for Royalty abroad.The very idea of restoring a Monarchy does not sit well with the Germans,except the "handfull" in comparison with the total amount of germans.It is not an option to them,really isn't.What happens here,is day-dreaming aloud....No harm done......But I do agree on Georg-Friedrich and Sophie being excellent choices in case it would be restored.Far away and long ago tribal differences are really too far fetched and too rediculous to contemplate so save that for the Bundestag......grin....There is only one Germany...and the Bavarian Free State....

And the Free State of Saxony.....

 

[lucien]

Is there a royalist Association in Germany?

Yes there is,but it is fractioned and factioned in ifs and buts and not knowing for sure how to present themselves,not a "force" to reckon with,so nobody does.Except the members of the Association ofcourse,but alas,other then that it is considered couleur locale it is of no value nor substance.

 

[Kataryn]

Yes there is,but it is fractioned and factioned in ifs and buts and not knowing for sure how to present themselves,not a "force" to reckon with,so nobody does.Except the members of the Association ofcourse,but alas,other then that it is considered couleur locale it is of no value nor substance.

I haven't even heard that such a movement tried to get a seat in at least a Federal parliament. Not even in Bavaria. <grin>.

 

[latinist]

the next was forced to retire because the prosectutors checked into his past dealings as the prime minister of a Federal state and found enough clues for corruption to ask parliament to take the president's immunity... Not really the stuff of dreams!

What would in Germany happen, or how would the people react if in the Bundestag, at the decisive vote for an organic law, let's say the pensions law - one of the laws that affect millions of the older people, there were only, let's say 80 parliamentaries present in the room, not enough to ensure the quorum, but the president who leads the plenary meeting counts 170 votes in favour of the law - just enough for the quorum, so that the meeting would be "legal"?

 

[Charlotte_Aster]

We can't seem to have a President last more than 2 years, having a Kaiser for a lifetime seems like a long shot...

 

[ChiaraC]

What would in Germany happen, or how would the people react if in the Bundestag, at the decisive vote for an organic law, let's say the pensions law - one of the laws that affect millions of the older people, there were only, let's say 80 parliamentaries present in the room, not enough to ensure the quorum, but the president who leads the plenary meeting counts 170 votes in favour of the law - just enough for the quorum, so that the meeting would be "legal"?

Do I understand you right? You mean that the president would "invent" or "make up" the lacking votes?

It simply would not happen, imo.
Our democracy is certainly far from perfect but I really cannot imagine such a scenario happening in the Bundestag. Even if the President of the Bundestag felt tempted to do such a thing, for whatever reason, imo he would not do it because he´d know that he would never get through with that.