Throughout the 19th century and into the 20th, dynastic monarchies seem to have been the most resilient form of government in Europe. By 1910 nearly every European state was headed by an emperor, king, prince, or other hereditary potentate. The only significant states in Europe that were not monarchies were Switzerland and France and the latter, after its bloody revolution, had already lapsed back to an hereditary Empire a couple of times.

This regal gathering was for the funeral of Edward VII photographed at Windsor Castle on 20 May 1910:



Standing, from left to right: King Haakan VII of Norway, King Ferdinand of Bulgaria, King Manoel of Portugal, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King George I of Greece, King Albert of the Belgians. Seated, from left to right: King Alfonso XIII of Spain, King George V of Great Britain, King Frederik VIII of Denmark.

Also present for the funeral were representatives of the Kingdoms/Empires of: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Romania, Serbia, The Netherlands, Sweden, Montenegro ... the Ottoman Empire, Japan and the Kingdom of Egypt.

Yet for all their glitter and swagger within 10 years many of these monarchies had been overthrown or abolished and replaced by republics (and more had gone by 1945). I can understand the role of the Great War in driving republican aspirations but what really surprises me is that change hadn’t come about earlier during the 19th century. The crowned heads of Europe managed not only to ride out the swell of rebellion that swept the continent in 1848, but then even to have further consolidated their power. In the Balkans, as one by one states threw off Ottoman control, they all became principalities and kingdoms, thereby swapping one hereditary head of state for another. Greece, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Albania all chose a local noble claimant as king for their newly independent state, or borrowed a second son from another, usually German-Danish-British, royal house. Similarly when Italy unified, the hotch-podge of local pricipalities, duchies and city states, including some like Florence and Venice that had had long histories as successful republics, meekly adopted a King (Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia) with barely a republican whimper. Likewise all the German states reunited under the Prussian King, Kaiser Wilhelm I.

So why didn’t republicanism take a hold earlier, say during the almost continent-wide revolts, rebellions and revolutions of 1848-1850, or alongside the re-emerging nationalist independence movements?

Meles meles,

had already prepared in mind a reply but will use this reaction as reminder to start it.
As usual too late on the evening and yet to elaborate on the Gods and Kings thread and Caro's "pity" thread...

Regards from the region nearing France from the North

Meles meles wrote:

So why didn’t republicanism take a hold earlier, say during the almost continent-wide revolts, rebellions and revolutions of 1848-1850, or alongside the re-emerging nationalist independence movements?

A consensus on what "republicanism" actually means has always been difficult, and especially within societies where the possibility to impose that structure presented itself in a time when many emerging senses of national identity were independent of the absolute need to continue with traditional monarchy. It seems to have been easiest imposed where the consensus only needed to be obtained within a small but influential sector in that society and where the particular class which traditionally had sat at the top of the local power structure was easily displaced (or bought off). But it is fair to say that of all the nascent republics that emerged between the renaissance (Florence, Venice, Netherlands etc) and more recent ones (ex-colonial countries etc) no two have arrived at a precisely similar definition or application of republicanism though all use the term. It is also fair to say that in most of these countries where a distinct and powerful elite had already been established this elite was accommodated within the new set-up. At a time when expression of this elitism was almost by default monarchy it is no wonder that this model survived the initial wave of democratisations often expressed as republicanism. However the various degrees to which monarchs wielded power within their respective dominions were almost as plentiful as the monarchies themselves.

nordmann wrote:

Meles meles wrote:

So why didn’t republicanism take a hold earlier, say during the almost continent-wide revolts, rebellions and revolutions of 1848-1850, or alongside the re-emerging nationalist independence movements?

A consensus on what "republicanism" actually means has always been difficult, and especially within societies where the possibility to impose that structure presented itself in a time when many emerging senses of national identity were independent of the absolute need to continue with traditional monarchy. It seems to have been easiest imposed where the consensus only needed to be obtained within a small but influential sector in that society and where the particular class which traditionally had sat at the top of the local power structure was easily displaced (or bought off). But it is fair to say that of all the nascent republics that emerged between the renaissance (Florence, Venice, Netherlands etc) and more recent ones (ex-colonial countries etc) no two have arrived at a precisely similar definition or application of republicanism though all use the term. It is also fair to say that in most of these countries where a distinct and powerful elite had already been established this elite was accommodated within the new set-up. At a time when expression of this elitism was almost by default monarchy it is no wonder that this model survived the initial wave of democratisations often expressed as republicanism. However the various degrees to which monarchs wielded power within their respective dominions were almost as plentiful as the monarchies themselves.

Nordmann and Meles,

yes good analysis...
And I wanted to add originally:

People are "traditional" and even with all the flaws they don't change that easely to what they are accustomed...look for instance...even at the birth of the Dutch Republic a William the Silent was looking, allthough perhaps for political reasons, for a "monarch"...en perhaps if it had be another person than the Duke of Anjou...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis,_Duke_of_Anjou


No the event which sparked the new trend were the United States and then the following French revolution, which sparked also the one year long United States of Belgium...
But in 1848 the Frankfurt parliament asked again the Prussian king Friedrich-Wilhelm IV to be their king and he refused while they as common people they hadn't that right to command a king who was king by the grace of God...
http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/germanunification.asp
"Friedrich Wilhelm IV, King of Prussia: Proclamation of 1849
I am not able to return a favorable reply to the offer of a crown on the part of the German National Assembly [meeting in Frankfurt], because the Assembly has not the right, without the consent of the German governments, to bestow the crown which they tendered me, and moreover because they offered the crown upon condition that I would accept a constitution which could not be reconciled with the rights of the German states."

Indeed we had to wait for the catastrophy of World War One to have that new tendency with the several republican former examples as guideline...

Kind regards, Paul.

Meles meles wrote:

King Manoel of Portugal

The first to go. He would lose his throne in a republican coup within 5 months of the photograph being taken. Portugal would seem to be the exception to the rule in that the monarchy there was indeed replaced by a republic before the First World War. The Portuguese revolution of October 1910 is often forgotten internationally and tends to be overshadowed by the much more dramatic Mexican revolution which began the following month. Needless to say (and to echo nordmann's point) the Mexican revolution was a struggle between 2 different types of republicans. Mexico itself had indeed overthrown its very own 'European monarch', the Emperor Maximilian of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine 43 years earlier. Another 'European monarchy' in the Americas, the Empire of Brazil was also overthrown in a coup in 1889. Considering that Pedro II (the last Emperor of Brazil) was the great-uncle of Manuel II (the last King of Portugal) and that the former had attended the latter's christening, then the fate of the House of Braganza maybe bears investigation in this.

It could quite simply be that, being at the extreme western edge of Europe made Portugal much more receptive to the republican ethos in the Americas. This may seem facile at first until one considers the case of another country on the extreme western edge of Europe - namely Ireland. Unlike the case with many continental nationalist movements in the 19th Century, which more often than not proposed monarchies for their respective countries, the Irish variant from the 1840s onwards invariably contained a distinct republican streak. An early example of transatlantic geopolitics perhaps?

Gil, you pushed me to search for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Long_Way_to_Tipperary



And my father could sing it with Dutch words...
"en de Keizer zat aan zijnen Ijzer..." (and the Kaiser sat at his Yser..."
But after some research this Tipperary song in Dutch version seems to be out of the collective memory at least at "Google"

Your friend, Paul.

And even in Russian:



But I prefer this one:



Regards, Paul.

Of course the Tommies had had enough of the song by 1914 and were singing  various obscene versions rather than the official one - and I'm not sure how many ever sang the verse ....

The New York Times reported on December 15, 1905 there may be a plan to make Prince Eitel Friedrich, Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany's second son, as the new Regent of the Duchy of Brunswick.   
The present Regent was Prince Albrecht of Prussia. Albrecht was near 70 years old and wanted to retire.   
Would Prince Eitel Friedrich have been a successful Regent?

FL wrote:

Would Prince Eitel Friedrich have been a successful Regent?

How do you define success in that role? Popular? Politically active? Invisible? Inert?

Would Eitel Friedrich have been chosen as Regent simply because he was the son of Emperor Wilhelm II?

And that's success? I'm confused now. Have you an opinion or are you just asking random questions? Is there some reason why you don't answer questions yourself? Why are you interested in a regency appointment that didn't occur? A few answers to these questions would help allow someone actually respond to you, as your posing of a question in the first place implies you might like to receive.

Meles meles wrote:

Also present for the funeral were representatives of the Kingdoms/Empires of: Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Romania, Serbia, The Netherlands, Sweden, Montenegro ... the Ottoman Empire, Japan and the Kingdom of Egypt.

Egypt’s Abbas II was represented by his brother Mohammed Ali Tewfik. For several years in the 1890s Tewfik had been heir presumptive before Abbas’ son Muhammad Abdel Moneim was born. Tewfik would also represent Abbas at the coronation of king George V in 1911. Being descended from the Albanian-born Ottoman governor of Egypt Mehemet Ali Pasha, Abbas also made a bid for the throne of Albania when that country became independent of the Ottoman Empire in 1912. That, however, came to nought.

With the outbreak of the First World War, Abbas sought to side with Constantinople, Vienna and Berlin (he had studied in Vienna) and as a result he was summarily deposed by the British for whom Egypt had become a protectorate since 1882. With Abbas deposed, his son Moneim was effectively attaindered and the British made use of the system of agnatic seniority for the succession to place Abbas’ and Tewfik’s uncle Hussein Kamel on the throne. This was despite the fact that agnatic seniority was considered an archaic concept at the time even in Egypt. The pro-British Kamel, however, died after only 3 years and so was replaced by the British (again using agnatic seniority) with another of their uncles Fuad. With the accession of king Fuad I the succession question then settled down until he died in April 1936 just 3 months after Britain’s king George V had. Fuad’s son Farouk was only 16 years old at the time and his cousin Tewfik again found himself heir presumptive. He also acted as regent and sent his nephew Moneim to represent Farouk at the coronation of George VI in 1937.

By coincidence Farouk’s reign would last almost the same length of time as that of George VI. George died in February 1952 and in June that year Farouk was forced to abdicate by a revolt of army officers. Whereas Farouk had earned himself something of a reputation as a lecherous gambler and glutton, Tewfik by contrast had served the state irreproachably for over half a century. Consequently some of the army officers were minded to offer him the throne. At 76 years of age, however, others thought that he was too old and, besides, Farouk had finally fathered a son in January that year. So ironically, Tewfik, who had been denied the throne by the British on the grounds of agantic seniority was denied again when the Egyptians themselves dropped the system. The 6-month-old child was duly proclaimed Fuad II although this time it was his cousin Moneim who acted as regent. Moneim also sent another cousin Suliman Mohamed Daoud to represent Egypt at the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953. The mirrored timescales of Egyptian and British reigns, however, ended then because just 16 days after Elizabeth’s coronation, the infant Fuad was deposed by the revolting officers who declared Egypt a republic. He joined his father in exile in Europe at which Farouk is said to have commented – “The whole world is in revolt. Soon there will be only five kings left - the king of Spades, the king of Diamonds, the king of Clubs, the king of Hearts and the king of England.”

Film of the funeral procession of king Edward VII

(Mohammed Ali Tewfik wearing a fez can be seen at 11:42. Walking on his right is prince Zai Tao of China representing his 4-year-old nephew the emperor Puyi.)

"Yet for all their glitter and swagger within 10 years many of these monarchies had been overthrown or abolished and replaced by republics"

Many of those republics were in turn replaced by various forms of authoritarian rule as democracies, whether republics or constitutional monarchies, failed.  There were very few left in Europe by 1941.

Tim