Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Personally, I like monarchy. Monarchs are symbols of national unity and rich heritage. Just look at British monarchy. It is a matter of their pride. And, I also think that countries like France, Italy, Turkey and so on are very unlucky not to have monarchies.

We see in some countries that, when they are converted from kingdoms to republics, monarchs are exiled even though they could not do any harm to the republic, when the whole situation was under control and they didn't even do any crime.

For example, Mehmed VI of Turkey, Farouk I of Egypt and Umberto II of Italy were exiled.

Why didn't these countries adopt constitutional monarchy so that the monarchs can be granted an honored life?

share|improve this question
3  
Maybe they didn't like them much. Not all monarchs were/are as benign as the modern British rulers have been. –  SevenSidedDie Jul 27 '12 at 5:05
6  
Before overturn monarchy is a suppressing power for revolution forces. After overturn monarch automatically becomes the symbol/leader of monarchical opposition and, thus, a danger to brand-new political forces. –  default locale Jul 27 '12 at 5:13
    
Also, there are examples of constitutional monarchy in, for example, Britain, Spain and Sweden. The direct causes of monarch's exile (Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany) or killing (Nicholas II of Russia) seem to depend on a specific situation. –  default locale Jul 27 '12 at 5:20
2  
If anything, I'd say staying on as a figurehead in a "Constutional Monarchy" is the weird scenario. It might be more enlightening to look at what conditions seem to cause that to happen. –  T.E.D. Jul 27 '12 at 11:38
    
?Politics.se? If you are serious about the question, you might want to substantiate the assertion "they could not do any harm to the rebublic" –  Mark C. Wallace 8 hours ago

4 Answers 4

This is because the forces that overthrew them used to consider the monarchy as an alternative source of power that commanded loyalty of thousands of people. In case of any crisis, the monarch could have the power to overthrow the democratic forces, especially since many in the administration and army (not all of whom can be removed) are expected to remain loyal to the monarch even after constitutional monarchy is declared. Something similar to this was observed in Nepal. In England the parliament gained power only gradually, and so the monarch was generally not a direct threat to the power of the elected representatives.

share|improve this answer
    
I think your comments on Britain are too soft; they (effectively) exiled James II, killed Charles I and neutralized the power of Queen Anne. I don't disagree with your answer; I just think that if we analyze British constitutional history through the (flawed) framework that @BROY posits, it isn't as different as it appears. –  Mark C. Wallace 7 hours ago
    
English history also repeatedly shows how pretenders and alternate kings (for example, the exiled Stuarts) can remain a focus for dissent and possible invasion. It was as late as just before WWII that England forced a king to abdicate because his beliefs about Germany might cause problems to the government. –  Oldcat 2 hours ago

Most absolute rulers, be they Monarchs or dictators, will accept no diminution of their power, so that when the populous approach them with such a suggestion they, the absolute ruler, relinquish some or all of their power,they tend to reject the demands of the populous.

If the feelings of the populous are strong enough then the populous will persist with their demands, and typically, the ruler persists in their rejection, and thus tension in the country builds. That tension often reaches a point where it explodes into outright confrontation, (something of the sort can be seen in countries around the world today), and when this happens the fight then becomes all-or-nothing. That is 1 side becomes the outright winner and the other the loser. If the ruler loses then either the ruler gets executed, as was the case in Romania in the latter half of the last century, or perhaps the ruler is given the chance to flee into exile.

The point is, that by the time conflict erupts within a country the opportunities for a peaceful and negotiated transfer of all or part of the rulers power is generally lost and so monarchies tend not to evolve into parliamentary or democratic monarchies. Of course, this is a generalisation and over simplified, but for the purpose of your question I hope it provides something of a an answer.

PS, as a British national I cannot agree with your statement that Monarchs are symbols of national unity and pride. Even a cursory examination of the history of the 'british' royal family (many of whom throughout history could not even speak english) shows them to have been ruthless in their determination to retain power, and careless towards the sufferings and plaints of the people they governed.

share|improve this answer

The examples you gave were either deposed through a revolution, or lost power because the former monarch chose the wrong side and was seen as complicit in leading the nation to ruin. If the populace was upset enough to end royal rule, why would they tolerate a reminder of their unhappy past living lavishly in their midst?

The British monarchy which you mentioned is a case where the king gradually lost power through ceding it to parliament; it was a somewhat amicable transfer without lasting bitter feelings among the public & political class. This facilitated the 'constitutional monarchy' idea where the nation has a sanctioned figurehead that also serves as a reminder of their glorious past, while the actual decisions are taken by a democratic caucus.

Some of the reasons to exile ex-rulers (kings, dictators, even PMs out of political favor) are:

  • It allows them to rebuild a network of loyalists for a possible counter coup.
  • Prevents discussion on the legitimacy of the incumbents especially when the transfer of power was disputed.
  • Removes an unnecessary drain on the state exchequer
  • Security considerations, especially if the ruler was greatly disliked in public
  • They may simply exile themselves out of shame at losing their position or to avoid conflict
share|improve this answer

Your question is flawed.

You start saying that you like monarchy, and then you wonder why countries which rejected it exiled the former monarchs.

Quite the opposite: if a country abandoned monarchy, it is most likely because it wasn't very popular, so it is perfectly natural to treat harshly the former rules.

Actually very often exile can be considered a soft punishment, considering the amount of damage they might have done towards their former country.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.