Just Curious...

[Jerseyrules]

What's everyone's opinion of Otto Von Habsburg?

[Lumine]

If there was a man who should have been King but that never was, that is Otto Von Habsburg.

[Jerseyrules]

If there was a man who should have been King but that never was, that is Otto Von Habsburg.

The worst part about history is learning about people like Otto - people who never got to rule but truly deserved it - as opposed to the truly massive majority of monarchs who don't deserve their thrones or don't even want them but rule regardless.

[Lumine]

If there was a man who should have been King but that never was, that is Otto Von Habsburg.

The worst part about history is learning about people like Otto - people who never got to rule but truly deserved it - as opposed to the truly massive majority of monarchs who don't deserve their thrones or don't even want them but rule regardless.

You're right, it undermines Monarchy as a credible type of government, and it seems to have happened a lot during the past century: Prince Juan of Spain, Karl of Hungary, some of the Romanov Family or Wilhelm of Germany (the son of Wilhelm II), who had to be replaced by dictators (some better than others) like Admiral Horthy, Franco or even Hitler. Perhaps having some of those monarchs in power might have avoided some of the disasters of the century...

[Jerseyrules]

If there was a man who should have been King but that never was, that is Otto Von Habsburg.

The worst part about history is learning about people like Otto - people who never got to rule but truly deserved it - as opposed to the truly massive majority of monarchs who don't deserve their thrones or don't even want them but rule regardless.

You're right, it undermines Monarchy as a credible type of government, and it seems to have happened a lot during the past century: Prince Juan of Spain, Karl of Hungary, some of the Romanov Family or Wilhelm of Germany (the son of Wilhelm II), who had to be replaced by dictators (some better than others) like Admiral Horthy, Franco or even Hitler. Perhaps having some of those monarchs in power might have avoided some of the disasters of the century...

And although Britain probably isn't the best example, being constitutional and all, but a monarch in power there helped prevent Mosley.  Perhaps another monarch-who-should-have-been is Reza Pahlavi (and technically Farah as well).

[Lumine]

If there was a man who should have been King but that never was, that is Otto Von Habsburg.

The worst part about history is learning about people like Otto - people who never got to rule but truly deserved it - as opposed to the truly massive majority of monarchs who don't deserve their thrones or don't even want them but rule regardless.

You're right, it undermines Monarchy as a credible type of government, and it seems to have happened a lot during the past century: Prince Juan of Spain, Karl of Hungary, some of the Romanov Family or Wilhelm of Germany (the son of Wilhelm II), who had to be replaced by dictators (some better than others) like Admiral Horthy, Franco or even Hitler. Perhaps having some of those monarchs in power might have avoided some of the disasters of the century...

And although Britain probably isn't the best example, being constitutional and all, but a monarch in power there helped prevent Mosley.  Perhaps another monarch-who-should-have-been is Reza Pahlavi (and technically Farah as well).

Reza Pahlavi might fit the Otto Von Habsburg criteria, but he ruled (as an autocrat), so he should be in a different category, that of the decent rulers or Kings that were overthrown (Just like Alfonso XIII of Spain or the last Emperor of Brazil). The problem with the idea of the Monarchy preventing dictatorship is Mussolini, because Victor Emmanuel III basically asked him to take control of Italy. I'm quite ignorant about British politics, but I have the feeling that if instead of George VI (a great monarch) the crown was held by Edward VIII, Oswald Mosley would have been more successful.

[Hash]

How on earth is Alfonso XIII considered a "decent ruler" and placed in the same category as Pedro II?!?

[Jerseyrules]

If there was a man who should have been King but that never was, that is Otto Von Habsburg.

The worst part about history is learning about people like Otto - people who never got to rule but truly deserved it - as opposed to the truly massive majority of monarchs who don't deserve their thrones or don't even want them but rule regardless.

You're right, it undermines Monarchy as a credible type of government, and it seems to have happened a lot during the past century: Prince Juan of Spain, Karl of Hungary, some of the Romanov Family or Wilhelm of Germany (the son of Wilhelm II), who had to be replaced by dictators (some better than others) like Admiral Horthy, Franco or even Hitler. Perhaps having some of those monarchs in power might have avoided some of the disasters of the century...

And although Britain probably isn't the best example, being constitutional and all, but a monarch in power there helped prevent Mosley.  Perhaps another monarch-who-should-have-been is Reza Pahlavi (and technically Farah as well).

Reza Pahlavi might fit the Otto Von Habsburg criteria, but he ruled (as an autocrat), so he should be in a different category, that of the decent rulers or Kings that were overthrown (Just like Alfonso XIII of Spain or the last Emperor of Brazil). The problem with the idea of the Monarchy preventing dictatorship is Mussolini, because Victor Emmanuel III basically asked him to take control of Italy. I'm quite ignorant about British politics, but I have the feeling that if instead of George VI (a great monarch) the crown was held by Edward VIII, Oswald Mosley would have been more successful.

I meant Crown Prince Reza, not the overthrown shah.  But yeah you're right about Mussolini - I thought of that right after I posted this

[Lumine]

How on earth is Alfonso XIII considered a "decent ruler" and placed in the same category as Pedro II?!?

Sure, Pedro II made his country a South American Power while Alfonso XIII had to preside over several disasters, but I consider him a decent ruler because the purpose of the Constitutional Monarch is to represent his country (on the lines of Elizabeth II or Juan Carlos I), something that all of his Prime Ministers (except maybe Canalejas and Dato) could not do. My view is that the Spanish politicians deserted and failed him, which in turn forced Alfonso to use every method available to save his country, thus the Dictatorship of Primo de Rivera (a very efficient administration) and the call for elections in 1931, which sadly backfired on him.

If there was a man who should have been King but that never was, that is Otto Von Habsburg.

The worst part about history is learning about people like Otto - people who never got to rule but truly deserved it - as opposed to the truly massive majority of monarchs who don't deserve their thrones or don't even want them but rule regardless.

You're right, it undermines Monarchy as a credible type of government, and it seems to have happened a lot during the past century: Prince Juan of Spain, Karl of Hungary, some of the Romanov Family or Wilhelm of Germany (the son of Wilhelm II), who had to be replaced by dictators (some better than others) like Admiral Horthy, Franco or even Hitler. Perhaps having some of those monarchs in power might have avoided some of the disasters of the century...

And although Britain probably isn't the best example, being constitutional and all, but a monarch in power there helped prevent Mosley.  Perhaps another monarch-who-should-have-been is Reza Pahlavi (and technically Farah as well).

Reza Pahlavi might fit the Otto Von Habsburg criteria, but he ruled (as an autocrat), so he should be in a different category, that of the decent rulers or Kings that were overthrown (Just like Alfonso XIII of Spain or the last Emperor of Brazil). The problem with the idea of the Monarchy preventing dictatorship is Mussolini, because Victor Emmanuel III basically asked him to take control of Italy. I'm quite ignorant about British politics, but I have the feeling that if instead of George VI (a great monarch) the crown was held by Edward VIII, Oswald Mosley would have been more successful.

I meant Crown Prince Reza, not the overthrown shah.  But yeah you're right about Mussolini - I thought of that right after I posted this

Sorry, my mistake, I forgot about him. But yes, there you have another decent ruler in the Crown Prince, certainly better than the actual leaders of Iran.