Most of the ones that are there now probably will be in 100 years. Practically all of them are stable, rich democracies, which means there's no urgent need for big constitutional changes. Seeing how most monarchies were abolished after a revolution or a (lost) war, not much will change in the remaining ones unless some very disruptive event occurs.
I am not from Spain and was planning on comment ahout Spain as well. However I think others will last (unless something drastic happens making EU nation state like war with some major power within next 100 years).
Spain’s monarchy however was interrupted which you can’t tell from comparing to 1914 to now. Felipe is just second king after restoration. So the dynasty might get more established in next decades
Belgium too. Spain and Belgium, or at least their monarchies, are significantly less stable than the others. In Belgium, the monarchy is practically the only thing holding the country together. A lot could happen there.
I don't know which will happen first, the federalization of the European Union or a Flanders/Walloonia split. Either way, I really doubt you and I will still have Belgian passports by the time we're dead, and I definitely think it won't really affect our lives very much at all.
The majority of the country (and yes, also of Flanders) is not in favor of a split, soft or hard. And why would they? As you say, "it won't really affect our lives very much at all" because there's nothing to gain, we'll still be in massive debts (more due to the projected costs of splitting), we'd still have the mythical "money transfers", we'd still have massive political overhead (you don't think they'll be happy with less politicians, right?), and our politicians will still be inept.
On the other hand, we'll become even less relevant on the global theatre, there'd be less growth potential, lots of technical issues (see how maintenance on a road that's partially Wallonian, partially Flemish is already a nightmare, let's not start with the rail, telecom, water, energy,... networks), lot's of political issues, but now without a federal power at least trying to keep shit going.
And for what?
IF you're right, I hope it's the federalisation of the EU.
Its interesting because in Spain its basically the opposite than what you said about belgium, as in Spain the monarchy is a huge cause for divide, especially as regionalists would prefer a republic and there is a 50/50 split in the rest of the country
No it’s not.
Most people don’t really care one way or another, even if its probably true than around half the country prefers a republic over a constitutional monarchy.
This topic has never had any significance in any opinion poll since before you were born.
The polls are conducted by the government, and none of them have ever asked about the monarchy because they don't want to bring up the issue when they already have enough to deal with the usual problems. But the royal family has been "accused" of corruption, the son-in-law was even in jail, and the former king is exiled to Dubai…
Flanders and Wallonia are practically two different countries, forced by circumstance to share a single government. They've got twice the usual number of parties, one of each in Flemish, one of each in French. It has happened that it took over a year to form a government. Other than that, the two halves of the country barely talk to each other, and love to pretend they don't speak each other's language.
The main things holding them together are the royal family, the red devils, and the fact that breaking up is too much work.
On the other hand, people have been expecting Belgium to fall apart for decades now, and it still hasn't happened. Who knows, they might survive us all.
We will. I feel those that are pushing most for Belgium to fall apart is foreign media, they suddenly make a report on it at the oddest moments when there's nothing odd going on. Make of that as you will
they literally had a king that had to flee the countr for TAX EVASION, a guy who has everything makes tax fraud on the country he suposedly rules Forever. And everything he ever wated was given to him on a plate even the MONARCHY ITSELF by franco
Problem with the monarchy is that it's too intertwinned with the fascist regime -- not in vain Juan Carlos I was chosen by Franco for the role. Now it's a matter of his son Felipe deciding to side against its inheritors, making a lot of monarchists angry (for the monarchy lost already a huge chunk of ride-or-die supporters after the Botswana scandal) and allowing the country to leave past that era while keeping the monarchy in place, or to side with said inheritors, dooming the monarchy forevermore for a chance at a last hurrah
Yes, but he didn't unlatch the dictatorship from the institution, and he's partly at fault of that. He showed himself as a monarch of consensus and neutrality, which meant to put an end to things like the coup attempt of the 23rd of February of '81, but he went no further.
The problem is that the inheritors of fascism have sort of a "notice me senpai" relationship with the monarchy: they have it as the cornerstone and think that it's on their side, no matter how extreme the measure. This encompasses radical parties such as literal Falange or Vox to more moderate ones like PP. They were never actually admonished by the former monarch when they pulled grievous stuff (although the current monarchy isn't bereft of scandals intertwinned with them too), thus they kept the same old song and dance.
In contrast, the current king has actually addressed them, which has earnt him the nickname "the traitor" from the extrememost of them, due to his refusal to let them do their bidding sine qua non. It's not enough, but it's a step forward that should have been taken long ago
Juan Carlos and his family has been rich through those years. Former son in law in prison, because of corruption. Juan Carlos escaped to some arabic country
nah, think about it. To abolish the monarchy we need to reform core articles of the constitution, that are harder to change and require referendums, 2/3 of the parliament, elections and a new vote by the new parliament (or something similar, I don't fully remember). Point is that legally changing that is almost impossible. Either the ideology of a sizeable part of the population changes drastically or there is a revolution for that to happen.
Revolutions start because people are starving or seriously oppressed.
Look at catalans, all riled up and puffed up and so ready to secede… and then they all go to work and have lunch.
The Catalan case is the perfect example of political manipulation, many separatists after living more than 4 years under the command of their "liberators" have seen that in reality they only wanted a piece of the cake, they do not care about Catalonia
What do you mean?! Surely having two kings means it's twice as stable. And there's nothing better than public transport so all the good work abroad the old king is doing will surely help the monarchy survive.
I'm not from Spain so I will obviously yield to your knowledge should I be wrong but I think it has a better chance than you think. Mostly because, as far as I know, constitutionally it is incredibly hard to abolish the monarchy by design so it may last just because it's unlikely to be a big enough issue to be worth the political capital to undertake.
I doubt Leonor ever gets to be queen. Most people do not want a royal family, specially one as corrupt as this one, which is exactly why the monarchist politicians refuse to do a referendum
Hi I am not from Spain, but this is pretty interesting. Do you have any interesting articles about whats wrong with spanish monarchy or just a quick summary?
Changing from Monarchy to Republic will need a new Constitution.
Catalonia and possibly the Basque Country will declare independence the moment that happens and you'll lose the legal arguments that the current constitution gives you.
Which politician you think will want to be remembered as the reason Spain fell apart?
Btw, you also need 2/3 of the Senate to change the constitution at all.
It will stand. The Royal Family has a lot of connections with the economic establishment so the economic establishment will keep them there as long as they are useful as always (they work as intermediaries for a lot of CEOs)
I saw a pool saying that that the young generation is equally divide between the ones against the monarchy, the one in favour, and the ones who don't care
Why? The polls on wiki seem quite split so it could continue on and the socialist party recently removed republicanism from its party thing(or young socialists idk.)
It really depends. Politically there's no motivation to protect or change anything as the king has little political power (albeit more than people think). This means that people fiercely argue for or against the king but, in the end, they don't really care. Nobody would change their vote if one of the parties explicitly included a position on the monarchy in their program.
The only thing that can take down the monarchy right now is a scandal, like the one Juan Carlos I had.
Most Dutch will not fight for their country, but try to take away kingsday and they'll burn down the entire nation and probably parts of Belgium as well..
As someone living in one of these countries its honestly so far down my list of concerns I'd probably consider people talking about it as a reason to not vote for them, such would be my opinion of their lack of judgement over what the priorities are.
Our monarchy makes more money for the country than it costs and while they own alot of land its not like they have rights over it no one else does, they are just an ordinary landlord. Many many things are more urgent.
(Edit: Apparently many people are unaware that a deal exists between the Crown and Parliament that the state receives all the profits on crown lands in exchange for the upkeep money because at one point the king of the day was on the edge of bankruptcy. The tourism is peanuts.)
Not much to celebrate when it'd just be a piece of paper changing the man at the top. Its not like the monarchyhas done much direct harm in at least a century
If Reddit were to be believed everyone is a republican. Let's not let the fact that only 16% of people opposed the monarchy in a recent YouGov poll get in the way.
I think apathy is key. At least in Canada, I doubt very many people are pro-monarchy. Most just don’t care enough about something that has almost no impact in their daily lives.
I wouldn’t call myself apathetic but “pro-monarchy” is also too strong. I think we should keep the monarchy in Canada the way it is.
The effort required to change the Canadian constitution - and the Pandora's box it would open - simply isn't worth it for the negligible change in day-to-day governance that abolishing the monarchy would bring about. And I say this as someone who finds the monarchy antiquated and, frankly, offensive to the country's modern values.
Reddit generally is full of people that are not even remotely in touch with reality. I still remember 2 elections ago,when r/greece users were debating whether Varoufakis would be the third or the fourth party and he ended up not even getting the 3% needed to get into congress...
Spaniards in particular are especially overrepresented by leftist youngsters in reddit.
They will also not care about this topic in 20 years when they are taking their kids to school
Ah yes, Varoufakis the economic sage. How exactly is the Greek economy doing since they cut off his grift and took the medicine? Ah, thriving I see. Not too many talking of his supporters talking about that now. An absolute grifter of the highest order.
Keep in mind here. Most of his supporters were a bunch of people that liked the fact that he proposed a few solutions they hadn't heard before. The issue mainly is that his solutions were a bunch of bullshit that would have turned greece into a failed state...
I think it’s hilarious how much reddit seems to dislike them. Out of all the rich people that have higher soft power in Britain and even globally with their riches and impactful companies they want the british monarchies assets to be nationalized first.
I actually don't think it's plausible that royals give such an extra boost to tourism so they make their country money. But: A fair comparison would be the cost of a royal head of state to a non-royal one - the German president has a budget of 50m Euros per year and while there's no family to aliment, there's (currently 2) former presidents that continue to get paid. On the other hand, even in countries that have been a republic for a century the descendants of former royalty still have huge... tracts of land, forests and vinyards with lots of subsidies. Long story short: That's probably not something that can or should be decided based on cost.
Eh, I think the fact that it's so low on the priority list is a testament to Elizabeth and Charles. By making the monarchy and themselves relatively boring, it makes the whole thing seem like an afterthought, but it doesn't always have to be this way.
If Nazi-Sympathizer Edward VIII kept the throne, would things be the same? If something equivalent came out about future rulers, would it still be an afterthought?
What if the Prince of Woking himself, Andrew, were King?
In a lot of cases it's not so much that they make more money than they cost, but that a presidential system would be more expensive than the current one because certain amenities are already in the royal families' possession.
In some cases it's also a diplomatic boon to have a (symbolic) head of state for some international affairs, who are separate/untainted from the internal whims of politics. And in some places being a royal/king still means something that a temporary minister/president would not.
It certainly is the case in the UK - the monarchy does generate revenue for the country, primarily through the Crown Estate, a substantial portfolio of land and property that brought in around £1.1 billion in 2024. Of this income, 75% goes directly to the public purse, while 25% is allocated to the monarchy via the Sovereign Grant.
If the monarchy were ever abolished, it’s likely the Crown Estate would revert to them as private property, meaning the government would lose access to this significant source of public revenue.
Sure, but the British crown is a lot more famous than most royal families. In Belgium for example, there was a study that indicated that switching to a president would be more expensive, as well as more problematic (the king is a neutral figure, while the political landscape is, to put it gently, universally unappealing for various reasons.)
So in our case, it simply does not make sense to switch. Also helps that the current king does a decent, quiet job.
In the case of Spain specifically I'd say our royal family is either actually hindering international relations ( like with Latin America) or fostering them with the worst kind of countries, like Saudi Arabia
Like he had another choice. If he hadn't played along, he would have been overthrown. He did abide by the transition, but in 1981 there was a coup (which he most likely knew about) and he did nothing about it until late night, giving a speech when things had mostly calmed down. And then the whole government began saying that he had saved our democracy
I deliberately tried to find an independent report on this, basically nothing from the BBC or anything blatantly pro-Monarchy. It seems like a complicated subject but this sentence seems to sum it up:
“Spread amongst the 67 million people of the United Kingdom, the recurring financial benefits of the Monarchy are estimated to be over £8.50 per person, per year, and the recurring costs are estimated to be approximately £5.50 per person, per year.”
It is very hard to quantify the additional tourism generated by the monarchy. You cant tell if it is because of the monarchy or because of the buildings which would still exist even without the royal family. They might even generate more money because of them being more accessible to the public.
Versailles is also rather isolated wheras buckingham palace is smack on in the middle of london. I reckon buckingham palace would be very popular were it open all year long. And most people visit for the funny hats, just keep the hats.
Also, versailles is more visited than all british royal castles combined. Also because most of those are closed for much of the year.
Thats true but the palaces that were built in the UK, while extremely fancy, weren't anywhere near as opulent as the palaces the absolute monarchs of france with full control over state finances would build.
If you told someone with no knowledge of history and showed them buckingham palace I think they wouldn't believe you if you told them the Monarchs of the of the richest, largest and most powerful empire that ever existed lived there.
Yes. There's also the aspect that you cant really go inside Buckingham palace because it's someone's house. While Versailles is basically a museum and no longer a residence.
I've always maintained that it's silly to compare Versailles with Buckingham Palace. Not only is Versailles light years more opulent and vast, but they're also not comparable in other ways. The UK's Versailles is more like Hampton Court Palace - a fancy old formerly occupied palace which tourists have all-year-round access to.
Buckingham Palace is a *working* building. It's where the Head of State receives state guests and carries out official duties. Buckingham Palace's proper French equivalent is the Palais d'Elysees - the residence of the French President.
France gets more because their palaces are open all year and they're filled with old royal art.
I don't believe for a second that if we gave tourists access to every royal site and filled them with the royal collection that tourism would decrease.
It's important to note that removing a monarchy does not automatically save everyone 5 quid.
Most of that cost is either maintaining buildings (which would still need to be done) or carrying out ceremonial duties of state (which many countries still do with a presidential role, as opposed to the priministerial role).
The reality is that an elected head of state would cost a similar amount to a hereditary head of state. It's not like the UK gov is going to sell the crown jewels to the highest bidder.
For some people, it's not about just the costs, (although they would still save aome money). For most nations, housing one extremely opulent family is not a decisive monetary matter but maybe having these relics of a bygone era who live under different rules and own property that should be owned by the state, sends the wrong message when the country is going through financial struggles.
In many cases, overseas corporate tax havens, like the Caymen Islands, Bermuda and Isle of Man have proclaimed themselves holdings of the royal family as opposed to the British state, using the Crown as a paper-thin excuse to operate as they do. Holding those places to account might well bring in more money for the British people (and governments everywhere) and abolishing the monarchy, who have tacitly supported this, might help in that.
Just on the last point, it's highly unlikely that a new republican UK Gov would seek to fully integrate the crown dependencies or the oversees territories. As the majority would immediately seek independence. Instead the pre-existing constitutional relationship would remain (self governance but with UK protection/foreign relations). In which case there's not much the UK can do about tax policy besides whine, which they already do.
Even if this did happen, it would be unlikely to bring in any more money, as the shell companies would simply move elsewhere, like Panama. It doesn't take long to pack when your entire HQ consists of a desk and a phoneline.
Most of the properties are owned by the crown rather than the actual monarch and some of the income from those goes to the monarch. I think there’s only a couple of notable properties actually personally owned by the king.
Yes but "The Crown Estate" was basically created so they didn't really have to fight on which assets where the King properties and which should stay with the Government.
I'm not saying a current abolishment of the monarchy should follow French Revolution rules, but why the Government should just bend over and give all estate assets to the King ?
Since they lost the colonies, the Crown actually donates the profits from it's lands to the Government in exchange for a stipend. Every monarch since has done that, in part because George was up to his eyes in debt, but since then it's been a matter of tradition.
Unlikely, any measure that shows the monarch makes money undoubtedly includes the profits from crown lands which only exists as long as the monarchy does. Also it ignores things like crown residences (incl. Buckingham palace) are actually lived in so you can't charge for entry.
Also it's not like people go to the UK only because of the monarchy. Versailles gets far more visitors than Buckingham palace every year.
Versailles is one of the greatest and most historically significant palaces. No British palaces are on that level. It would be better to compare it to Germany or Italy on tourism levels
Seriously, of course people would want to see the most spectacular palace in all of Europe even without a monarchy presently occupying it. Buckingham by comparison is just a big mansion.
The monarchy 'cost the taxpayer' £86.3 million last year (with £47 million going to building upkeep. so that and more wouldn't disappear so it's more like £20 mil) and gave the treasury £1.1 billion.
A difference of ....£1 billion.
Also the money they receive is a percentage of that money they gave to the treasury due to a deal we made a few centuries ago. The crown gives us the revenue of the crown estates in return for a percentage of that revenue as the 'sovereign grant'. It's actually going to go up a lot next year because the crown estates revenue increased massively last year but they often have a bit leftover each year so it'll be interesting.
Of course this isn't their only source of income, they have other lands and holdings (which they voluntarily pay income tax on, like the rest of us) such as the duchy of Cornwall.
Their will still be the occasional dodgy dealing that will occur but it'll be many stages removed from the king because he's so busy and there are less than if anyone else had that amount of money.
Basically it's government land that we collect the revenue for, pay for repair and then pay our version of the president from that revenue instead of from the taxpayers.
Even if you take the claims of some fervent anti monarchists (who are wrong but I'm not going into it here) that they cost us £500 million that is still a £500 million profit.
Sources: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/669fd963fc8e12ac3edb0322/TCE_AR24_Web_Laying.pdf https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2024-07/Sovereign%20Grant%20Report%202023-24.pdf
The PR team of the Dutch royals somehow managed to convince the entire country that all the privileges and money thrown down at the them as a good idea.
There is no source because it's impossible to quantify the supposed soft benefits to diplomacy and tourism but the Royals, on a national level, do not cost very much, therefore they don't need to produce much benefit to be in credit. Then there is also the cost of replacing them, the question of what we replace them with and the ongoing costs of whatever that is.
Considering the above, the value for money argument is a red herring, the country would not save any money by getting rid of them, at least in the short and medium term and conceivably never.
A more persuasive argument is what impact an aristocracy has on ingraining class oppression and reducing social mobility. For me that is a very valid argument because the concept of Royalty is inherently discriminatory. However, I think people seriously, seriously underestimate the cost and potential pitfalls of changing a system that is currently functionally adequate, even if it is also socially regressive and theoretically damaging.
British Royal Family has a lot of own money, land, houses. They pay taxes (Prince of Wales doesn't have to, but he does and higher than he could) which is big number because of how much it earns. They do a lot of charity work on their land (farms, production etc, you can buy a jam from The King and money you pay(at least profits) will go to charity). They allow public to visit some of their residences which benefits tourism. The influence Royal Family has motivates ppl to spend money on local businesses - the Princess of Wales can wear something and next day it will be sold out, she quite frequently wears local items which boosts sales. Yes, country has to pay for security (only King, Queen and i guess Wales family get it, rest of the RF have security only when they do their duties, which is public work, and not everyone, for example, Princess Beatrice doesn't usually get one). And country pays for coronations, funerals and some weddings - but in return they don't have to pay for elective and election campaign every 5 years. Also ex Prime Ministers get security even when they arent in politics anymore because of some law - it's much more ppl (and money) compared to RF in terms of security.
It's not like RF lives off tax money, they have own money and pay taxes themselves.
All info above was gathered from following some channels last 5 years(I'm not from UK), i don't have a source that has it all listed. And some things I've been writing from memory, I'm not too deep in laws so some minor stuff might be inaccurate. But it's very interesting topic so do your own research
Dude, UK monarchy is like a Big Brother version of an open air museum. They're so hot even my parents are invested what Kate said and Harry spoiled. I wouldn't be surprised if they make more money in return, by simply selling their souvenirs.
That’s cool too. I just think that if it came to it, our military and police take an oath to the monarchy and not the government, and that the monarchy have enough of a moral compass to step in. I don’t think anyone could really take the place of them. Most people looking for powerful positions are narcissists, but the monarchy are born into their influence so it’s a bit different. I don’t trust our country’s ability to elect leaders, especially not after seeing how much support Farage has been getting lmao
Yeah I’m with you on that. I’m even personally against the monarchy or at least how much money is spent on that family, but it is an absolute non issue currently and even if I became PM it wouldn’t be something it try to change except lowering the cash flow.
Our monarchy makes more money for the country than it costs
That’s a common myth, but the truth is more complicated. The monarchy does cost a lot of public money, and it’s extremely difficult to measure how much, if anything, it actually brings in through tourism. People don’t visit a country just to catch a glimpse of a king.
Much of the wealth tied to the monarchy, like Crown land and properties, could be fully owned and managed by the state for the public good, instead of funding the luxury lifestyle of a few individuals born into privilege.
And beyond the cost, there’s a deeper issue: having an unelected head of state, however symbolic, normalises inherited power. That carries risks, including the possibility that they, or those around them, might one day push to expand their political influence again.
A modern democracy shouldn’t rely on feudal leftovers.
I disagree on the risks, it's one one of those things that sounds reasonable on paper but in practice recent history/events throughout the world shows it's actually elected positions that have proven to be the bigger risk in pushing for more political overreach than surviving constitutional monarchies have. Being entrenched in their political structures is actually more restricting than it appears because they already will tend to have constititutional crosshairs painted on them (at least for the British moanrchy) that makes it far more easier to constrain them if they do ever decide to exceed their bounds.
The real deal is the discounted rent Britain gets to pay for Crowne Estate land. Unless Britain wants to go the take it/guillotine route, they’d have to pay the crown for all those assets. From an outsider the current deal seems much more attractive than figuring out that mess.
And do you imagine the state would pay for it seizure of the crown lands? If not, even though the situation is fairly unique the move would scare capital markets, which are notriously sensitive to large state seizures like that. The impacts of that could be felt for a long time.
Fully taking the crown lands is legally messy for the state in part because it one of the foundations for the monarchy giving up power. Sometimes it is better not to open Pandoras box, especially since the current relationship.doesmt appear to be a drain on the state with some evidence suggesting the current arrangement benefits the state.
I'd add one other benefit to the monarchy: they take the place of a president.
If any of our PMs tried to overreach, then theoretically, any monarch could press the big red button and dissolve parliament. Of course, this would mean the end of the monarchy, which is also good because it deters them from meddling in politics.
I like the fact that our ultimate authority resides in a (mostly) neutral and powerless figure rather than, say, allowing an orange faced moron to dangerously erode our democracy.
Depends on why they hit the button, if the public felt the move was the correct thing to do, or was begging the crown to do so it could actually strengthen the monarchy.
Honestly, this has become on of the strongest arguments in favour of the HoL and Monarchy in the last 20 years.
Although one slight disagreement, the Monarch dissolving parliament isn't guaranteed to be the end of the monarchy, it only will be if they go entirely against public mood, if a government became so unpopular we reached mass protests, turning to mass riots, with public sentiment overwhelmingly against the government, the Monarch could probably get away with dissolving parliament and calling a new election.
Every time a government tried to overstep, or introduce horrific policies, the HoL and Monarch (although the monarch didnt do it publicly the queen had ways of signalling her dislike of some policies) batted it right back and them, telling them to think again.
If you remove that and have an elected upper house and Monarch, as much as it might sometimes be all in favour of my political leaning, other times it'll swing entirely in favour of a political leaning that tries to implement policies I find completely horrifying, so id rather we find a way to keep a balance as we have now where if any party oversteps, they get the bills batted back at them.
Tourism would still flourish and imo be much greater if you now got access to private rooms. Having a rich family just because they were born right shouldnt in any way be a thing in modern times.
100% agreed. No vote for people talking about presidents. Wild plans with the constitution are in the same category as magical ideas about how the world economy works in my list of red flags.
Aren't they, technically, the most taxed landlords of your country at 100% of the income of their productive lands, with only a small fraction reversed to them as an allowance decided by your parliament?
..... sorry but I gatta be that guy.....there is no way to know if these countries and their boarders today will last 100 years.
Prior to WW1, Europe was relatively peaceful from 1820 to 1914. This was after the Napoleonic wars. Yes there were still smaller wars and civil wars. But no major wars between major powers.
In fact, the British empire called the times Pax Britannia. WW1 still happened and the British lost more men in WW1 then they did from 1800-1914.
So these peaceful times today do not represent anything unique. If anything, and history repeats itself, it's the calm before the storm.
Coming from the Napoleonic wars, it sure did cooldown a bunch, but you still have several big revolutions, as well as a fair few major wars (Crimean war, Taiping rebellion, The formation of Italy, Both Schleswig wars, Austro-Prussian War, Franco-Prussian war, the Russo-japanese war etc.). In addition to the Scramble for Africa and many other colonial wars.
So it was far from as peaceful as we have it today, even with the increasing tension around the world.
Second economies are much more connected and complex. European countries are such big trade partners that waging a war would do more bad than winning one would gain.
Third countries are actually democratic now, and mostly run by the people. And noone wants to go to war.
Fourth Europe is really demilitarised, and any serious rebuilding will take decades.
And while a LOT can happen in a century, it would take really long for war to even become a option.
There is one or two exceptions tho. Russia and the balkans.
There might be a war against Russia and/or in the balkans. But there is little to no chance of a country disappearing from this map.
Yes there were still smaller wars and civil wars. But no major wars between major powers.
The Germans literally sacked Paris in this time period while the British and French landed troops on Russian soil. And then there was the numerous wars between Prussia, Austria, and Italy to establish their national borders.
There’s a reason the Red Cross and Geneva Convention were established in this era it was a very bloody time period for Europe and nothing at all like the last 70 years
Peaceful?
Europe was busy expanding, and taking colonies during this time. Especially in Africa. so the countries were busy with other things than fighting each other in Europe.
Its called imperialism
Ah yes, no wars between major powers except of course the crimean war, the austro-prussian war and the franco-prussian war. And of course every European great power was constantly involved in like 5 different low to medium intensity colonial wars during that time. No, the 19th century was a far more violent time in Europe than anything we‘ve experienced since the end of world war 2, thanks to nuclear weapons and the EU.
I would argue that the German wars of Unification in the 1860s were insanely important, as Germany would become the biggest driving force of geopolitics until Nazi Germany’s surrender in 1945.
The Entente, which helped build relations between France and Britain only existed to stop Germany, America’s rise into a superpower was only really made possible due to the Devestation of Europe after both world wars. And WW2 in Europe (caused by Nazi Germany) was a massive part in ending colonialism.
Your point still stands however, since the borders of continental Europe in 1823 look almost nothing like the borders in 1923 (after the Russian civil war ended)
I think the one most likely to be abolished is the one in Spain, where republicanism is deeply connected to nationalism/regionalism in the autonomous communities.
Similarly in the UK, plus the monarchy is also connected to the continued powers of the nobility, but the monarchy is much more popular there.
The other European monarchies are mostly popular and disconnected from day-to-day politics. The exceptions are Monaco and Liechtenstein, but both are extremely wealthy, and the monarchies are paramount to both countries' national identities
The big thing with the surviving monarchies is that the monarchs are largely cermonial, and governing is handled by republican institutions in the form of elected parliament.
Eh, look at Spain, where a couple of scandals made the support for the monarchy plummet. It's not really in immediate danger right now, but with a few more scandals, who knows.
And in my native Sweden, support has steadily been decreasing over the years. Our next Monarch is quite popular though so she'll propably enjoy increased support but nevertheless the monarchy is less and less popular with every generation. I believe it's roughly the same in Norway and Denmark.
I would be surprised if all monarchies survive a 100 years.
They also learned very hard lessons. They don’t stick their head above the parapet, stay out of politics, hire PR agencies so that they court the public and largely keep to theirselves whilst laughing all the way to the bank.
If a pre 1900 monarchy saw what 2000s monarchies are, they’d laugh and then go hassle a village to send a message. Modern monarchies skirt the line of “we tolerate you, take your money and don’t fuck it up”
Norway here - people seem content to continue with the royal family. I’m sure there are some anti-monarchists here, but they are not loud. Most people seem neutral to positive about the royal family. The current royal family is also associated with resistance to German occupation during WWII - great-grandpa King Olav led the resistance in exile. Maybe feelings will change if future inheritors of the throne turn entitled and aloof.
Yeah calling most of these countries "monarchies" is a stretch. I'm sure they technically are but all the ones I'm aware of have fairly standard democratic elections and the monarchs are figureheads with limited, if any, power.
I think they are relatively stable as a whole, but also quite dependent on each other. If let’s say Denmark decides to abandon the monarchy, and they implement it without much problems, there’s a good chance it will trigger a cascade of republicanism first to the other Nordics and then to the UK/Netherlands.
Most of the the current ones won't need a very disruptive event. Our king has no actual power. If the people really want him gone, the goverment can change the constitution to make it happen.
And our current king atleast is unlikely to put up much opposition. He'll never be able to gather enough support to even think of using force. So he'll have to accept it.
All stable sure, but there is potential in the next 100 years for the UK to split up, Spain to split up, or Belgium to split up, so apart from those...
There are some gradual steps that can lead to them disappearing though. First, government reforms to get rid of their financial support and remaining role in the government. It's not hard to imagine given their diminishing role and as people ask why they should get tax dollars. Without financial incentive it'll be more likely that heirs will denounce the throne since they don't really get anything out of it, then those in line that want it for the ceremony end up being less and less desirable and then the government is like we don't want this pr bullshit, let's just abolish it.
Hm, Idk. You make good points, but I think there's one factor that's not taken into account. The royals that are still around today still stem from a long line of monachrs for the most part. It's part of the appeal and even if we don't believe in a divine right to rule anymore, these people's ancestry contributes to their mystique in a way. But the royals stopped marrying exclusively within their circles a generation or two ago. Which is fair enough, no one should be forced to marry their cousin to secure the Spanish alliance for several obvious reasons. But over time this could turn the next generations into nothing more than a different breed of celebrities when half their ancestors were just your average rich pricks. People will start wondering why their tax money should fund the lifestyles of these people.
I agree with your assessment, although I'd say that every Western monarchy is ultimately only one scandal away from being abolished. Of course there are smaller scandals in royal families all the time. But by this I mean a major scandal directly involving the monarch: the kind of serious, unforgiveable scandal that instantly sways public opinion against the monarchy and leads to demand to abolish it.
So I mean that in a constitutional monarchy, you don't necessarily need a war or revolution to end the monarchy, just a very strong change of public opinion. Obviously the monarchs are aware of this and work hard to make a positive, stable impression. As long as they succeed in this, the western monarchies can definitely survive another century or more.
In Norway a princess ran off with a snake-oil shaman to live dat influencer life. The son of the crown princess (but not the crown prince) is being investigated for violence against a handful of women and some minor charges.
The country is stable, the royal family is a mixed bag to say the least.
3.3k
u/Litt82 Belgium May 20 '25
Most of the ones that are there now probably will be in 100 years. Practically all of them are stable, rich democracies, which means there's no urgent need for big constitutional changes. Seeing how most monarchies were abolished after a revolution or a (lost) war, not much will change in the remaining ones unless some very disruptive event occurs.