I am fascinated by the exiled royalty of Europe. Since the separation of Louis XVI’s head from his shoulders in 1789, various houses have lost their realms in the aftermath of losing wars and revolutions.
And yet, very few of these families have really discarded their pretensions to the throne (and who would blame them, I guess). Otto von Hapsburg renounced his claim to the throne so he could re-enter Austria and go into politics. The House of Savoy did the same thing in Italy. Both continue to argue for a restoration, however. The Romanovs have never renounced the throne.
Earlier this year I read a peice in the Daily Telegraph (the real one) blog by the Reactionary Gerald Warner celebrating the birth of twins to the so-called Louis XX. The link is here (and look who’s in the photo).
The rightful King of Romania, on the other hand, makes no claim to the throne – as The Economist notes here.
As a mild royalist, I cannot help but wonder whether a good spell of constitutional monarchy and hereditary succession wouldn’t be beneficial to the former Soviet Republics, who are still mired in corruption.
Not going to happen, however, as the aforementioned Economist piece stated:
UNTIL the collapse of communism, being an exiled monarch was merely thankless. Since then it has been cruelly disappointing. In Albania, Georgia, Hungary, Montenegro, Russia and Serbia the monarchist cause has at best crashed and burned—or more often failed to ignite at all, leaving royal pretenders (or pretend royals) stranded on the eurotrash heap of history. In Bulgaria, Simeon Saxcoburggotski (or ex-King Simeon II) was briefly a popular prime minister. But now he languishes in an uncomfortable coalition with the ex-communists, heirs to the party that exiled him and murdered his followers.