When people think of when traditional monarchy was replaced with largely
ceremonial monarchy most tend to set World War I as the time when
everything changed. As usual, this is true to some extent but not
universally so. World War I impacted monarchy a great deal in that it
saw the downfall of three major monarchies in which monarchs still
ruled, namely Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia. The German Empire was
a constitutional monarchy but one in which the government answered to
the Kaiser and not to the public. In Austria-Hungary the situation was,
of course, more complex but the Kaiser still had, more or less, a
dominant position and more power than anyone else. The Russian Empire
was the last absolute monarchy among the major powers and though, since
the Russo-Japanese War, had taken the first tentative steps towards
constitutional government, was still effectively an absolute monarchy in
which the Czar appointed who he pleased to high office and could close
down the Duma whenever he wished. In those cases, the war meant not only
a loss of power but the loss of the monarchy entirely.
The other major and quite old monarchy to be brought down by World War I
was the Ottoman Empire of Turkey. However, while it did survive the war
briefly, in fact the Sultan had already lost power before the conflict
began. Sultan Abdul Hamid II was the last Turkish monarch to really rule
his empire. In 1908 he was forced to give up his power and the
following year was deposed entirely, replaced by Mehmed V who was
effectively a figurehead for the “Young Turks” who actually ruled the
empire. In Greece, King Constantine I was brought down by a pro-Allied
coup and replaced by King Alexander who was also little more than a
figurehead but when a monkey bite cost him his life, King Constantine
was restored. Greek monarchs continued to be power players for about as
long as the monarchy existed. No other country had such an ‘on again,
off again’ relationship with their monarchs as Greece. For most of the
monarchs who survived World War I, their fortunes varied from case to
case. Some emerged from the conflict stronger, others weaker.
At the end of World War I, the King of Italy was actually one of the
most powerful monarchs in Europe, due to the fact that the original
constitution of Italy was rather vague and reserved considerable powers
to the King. It also made a difference that King Victor Emmanuel III was
not a man who relished involvement in politics. He disliked stepping in
and generally did so only when the politicians could not sort things
out for themselves. So, when no liberal politician was prepared to take
responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs in the country, he
appointed Benito Mussolini to power. Despite the changes brought about
by the Fascist regime, it was still the King who was the only one able
to dismiss Mussolini from office in 1943. His power drastically declined
after that, due to the situation of World War II at the time but the
Italian monarchy had only a few more years of life left to it in any
event. For Italy, as with some others, the King mattered a great deal
right up until the point where he ceased to matter at all because he
ceased to be King.
In the Low Countries, no monarch emerged stronger from the war than King
Albert I of the Belgians. Although starting out as a limited, popular
monarchy, King Leopold I had astutely mastered his politicians to be the
indispensable man of his time in his country. His son, King Leopold II,
was not so respected but almost always managed to get what he wanted,
even if he had to bypass his government and do things for himself. King
Albert I, on the other hand, had considerable influence due to his
personal popularity. He was nothing like his uncle Leopold II and his
heroic stand in World War I made him an international celebrity. World
War II would prove the more decisive conflict for the Belgian monarchy.
King Leopold III had hoped to use the disaster as an opportunity to
correct many problems but he was quite wrongly and quite unjustly
vilified for remaining in Belgium during the war and ultimately lost his
throne as a result. His son and successor, King Baudouin, exerted
considerable influence because of his personal popularity but he would
be the last Belgian monarch to do so to date.
The fate that befell King Leopold III of the Belgians in World War II
was somewhat similar to that which befell Grand Duchess Marie Adelaide
of Luxembourg in World War I. She had been a monarch with rather robust
powers and who played a prominent part in the government of her country.
However, her decision to remain in Luxembourg during World War I when
the country was under German occupation resulted in a considerable
backlash that almost saw Luxembourg deprived of its independence by the
victorious Allied nations and which almost brought down the monarchy in
Luxembourg itself. Grand Duchess Charlotte gained considerable prestige
for going into exile during World War II and standing for resistance to
the German occupation (and indeed annexation of Luxembourg) but no
monarch would ever be quite so influential again as had been the case
prior to World War I. In recent years the Grand Duke Henri voluntarily
gave up having any significant part in government due to his
unwillingness to be a participant in certain actions by the government
which violated Catholic moral teaching so that today the monarchy of
Luxembourg is effectively ceremonial.
For the Netherlands, the original Kingdom of the United Netherlands had
effectively been an absolute monarchy. However, before the end of his
life King Willem I abdicated due to the determination of the political
class to lessen, if only slightly, his royal powers. The real change
came in 1848, the year revolution swept across most of Europe. The
Netherlands, however, was mostly untouched by the tumult because King
Willem II decided to get out in front of it and willingly adopt a new
constitution that made the Netherlands a limited, parliamentary
monarchy. Nonetheless, the King was still an integral part of government
and retained considerable influence. This was lessened during the First
World War, though the Dutch were neutral, with the expansion of
democracy in 1917, lessening the share of power for the monarchy. King
Willem III had been able to master or at least intimidate his officials
to be the dominant force in the governing of the Netherlands and even
after 1917 his daughter Queen Wilhelmina was able to have considerable
influence due to her popularity and her strong will. World War II saw
quite a lot of tension between the Queen and her government-in-exile but
the Queen invariably prevailed. However, the loss of the Dutch empire
in the aftermath meant the loss of Dutch influence on the world stage
and no Dutch monarch ever had quite so much influence after that point.
However, it is worth noting that the Dutch monarch does still retain a
role in government and more influence than most may realize, partly due
to popularity and partly due to being longstanding stockholders of the
Royal Dutch / Shell Group, in the past owning 25% of the stock. It is
much less now but would still cause them to be a family that "mattered"
whether they had a kingdom of their own or not.
In Scandinavia, the monarchies of northern Europe took no part in World
War I but were all very much impacted by World War II. In the Kingdom of
Denmark, most venerable of all western monarchies, King Christian X
exerted considerably more influence than his successors have. He was a
very popular and highly respected figure, particularly because of his
actions during the war years and yet he had already been obliged to
surrender most of his royal authority during the inter-war period. In
1920 King Christian X had been able to dismiss the elected cabinet
because he disliked it and while his authority was upheld on this point,
it caused a backlash that effectively subordinated the Crown to the
democratic process, his later popularity from the World War II years
notwithstanding. Denmark had only become a constitutional monarchy in
1849 and prior to the crisis of 1920 the monarch, while forced to work
with parliament, still had the most prominent role in national affairs.
In the neighboring Kingdom of Norway, recently separated from Sweden,
the monarchy was more limited from the outset. King Haakon VII was able
to exert some influence but this evaporated after World War II with his
failing health. His son, King Olav V, known as “the People’s King” was
never one to clash with the elected government.
In Sweden, King Gustav V was the last monarch to intervene in politics
over his insistence that Sweden strengthen itself in the event of World
War I spreading to Scandinavia. The Russian Revolution of 1917 caused a
spread of leftist politics in Europe and Sweden was not unaffected by
this. The King tried to replace the outgoing government with another
conservative one but found himself powerless to do so and forced to
accept a succession of basically socialist governments afterwards. Seen
as being sympathetic to the German Empire in the First World War he was
also accused, though Sweden was neutral, of being sympathetic to Nazi
Germany in World War II. These charges mostly come down to the fact that
he preferred not to antagonize Hitler rather than risk the swift
conquest and occupation of his country, which hardly seems out of order.
In any event, no matter how unjustly, King Gustav V did see his
reputation damaged because of World War II which meant that along with
the loss of his political power, his personal influence fell away as
well. Since that time the Swedish monarchy has been firmly restricted to
a purely ceremonial role with no real part in government at all.
Incredible as it sounds, the Swedish monarchy was most impacted by two
world wars despite Sweden being neutral in both.
The French, of course, remained republican before, during and after both
world wars. The last monarch to reign over France was Napoleon III who
was, of course, the dominant figure in the Second French Empire but the
last King to reign over France was King Louis Philippe. He was a
constitutional monarch but still one in which he played an active role
in government and making policy. That, of course, ended with his
downfall and the end of the monarchy altogether.
In neighboring Spain, King Alfonso XIII was around for the First World
War, though he lost his throne at the start of the decade that saw the
outbreak of World War II. The powers of the Spanish monarchy had changed
several times throughout history, from the change from the Habsburg
style to the more absolutist Bourbon dynasty and then with the defeat of
the Carlists from absolute to constitutional monarchy. However, King
Alfonso XIII retained some powers and considerable influence throughout
most of his reign. He had zealously pushed for the war in North Africa
to conquer a new Spanish empire to compensate for the loss of the old
one but this produced a great deal of public anger and, in the end, the
King backed the dictatorship of the Marques de Estella. He was forced
from power in 1930 and the King lost his throne in 1931. When the
monarchy was restored with King Juan Carlos, the King inherited near
absolute power from Generalissimo Franco but willingly became a
constitutional monarch. However, because of his popularity from doing
this, King Juan Carlos retained a great deal of influence until 2012
when he lost popularity so quickly and so dramatically that he felt
obliged to abdicate, something he had never expected to do. Since then
the monarchy has been largely ceremonial.
In the Kingdom of Portugal, which was destroyed prior to the First World
War, the monarchy had shifted from absolutism to constitutional rule
with the Liberal Wars of 1823 to 1834, the cause of absolute monarchy
being defeated with King Miguel I but the monarch retained certain
powers and continued to play an active role in national policy right up
until the overthrow of the last King of Portugal, Manuel II, in 1910.
For Portugal’s most long-standing ally, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and (Northern) Ireland, the world wars also did not have a
significant impact on royal authority. The power of the monarchy had
shifted in both directions over the centuries but certainly a major
change came with the Revolution of 1688 and later with the throne
passing to the House of Hanover when the prime ministerial office first
took shape as the leader of the British government. That looked to be
set to shift back again in the opposite direction under King George III
but his decline and need for a regency, caused the trend to continue and
the British monarchy became firmly set as one which reigns but does not
rule. The world wars had no appreciable impact other than a scare with
the rise of radical leftist agitation at the end of World War I and in
the inter-war years when, along with his choice of wife, many feared
that King Edward VIII intended to play a more active role in the
government of his country than was the norm for British monarchs,
something which helped force his abdication and replacement by King
George VI who was reliably committed to the constitutional set up as it
was. However, one can still see a considerable loss in influence
coinciding with the loss of the British Empire for the monarchy which
was to a large extent caused by World War II.
Finally, though, we have one area which is often overlooked but which
provides a rather dramatic example of monarchs becoming more powerful
rather than less so during the interval between the world wars and that
was in the Balkan monarchies of Bulgaria, Romania and the post-World War
I Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Although starting out as a constitutional
monarchy, cobbled together from the southern provinces of
Austria-Hungary after World War I and under the Serbian Royal Family,
the Kingdom of Yugoslavia saw a dramatic change fairly early in life. On
January 6, 1921 King Alexander I dissolved the constitution and ruled
the country himself for the rest of his life in what was termed, rather
critically, the, “January Sixth Dictatorship”. He worked to centralize
power, tried to force together the various nationalities into a new
Yugoslav national identity and as part of that it was he who changed the
name of the country from the rather wordy title of “The Kingdom of
Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” to simply, “The Kingdom of Yugoslavia” or
the southern Slavs. In 1931 he moved to enact a new constitution but one
which still reserved primary power to the Crown, though he was
assassinated in 1934 and as a result of World War II, that
constitutional arrangement would not last long.
Something similar happened in the Kingdom of Romania. Upon his death in
1927, King Ferdinand was succeeded by his grandson King Michael who was,
of course, a child who could not exercise power. However, in 1930, his
father, Crown Prince Carol, returned to his homeland and seized power as
King Carol II. He began a campaign which he referred to as a “national
renaissance” with a focus on reviving Romanian nationalism, devotion to
the monarchy and national regimentation. With their uniforms, berets and
Roman salutes, many observers referred to this as a sort of fascistic
royal dictatorship. Absolute monarchy was being revived in Romania under
King Carol II. Because the political situation had been so chaotic,
King Carol II was able to use the royal emergency powers to enact a new
constitution which effectively made him an absolute monarch in all but
name. However, Carol II tended not to be too persistent and he soon
handed over most of the duties of government to General Ion Antonescu in
1940. With the outbreak of World War II, the Romanian monarchy became
imperiled as the Nazi leadership in Germany did not like King Carol II.
When they started to conspire with Antonescu the King ordered the arrest
of the general but was then overthrown in a coup and replaced by his
son, King Michael, who was restored to his former throne. He was not
allowed to rule but did seize power when he overthrew the pro-Axis
government in 1944 but that, of course, did not last long as by the
following year the Soviets had occupied Romania and the monarchy was
soon destroyed.
The Kingdom of Bulgaria saw a similar revival of royal power in the
inter-war years as in Yugoslavia and Romania. King Boris III came to the
throne after the Bulgarian defeat in World War I saw King Ferdinand
being forced to abdicate. There was unrest, threats of revolution and a
deluge of assassinations but King Boris III handled the situation
adeptly. In 1934 a coup established a short-lived military dictatorship
but in 1935 Boris III organized a successful, royalist, counter-coup
that resulted in a new prime minister who, along with his successor in
office, with both loyal royalists who could be counted on to govern in
accordance with the wishes of King Boris III. He was the man in charge
in Bulgaria and everyone knew it. Boris III banned dissident political
parties, made a royal marriage alliance with the Kingdom of Italy and
reconciled with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In short, he was ruling and
ruling rather well. World War II, however, changed everything. Bulgaria
joined the Axis powers but refused to participate in the war with Soviet
Russia. Hitler was outraged and after a fiery meeting with the Nazi
Fuhrer, King Boris III died under mysterious circumstances. Succeeded by
his son, King Simeon II, the child monarch naturally could not rule and
the end of World War II brought a swift end to the Bulgarian monarchy
so that he never had the opportunity, though he would later govern the
country as elected prime minister.
So, as we can see, World War I had a major impact on the power of kings
but only in certain countries. For others, World War II was the pivotal
conflict and for others, neither had all that much to do with their
ultimate overthrow or loss of power to elected politicians. The years
between the wars saw some of the most dramatic changes; the King of
Spain lost his throne, the King of Denmark lost his power while the
Kings of Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia saw themselves empowered to
the point of practically becoming absolute monarchs. The purely
ceremonial monarchies of today are a rather recent innovation when one
takes the broad view and, as was seen in the recent Supreme Court case
involving Britain leaving the European Union, we are reminded that
monarchs today, such as the British monarch, often still retain
considerable power and authority but are simply not allowed to exercise
it. Given how chaotic politics is becoming these days, I would say it is
not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that a monarch who acts to
put himself (or herself) at the forefront of a campaign for national
revival in a time of emergency might be able to reverse this recent
trend. However, whether any would and whether the situation develops in a
way that would be conducive to it, is anyone’s guess.
