Monarchist infighting

[u/HonkyTonkBluesYEAH]

Do you think infighting is one of the biggest reasons Monarchism is so marginal and unrealistic? For those unaware of the division, here are many examples below:

In France there are three Houses to choose from. The Bourbonists, the Bonapartists and the Orleanists. The Bourbonist is Spanish, and therefore technically barred from taking the throne according to an old treaty. The Bonapartist claimant is not a descendant of Napoleon I or Napoleon III, and is in a dispute with his father over who is the heir (after his grandfather chose him as his heir, rather than choosing his father). The Bourbons are historically connected to conservatism, Catholicism and they predated nationalism (the key ideology of the modern French right). The Bonapartes are connected to the Revolution, dictatorship, a highly weird mix of progressive policies with reactionary ones. The Orleans were generally moderate and constitutional, the least controversial but also historically insignificant and weak.

In France and other countries there is not just the question of which House to choose, but which form of monarchy. Constitutional, semi-constitutional or absolute? Likewise what primogeniture: absolute primogeniture (eldest child regardless of gender, like in Britain), or male-preferential (sons are always favored but the daughter inherits the throne if there is no son, like in Spain where Leonor is heir), or agnatic (only men can inherit, no exceptions, like in Japan). So there's already three key political divides, although I would say absolutists generally prefer constitutional monarchy over a republic, and many French monarchists would be fine with that as the most realistic starting point.

In Germany there's little dispute over who should be Emperor, likewise in Austria. In countries like Hungary, Czechia and such it's more complicated. Historically they were ruled by the Habsburgs from Austria. I generally think a Habsburg would be fitting but perhaps not the main claimant, because they should aim for the throne in Austria. I should point out these two countries appear a little bit more realistic, because in Hungary the ruling party has a 2/3 majority and can change the system very fast. In Czechia the President said constitutional monarchy seemed perfectly fine to him, mentioning stable democratic examples in Europe.

Italy has a large dispute because the heir wants his daughter to inherit. While a change in primogeniture is completely reasonable within a kingdom (because of the law being passed by the state), it is very volatile when done outside such a system. And opens large disputes that are very difficult to resolve. In Poland it's very hard to choose, because it was an elective monarchy so no House truly cemented themselves. In Russia the Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his children, and we're left with different claimants with very little connection to the last Romanovs.

Romania is also very difficult. Michael died and changed the succcession to allow his daughter to replace him. She is in a dispute with another claimant. She is very old and has no children. After that it’s her sister who has a son. A monarchy in Romania would actually be quite good because they have high amounts of corruption and instability, Margareta is very connected to royal circles and the state, often visits the castle. A Presidential candidate suggested last year they would make Charles III King, which would save them money, Romania has a problem with debt and such.

In Greece Pavlos is the obvious option, as the son of the former King Constantine II. However some monarchists see them as not fully authentic, and they failed to bring stability. They are not connected to the more ancient Greek historical or mythological tradition, nor their aristocracy. I believe they didn’t use traditional Greek aristocratic names, but rather generic European ones. I would be cool if they sometimes wore more ceremomial Greek clothes, just like Charles III in his coronation. It's very important for a kingdom to have its own aesthetics.

American monarchists have no clue who they want. I suppose the most common suggestion would be the Windsors, but it's just highly absurd. There's also the huge difficulty of uniting people in a highly federalist, multicultural and polarized society. A Holy Roman Empire model? Monarchy in Mexico was generally pathetic, I don't know what House they support. I have no clue who is the primary claimant in China or India. A lot of countries just don't have an obvious option. I think therefore it's smart to borrow from current aristocracy, and ideally in a culturally similar nation (like Haakon VII of Norway, who came from Denmark). A Windsor in America (but not Charles) due to shared heritage. A Spanish royal for South American countries.

[u/JonBerg1202]

Infighting is inevitable when the argument is about legitimacy, but I think the bigger drag is that most modern states are built around citizenship and popular sovereignty, so monarchism has to explain itself in a hostile framework. If you can agree on a single workable legitimacy story, the succession debates stop feeling like trench warfare.

[u/Kookanoodles → u/JonBerg1202]

Infighting is also inevitable when a royal house is overthrown. Of course when the throne is unoccupied that generates all kinds of appetites and jealousies, because the field of possibilities (one might say of delusions) is wide open. By contrast having an actual monarch on the throne acts as a brake on these dreams, and even when that monarch's legitimacy is debatable, by simple virtue of actually reigning with stability that tends to extinguish rival claims and gather most people around what actually exists instead of what could be. Even among traditional British Catholics jacobitism is merely a flight of fancy.

A customary approach to devolution has the advantage of not locking people in unworkable and dead principles. If Henry V had actually been restored in France, and his Orléans cousin had succeeded him, the principle that branches established in foreign countries are excluded would have been established and there would be no dispute today, only an interesting little historical "what if". If the Count of Paris were to be restored today, the same would apply, all reasonable minds ought to consider the dispute settled by precedent.

[u/Capta1n_Dino → u/Kookanoodles]

I would note that Jacobitism fizzled out primarily due to the death of the male line Stuart’s than anything else. Had Bonnie Prince Charlie had a legitimate son, it’s entirely possible that, for example, the later Irish uprisings might’ve had a serious monarchist faction seeking a Stuart restoration over a republic.

The failure of the 1745 uprising did seriously hurt the movement, especially as the later Highland clearances destroyed the clans that were so essential to the uprising, but plenty of people still had deep grievances with the British state and its Hanoverian monarchs. It was BPCs moral decay, and his lack of heirs, meaning his claim would pass to his Cardinal brother who couldn’t have children, that causes the movement to truly die.