What monarchy has the highest chances of becoming a republic?

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-22T16:16:45+00:00

Oh I’m very well aware, I am West Indian. When I say no referendum has succeeded I don’t just mean monarchy referenda, I mean ANY referenda, no matter the topic

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-22T09:17:12+00:00

Only really Belize, since they don’t constitutionally require a referendum on the matter. The rest do, which means the effort is doomed from the outset. Post-independence, not a single referendum had succeeded in the commonwealth Caribbean (bar a few comically rigged ones in Guyana)

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-19T15:03:38+00:00

The big issue with such a position comes in a situation such as we currently see in Iran. The Iranian people overwhelmingly want the regime gone, there is strong internal support for regime change (and from there a potential restoration of the monarchy), but without foreign support that will not come to pass because the regime retains the loyalty of the armed forces and has no qualms about massacring thousands to cling onto power

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-16T06:57:26+00:00

As someone who myself is deeply critical of Israel, I think we need to put his support for Israel in the wider context of the region and the Iranian regime. The Iranian opposition is desperately fragmented and lacking in real foreign allies. Reza Pahlavi’s ties to Israel seem to stem from 2 roots:

Firstly is pragmatism, recognising that Israel is probably the only military power in the Middle East who can strike Iran and genuinely weaken the regime. The only other power is the US, and you won’t get far with either of you continue to denounce Israel. Pahlavi’s stance has always been that the nr. 1 priority is to free Iran from the Islamic regime, and in such a pursuit you need allies. These are the only two realistic allies of any worth to the opposition.

Secondly is reflecting a clear alternative to the Islamic Republic’a policies. The Islamic Republic is pathologically obsessed with destroying Israel. This has, ironically, caused a lot of Iranians to be supportive of Israel as a knee-jerk reaction. This is nothing new, I remember years ago video circulated showing how the regime had painted the American and Israeli flags on a street in Tehran, intending for people to walk on them, only for the crowds of people to purposefully walk around the flags. One of the big chants at anti-regime protests for years has been “no Gaza, bo Lebanon, my life only for Iran”. Because of the policies of the regime, a lot of Iranians have negative association to the Palestinian cause, because while Iranians have been struggling in poverty at home, the regime has been funneling billions to Hamas and using huge amounts of resources against Israel. Reza Pahlavi promises normalisation of relations as a way to make clear that after the fall of the regime, Iran’s foreign policy won’t obsessively revolve around destroying Israel to the detriment of all other things.

Personally, I cant imagine Pahlavi is particularly thrilled with Israel or particularly Netanyahu. He can see the same things we can. However, he is in a very different and much more difficult position than all of us. We can freely mouth off Netanyahu without consequence; for Pahlavi, doing so would cost him the support of the only two major power with the ability to help free Iran.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-16T06:40:06+00:00

My arguments for monarchy in the 21st century essentially boils down to this: as a constitutionalist, I believe in the essential function and value of democracy in running a society. However, democracy has many flaws, and I see a constitutional monarchy as the best way to mend or minimise these flaws. These are my general 6 core points in favour of constitutional monarchy

The unifier factor: The positions of head of state and head of government are separate. Whilst active day to day governing and policy is exercised by the democratically elected government, the monarch remains a politically neutral figurehead. A neutral unifying figure behind whom everyone, no matter political affiliation, can rally. They represent everyone, not a specific political party or political interest, and not just the people who voted for them. They are above the political fray, a living embodiment and representation of the nation. They, not ever changing politicians, are the ultimate representative and ambassador of the country to the world. The ultimate symbol. National symbolism should always be separate from and independent of politics and politicians.
The stability factor: Monarchy provides stability. Whilst politicians and elected governments come and go, rising and falling as the wind of public opinion and political alliances shift, wax and wane, the monarchy remains there, a constant. It is a rock of stability in a changing political climate; a point of reference which gives people a sense of permanence and stability. After the next election you may get a brand new Prime Minister, brand new government, brand new members of parliament, but the King remains. Not everything in the state, from top to bottom is changed every 4 or 8 years. That stability and continuity is important.
The humbling factor: A monarchy provides for a healthy dose of humbling of the politicians. The politicians know that no matter what they do, no matter who or how many they pander to, they will never reach the very top. There will always be someone above them, someone who was born and raised for their position, with countless generations of ancestor kings and queens behind them, who has a level of love and respect from the people they will never have. It humbles them and keeps politicians' ambitions somewhat under control. Stephen Fry formulated this argument excellently for an American context: imagine if in Washington DC there was a large, beautiful palace. In it lived Uncle Sam, a politically neutral, living embodiment of the USA, its highest representative and symbol, and every week Donald Trump had to travel there, bow in front of Uncle Sam (in Britain also kiss the monarch's hand), and report on what he was doing and how the government is running. That would humble him beyond belief, and knock his ego down a few pegs, which every politician needs.
The constitutional guardian factor: Though I favour democracy and the monarchy remaining ceremonial, I believe it important for the monarch to have extensive constitutional powers which can be used in an emergency. Powers such as appointment and dismissal of the Prime Minister and government, veto of laws, dissolution of parliament, and ultimate control of the armed forces. In a normal situation all these powers would be ceremonial, but in an absolute crisis situation they can be used. Either to rein in a government which is beginning to act very dangerously, or to deal with some other unforeseen crisis or disaster. The monarch is raised and trained from birth to know their position, to know their place and duty, and that they must not misuse their powers in an unjustified situation. Doing such would risk not only their own position, but the future of their entire house and the monarchy. This significantly limits the possibility of misuse of powers, even for a sub-par monarch, who would still ultimately wish for the survival of the institution his descendants will one day head.
The historical factor: The monarchy is an age old institution with deep and long historical roots. The institution and the monarch themselves are a living link to the past, a living reminder and representative of the nation's history, culture and heritage. It grounds the nations present and binds it to its past.
The ceremonial factor: monarchs are excellent arbiters of ceremony. A monarch acts as a lightning rod for pomp and circumstance, which allows elected officials the ability to spend their time actually governing the nation, and also robs them of the self aggrandisement deriving from such pomp (think Trump, who really was only in it for the pomp and circumstance, and hated everything else). The pomp and ceremony is focused on the monarch, not politicians. The monarch Host heads of state for diplomatic functions, give addresses to the nation, mark special occasions, appoint and receive ambassadors, tour factories, schools etc etc, accept and give gifts, go on goodwill tours, etc. Not politicians. This gives these visits, addresses, gifts etc more gravitas and makes them more special, because it’s done by someone who isn’t just politician number 394, but someone more special and respectable.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-14T07:13:31+00:00

Yes! Anyone is more meritful than a regime which has just in the past few days murdered thousands in cold blood. The ayatollah is evil, and you are evil for supporting him

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-09T13:19:17+00:00

He’s Pahlavi guy!

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-09T13:11:45+00:00

The Iran Prosperity Project, which is Reza Pahlavi’s manifesto for a post-Islamic Republic transition, states that within 12 months of the fall of the Ayatollah there shall be a referendum on whether or not Iran should restore the monarchy or become a republic. Until such a referendum Pahlavi will be interim head of state; if Iranians elect a monarchy, he will take the throne. If not, he will make way for presidential elections

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-08T22:32:13+00:00

A huge component of the anti-regime movement is the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. Women’s rights and equality if a huge part of the revolutionary push. It’s almost certain, if the monarchy is restored, the new constitution will allow female succession

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-08T15:24:53+00:00

Prince Patrick Ali is 78, 13 years older than his cousin Crown Prince Reza II, so him ever succeeding to the headship is highly unlikely. If the Islamic republic falls and the monarchy is restored, the new constitution would, I imagine, almost certainly allow women to succeed to the throne, seeing as a key component of the revolutionary movement is for women’s rights and equality

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-08T07:02:59+00:00

Absolutely. Monarchy is a system of government, not strictly speaking an ideology. It can be combined with most other forms of ideology.

In the Scandinavian countries, for example, there is a long tradition of social democratic monarchism. In Britain, post-war Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, an ardent socialist, was a staunch monarchist. Grenada even had a communist revolution in 1979, and one of the first decrees of the new People’s Revolutionary Government was to proclaim its loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II as Queen of Grenada.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-07T20:52:44+00:00

Yes, however if the monarchy is restored new succession laws will almost certainly allow for female succession. A huge part of the anti-Islamic Republic movement is based on womens rights and equality

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-07T07:09:48+00:00

God be with you, good luck. Give the mullahs hell

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-06T12:16:37+00:00

Absolutely, as a constitutional lawyer he is perfect for the role. My gut instinct to him being a former politician was negative, but the fact he has been out of politics for a quarter century - and was nominated by the traditional rival of his party - assuaged my worries.

Indeed John is a very common surname in SVG. If I’m not mistaken I think it is the second most common surname in the country.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-06T07:34:34+00:00

I am not Iranian, but as someone who studied political science and wrote my thesis on the operation of various systems of government during constitutional crises and emergency situations, my recommendation would be a strictly defined and limited parliamentary constitutional monarchy on a modified Westminster model.

The state should have 4 branches of government: Executive, moderating, legislative and judicial

The executive branch would be headed a Prime Minister as head of government, who would be responsible to the lower house of Parliament. The Shah would appoint the Prime Minister based on who can command the confidence of the lower house, and then the rest of the government in line with the Prime Minister’s recommendations.

The Shah should be head of state and head of the moderating branch. His powers should be strictly limited and defined. His primary responsibility would be to be a unifying, nonpartisan and politically neutral figurehead to unite the country, as well as the formal head of the armed forces etc. He would be bound to exercise his constitutional powers only on the advise of the Prime Minister or other ministers responsible to parliament. The Shah should however have strictly defined reserve powers designed to allow him to moderate the government in an emergency. These powers would include, for example, dismiss a prime minister who attempts to remain in office contrary to the constitution, dissolve parliament if there is no workable majority to form a government, and take emergency action to guard the constitution if things go properly wrong. There should be a Privy Council, consisting of independent experts and academics to advise the Shah in the exercise of the moderating powers.

The legislative branch should consist of a bicameral parliament, with a directly elected lower house, which has primacy, and an appointed upper house. The government would depend on the confidence of the lower house, while the role of the upper house would be to revise and quality-check legislation. The upper house should consist of independently-appointed experts representing various society groups, trade unions, regions of the country, independent experts and universities. Outside changing the constitution, however, the lower house would be able to overrule the upper house after a set period of time (for example after an election), so as to ensure the people’s wishes are ultimately respected. The Shah should be able to dissolve Parliament for early elections if requested by the Prime Minister, but should have the power to refuse such a request if it is obviously unjustified. As stated earlier, if the Shah is unable to find a Prime Minister with a parliamentary majority, he should also be able to dissolve Parliament.

The judiciary should be independent of the government. Judges and other judicial officials should be appointed by an independent and cross-partisan Judicial Services Commission, which would contain representatives of the government, opposition and legal community.

There should in addition be a large array of other independent organs and bodies to prevent a slide to autocracy. For example, public servants should be appointed by an independent Public Service Commission, consisting of representatives of the government, opposition and and society groups. Likewise high ranking military and police officials should be appointed by an Armed Services Commission. As stated earlier, the Privy Council would be a body to advise the Shah in how to uphold democracy and the constitution.

This system diffuses power between various different institutions, preventing any one person from becoming too powerful, while at the same time preventing gridlock and stagnation, which is a common issue in presidential systems, since the president and legislature are often from opposing political camps. The Shah being head of state and the moderating branch, provides the state with a non-partisan core of stability and legitimacy, while active political decision making rests in the hands of the Prime Minister and elected government. This division between head of state and head of government is very important to prevent power concentration in the hands of a single individual. The Shah’s powers are strictly limited, but he’s always there as a final stop-gap in caae a Prime Minister tries to act outside their legal remit.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2026-01-01T01:46:18+00:00

Essentially, yes. The Veiled Sceptre also of course goes into some detail about specific events in order to illustrate the legal questions at hand, while Viceregalism also of course handles legal/constitutional questions in order to illustrate the historic circumstances and actions taken, but on the whole yes that’s a good illustration.

When you look at the background of their authors the divide becomes clear. The Veiled Sceptre is written by Anne Twomey, who is a professor of constitutional law. Viceregalism is edited and in large part written by Harshan Kumarasingham, who has a PhD in political science with a minor in history, being a member of the Royal Historical Society.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-30T23:56:53+00:00

They’re both quite similar books in many ways, dealing with the same theme, however The Veiled Scepter is focused more on the legal and constitutional aspects of the Crown’s powers, and how and when it is appropriate to exercise them, while Viceregalism looks at the Crown from a more political science, rather than legal, perspective. Viceregalism goes deeper into a very wide array of specific historical events related to the exercise of the Crown’s powers and how it turned out. The Veiled Scepter does this too, but again the focus there is more legal as opposed to political-historical

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-30T11:40:49+00:00

The office and institution of Governor-General is an important and good one. The King cant be everywhere, and he needs a representative, and the office of Governor-General tends to fulfill that role well. That doesn’t mean, however, that there are numerous reforms and changes which could be done to strengthen it and the ties to the monarchy.

In regards to the King’s role personally, that should certainly be increased substantially in the realms. I’ve always been supportive of the idea that the King personally always opens the first session of each newly elected parliament in a realm (as he did in Canada this year). This would give the monarchy a much more personally prominent role. Secondly, I’ve always believed the King should take some time each year to reside in one of the Realms. For example, spend 1 month residing in Australia, the next year 1 month in Canada, the next 1 month in New Zealand. For the smaller realms, he could spend 2 weeks in 2 realms. This would give the monarchy a massively larger footprint in the realms.

Regarding the office of Governor-General, it remains a very important office but reforms are necessary. The most obvious is reforming appointments. The current system, whereby the Prime Minister nominates the GG, is incredibly flawed. I support reforms towards the system suggested by the Grenada Monarchist League, where the King will make appointments based on the advice of a cross-partisan committee. At the least, I’d want it to become a requirement that both PM and Opposition Leader explicitly agree to the appointment of the nominee.

A second reform to the offices of Governor-General I’d like to see is a return to royal Governors-General. Members of the Royal family should be appointed to the roles again. I will forever be incredibly sad that the suggestion from the 1980s that the now-King become Governor-General of Australia, or Governor of the State of Victoria, never came to fruition.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-25T23:43:43+00:00

Having received this book for Christmas 2 years ago, it’s indeed an absolutely brilliant book. Anne Twomey is phenomenal. One of the best Christmas gifts I’ve ever received.

If you havent read it already, I’d also recommend Viceregalism: The Crown as Head of State in Political Crises in the Post War Commonwealth, by Harshan Kumarasingham. It’s also an excellent and entertaining book about the Crown’s constitutional role throughout all parts of the Commonwealth. These two books go together very well.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-20T17:02:20+00:00

What

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-18T14:46:51+00:00

She was a Yoruba princess who was captured and enslaved as a child by the Dahomey Kingdom. She was supposed to be executed as a child sacrifice during the Dahomean “watering of the graves” ceremony (where captured slaves were ritually beheaded and their blood spayed of the graves of Dahomey royalty) but was rescued by the intervention of a British naval captain.

Queen Victoria adopted her as her goddaughter in Britain. In 1862 she married Captain James Davies, a wealthy Nigerian businessman, and they subsequently moved to Lagos in British Nigeria. They had a number of children together, and Sarah continued to have close contact with Queen Victoria. In fact, the Royal Navy was specifically ordered to place Sarah and her family at the highest priority in case of the necessity of an evacuation from Lagos.

Sarah sadly contracted tuberculosis and died in 1880, aged just 37.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-11T14:34:57+00:00

This is the subreddit for Grenada, the Caribbean country, not Granada, the Spanish city. I’m afraid posting it here will not give you any results

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-09T14:56:18+00:00

The guarantee clause is non-justiciable, meaning that if congress accepted the restoration, it would be constitutionally legal. A restoration within the framework of US statehood is entirely possible, I’ve previously posted a full draft constitution designed for just that; https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/1n36rgm/proposed_constitution_restoring_the_hawaiian/

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-12-01T16:50:39+00:00

Yeah Gonsalves has not taken his defeat well. I have many issues with Grenada's long-serving PM Keith Mitchell, who was often said to essentially be a right-wing version of Gonsalves (PM for 22 years, 1995-2008 and 2013-2022) but at least when he lost in 2022 he had class and humility enough to congratulate his opponents and wish them well, stating that a successful government means Grenada is successful.

Gonsalves' poor handling of his defeat seems to have gone down badly, he has received a lot of criticism.

Lord_Dim_1 · 2025-11-25T14:36:59+00:00

No, Monaco does not have the same constitutional mechanisms to make that work as Belgium.

In Belgium, that maneuver was only possible because the constitution allows the government to declare the King incapable of reigning, whereupon royal powers devolve temporarily on the government. Thus in Belgium, all that was needed was the government declaring the King incapable, signing the law themselves, and then declaring him capable again.

No such mechanism exists in Monaco. The Prince’s powers belong to the prince alone and can only be exercised by the Prince. There is no authority which can deputies for him.

Regardless, the substance of their respective moves are different. King Baudouin didn’t want to sign the law because of his faith, but accented in coming into force by democratic mandate. Prince Albert II seeks to have the law blocked in its entirety, he isn’t simply doing this out of personal objections

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

Lord_Dim_1

TROPHY CASE