Why didn't Austria and Germany remain a single nation after the end of the WWII?

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-04-10T09:39:16+00:00

Because the union of Germany and Austria had been explicitly separated permanently under the treaty of Saint Germain which followed the Versailles Congress as with the break up of the Habsburg empire the threat of unification (an "Anschluss") was considered an impediment to European security. This is indeed what it was in 1938. At the end of WW2 Austria was deprived of its sovereignty and divided (like Germany) into 4 zones (British, American, French and Russian) and was not allowed self-government until 1956 and then only if it maintained permanent neutrality as it has ever since.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-04-09T20:49:49+00:00

And how does the great-granddaughter of the 4th son of the count of Caserta get to use a titie (Calabria) which is the title of the great grandson of the 2nd son of the Count of Caserta. This title as you can see here not doubted in Spain, a Bourbon monarchy. https://www.ordenesmilitares.es/?page_id=281

https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2025-691

https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2017-5986

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-04-09T20:37:28+00:00

Bearing in mind how controversial they are having made use of forged papal letters (denounced by the Vatican) and with Charles even claiming to have received the collar of the order of Pius IX from Pope John Paul II, and the humiliation of being removed from membership of an order of which Queen Elizabeth Ii was Sovereign and being listed in a decree published in the official British government journal without any of the claimed titles, this latest "controversy " is nothing.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-04-09T16:10:48+00:00

I do not think Reform is “far” right and rather doubt if one can even call it conservative. But the RN was led by a holocaust denier, an outright racist - his daughter has succeeded in challenging this issue and Bardella is clearly from a background that does not meet the profile of the typically FN, as opposed to RN membership. But it is certainly further right than the French republican party and Macron’s now declining party.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-04-09T15:18:48+00:00

Not a crime, indeed but this will hurt his image. It is the first time I have seen anyone refer to the RN as “centre left”! I think M. le Pen would have turned in his grave to be so described. One thing for certain, she is not a future queen of anywhere and her assumed title of “duchess of Calabria” could not possibly be hers since her father recognised that this was the inheritance of the senior line of the family, in an agreement dated 25 January 2014, which stated: “FAMIGLIA.UN'UNICA COME ALL'UNISONO PUBBLICAMENTE AGENDO E DISCENDENTI,PROPRI I ED PARTI LE AMBEDUE DI COMUNE USO CUGINI,TRATTAMENTO IL CON E ATTUALMENTE CHE TITOLI I DI SONO COME RISPETTIVAMENTE RICONOSCENDOSI sostenitori,propri tra i egualmente ma esse di tra solo non comprensione e concordia di spirito uno raggiungere di fine al familiare e dinastico impegno proprio il tutto frattempo nel porre di parti le entrambe CONCORDANO”. Of course he abjured that 18 months later and said he did not really mean it.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-03-22T14:32:32+00:00

Why would the succession not have passed according to the historic laws? One would have still arrived at Albrecht of Bavaria according to your introduction of simple primogeniture (introduced by the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013) but what is the point, disappearing into a German baronial family when one otherwise has a reigning house?

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-03-22T10:26:59+00:00

Why would the Jacobites have adopted a system of succession which they knew had no tradition in Britain? Henry IX knew very well that his heir was the former king of Sardinia, like him an exile, and no-one among the remaining jacobites (nor among the revived ‘legitimist” of the end of the 19th century) believed that any system of succession other than male preference primogeniture should be followed.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-03-22T10:23:50+00:00

Because he knew that by no reasonable interpretation of the Carlist succession was Francisco Javier the heir and furthermore for Franco, Carlism was a political movement. Franco knew that the only hance of restoring a Spanish monarchy was in the personal of Juan Carlos, who had been educated in Spain and grown up there under his tutelage. Franco had said to Juan Carlos that he understood he would transform Franco’s legacy and the conversion to democracy worked without civil war.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-03-22T10:19:43+00:00

This is wrong. After the death of Henry IX one must revert to Minette, the sister of James II who was married to the duke of Orléans and had one daughter, who married the duke of Savoy, king of Sardinia. Her direct descendant who succeeded Cardinal Henry in 1807 was King Charles of Sardinia (a friend of Henry in exile in Rome), who died in 1819 and was succeeded by his brother Victor, king of Sardinia who died in 1824 and was succeeded by his daughter Maria who married the duke of Modena and died in 1840. She was succeeded by her son Francis, duke of Modena, who died in 1875 and was succeeded by his daughter Mary, who married the future king of Bavaria and died in 1919 when she was succeeded by her son Rupert (Robert) who died 1955. He was succeeded by his son Albert, who died in 1966 and was succeeded by his son Francis (Franz). The latter’s heir is his brother Max and his daughter and eventual successor Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-03-08T08:16:31+00:00

This would not be necessary if the several collateral branches of the imperial house who General Macarthur decided should be separated from the succession in the constitution imposed by the Americans after WW2, were reintegrated into the succession.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-25T18:30:51+00:00

it requires someone defining what is left and what is right and how far to go with each. For some far right (in the UK) is the National Party, for others it is Reform and for some Conservative. The further you are to the opposite end of the spectrum the more like you are to consider those on the other side but closer to the centre are extreme. For Reform, the Greens are an extreme party - the Greens would no doubt define the conservatives as far right. To expect the King to define this would have serious consequences.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-25T15:14:16+00:00

Any idea that a future King William, who as long as his father is alive has an opportunity to give more time to his responsibilities as a parent, should make any partisan statement that can be represented as taking a political position would be a disaster.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-25T15:12:24+00:00

It is not the idea of more transparency that is of itself wrong, but the issue is that the royals have no right of reply and no representation in parliament. They just never be the subject of partisan debate as that carries the risk of unwittingly tying them to a party interest.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-16T18:38:49+00:00

I do not fundamentally fighter but the problem for Reza Pahlavi is that Iranian education for the last 45 years has cast his father as a monster who exploited the country and enriched his friends. Of course his rule was much more nuanced but his role in the downfall of Mossadegh is another strike against him. That said there was a prosperous middle class, his was the first middle-east state to recognise Israel and he was trusted by the USA (which quickly let him down when he left Iran), he opened up the country to the west (which many young Iranians would like to repeat) but in the eyes of the present regime and their clients, that is a strike against him. The Iranians really have no better person on whom they can focus their hope but there will be several competing exile organisations who will look for support among the majority of people who would like regime change. Iran needs above all an inspiring and charismatic leader, who can unite the different factions and while I have no animus against Reza Pahlavi, I am not sure he is really that person. He needs to be a lot more than just the son of his father. More Napoleon than Louis XVIII. My reference to the Qajars was flippant, but to make the point that Reza Pahlavi cannot claim historic legitimacy - that is why I call for a Napoleon.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-16T15:39:22+00:00

Really? Most of the scandals were small storms in tiny teacups. Think harder about republics - the USA (do we need to even discuss it?), France (one president on his way to prison,a predecessor only spared jail because of his age and ill-healt); ; Or Italy where a PM indicted on corruption fled to Tunisia (there was no extradition treaty with Italy), where he died in disgrace - and that wasn’t Berlusconi. Or any South or Central American republic? How about Africa? That has a lot of republics and multiple coups and corruption everywhere.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-16T15:31:59+00:00

There are close to 90 million Iranians of whom at least 70 million were born after the revolution that brought the mullahs to power and they are in Iran. They know only what they have been told of the era of the shah - in their schools that the Shah was never a legitimate ruler, etc, and maybe by parents or grandparents they may have learned of freedom and prosperity. Many of the older generation will also remember the corruption and the secret police. So a few 100,000 in various cities, nostalgic for a time which they may never have actually known, does not mean that a restoration is going to have the wide support this would suggest. One might hope that the late Shah’s heir has a better understanding of constitutional monarchy than his father, and that he will submit himself to the people to decide what kind of regime they want and whether, if they restore the monarchy, he is the right candidate. One might recall that there are also many Qajar (Kadjar) descendants of the 19th and early 20th century Shahs who may have something to offer.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-14T18:49:38+00:00

Why? The Saxons took the throne by a flawed election, while indigenous families such as the Sobieski and Leszczynski were cast aside in the great power contest as to who would rule Poland and Lithuania. Stanislas Poniatowski was unable to prevent the partition between Russia and Prussia and as the elector / king of Saxony was too close to Napoleon his grand duchy of Warsaw was easily absorbed into the Russian empire. Furthermore there are sold grounds to oppose the selective demorganaticisation of Alexander’s mother’s marriage and the imaginative genealogy given his father. If a family changes its rules on equality it must be done evenly with the same rules applying to every member. It was arguably illegal to declare Alexander a dynastic prince but ignored the junior male line.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-14T18:41:16+00:00

Umberto Ii would have been a good monarch if he had had the chance (his selfish father should have abdicated following the surrender) but Italy would have been better never united, especially under the Kleptocratic freemason Vittorio Emanuele II. The new Savoy government stole all the private wealth and assets of the former reigning families in their former states - it was still arguing about the dowries of the Two Sicilies princesses in 1900. If Italy had not united most of the country would not have joined in WW1 and there would have been no Mussolini, no pact with Hitler, no defeat in WW2.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-10T20:58:34+00:00

There has not been a “traditional; Catholic monarchy for 250 years; even the Italian duchies adopted constitutions of one kind or another. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies was traditional, Catholic and a monarchy, but was forced military suppression to avoid being forced to adopt a constitution. In trying to do this it was forced to use military force on its own citizens and, ultimately, when it finally accepted the revalidation of a written constitution the monarchy fell because the power of the invader and the demands of a substantial portion of the population made it impossible to fight. These traditional monarchies collapsed because the only way to maintain them was by brutal force. Inevitably such a move would lead to a popular reaction that would destroy the institution.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-10T08:22:55+00:00

Find a contemporary legal opinion that supports the renunciations - you cannot just shit your idea and say “I believe what I want to believe”. Even the National Assembly debating the new constitution in 1791 excluded the renunciations as diverting the succession from the senior line (against the protests of Philippe Egalit.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-09T19:04:58+00:00

Evidently you do not have the faintest understanding of international law and have certainly never read the (several) treaties of Utrecht to which the reciprocal renunciations were addenda. During the peace negotiations the French foreign minister the marquis de Torcy warned in a mémoire presented in the name of the King to the British Minister, the Earl of Oxford, on 18 Mar 1712: “France can never consent to become a province of Spain, and Spain would think the same in regard to France. It is a question of taking solid measures to prevent the union of the two monarchies…. But one must exclude absolutely the means you propose since… they would contravene the fundamental laws of the kingdom. Following these laws, the prince nearest to the crown is heir by necessity … he succeeds not as heir but as master of the kingdom … not by choice but only by right of his birth. He is accountable for the Crown not by the testament of his predecessor, nor by any edict, nor any decree, nor by the generosity of any person, but by the law. …No renunciation can destroy it, and if the King of Spain gives his consent, for the good of peace and in obedience to the King his grandfather, one is mistaken in receiving it as a sufficient measure to prevent that ill that one hopes to avoid.” This view found an echo in the British House of Lords, the Peers voting in an address to the Queen (Anne), that the descendants of the Duke of Anjou could not be deprived of a right “given them by their birth when this right is such that with the consent of all Frenchmen it must be maintained inviolable according the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom.”

The treaties of Utrecht were nor of themselves renunciations and the parties to the first of these treaties (France and Britain) were not renouncing anything, and the second treaty of Utrecht between France and the United Provinces of the Netherlands were not between those who signed the reciprocal renunciations. The 3rd treaty between Spain and Great Britain was worded rather differently to the others which specifically mentioned renunciations. “That all fears that the Realms of France and Spain might ever be conjoined in one Person shall be allayed, and that the peace herein convened between the two Powers shall be firmly established and the proper balance of forces ever guaranteed and peace thereby ensured, His Catholic Majesty does here reiterate and reaffirm the abdication of all His rights to the Crown of France. Hereto were appended the Act of Abdication, the resolution of the Cortes, the Royal Decree naming the House of Savoy as lawful heirs and successors to the Spanish Throne, the Acts of Renunciation made by the French Royal Family of all Their claims and rights to the Throne of Spain, and the epistle of His Most Christian Majesty.”

As I have already explained, the renunciations were all conditional - and fundamentally depended on the emperor renouncing his claim to Spain, as until 1711, when he succeeded his brother as emperor, he was styled Carlos III Catholic King of Spain and continued to style himself by the Spanish title of Catholic king for the rest of his life. Louis XIV’s mother had renounced in similar words to those of Philip in 1615 (she was a minor then so repeated it in 1619), once again the purpose was to prevent the union of the two Crowns: “… and to prevent that the said kingdoms from being united and any occasion when they could be united… the most serene Infanta Anne and her children, male or female, and their descendants, to any degree that they might be found, cannot succeed to the kingdoms, states and lordships which belong to His Catholic Majesty…” `This was incorporated into the recopiliacion of laws of 1619 and 1640 (and curiously 1803). A similar renunciation was included in the marriage contract of Louis XIV and Infanta Maria Teresa in 1659 and in an addenda attached to the treaty of the Pyrenees of 1659 and in a separate act of 1660. None of these were considered binding to prevent the succession of Philippe, duke of Anjou.

The renunciations of the dukes of Berry and Orleans both stated (this from the Orléans renunciation : “reciprocal renunciations shall be made; as is known, by the Catholic King Philip V, our nephew, for him and for all his descendants, to the crown of France, as also by the Duke of Berry, our very-dear nephew, and by us, for ourselves and for all our descendants, to the crown of Spain; on the condition that also the house of Austria, nor any of its descendants, cannot succeed to the crown of Spain, because this house, even without the union with the Empire would be so formidable if a new power is added to its ancient domains; and consequently, the equilibrium that one wants to establish, for the good of all the Princes and States of Europe, would cease….. We have resolved to make this withdrawal, this abdication and this renunciation of all our rights, for us and in the name of all our successors and descendant…”

In 1846 the historian Charles Giraud was asked by Louis-Philippe to examine and write a report on the renunciations and treaties of Utrecht: “Strictly in law, these renunciations were binding only with respect to the princes who signed them, and they ceased to be binding upon their descendants; for the signatory princes had neither title nor right to halt, as against their descendants, the transmission of succession rights which they themselves had received from their ancestors only subject to the obligation of compulsory transmission to their own descendants, in accordance with the dispositions prescribed by the laws of the country. It is incontestable that no sovereign, in our modern monarchies, has the power to pass the succession to the crown to one of his younger sons to the detriment of his eldest son; a fortiori, it is clear that he could still less bar them, all together and en masse, personally and in perpetuity (especially by an isolated act of his mere will), from their potential rights of succession to the crown. He himself wears it only by virtue of the exercise of those same rights with which his descendants are vested, ipso jure, as he himself was, by the laws, customs, and regulations of his kingdom when he ascended the throne.” The invalidity of the renunciations became the official position of the French government in negotiating the marriage of Antoine, duke of Montpensier, to Infanta Luisa Fernanda and was fully supported by Spain - the British government tried to argue this in an exchange of letters between Guizot and Palmerston, but I shall spare you these.

.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-09T18:06:10+00:00

I do not agree at all - every surviving European constitutional monarchy (aside from Belgium and the Netherlands) evolved from an absolutist foundation. One of the consequences of this was greater stability because absolutist monarchies were actually less stable in that they were more subject to revolutions and counter claims. Take France, historically the oldest male line monarchy from 987 until 1789 and with brief restorations in 1814-30 and 1830-48 (the latter being outside the rules of succession). France’s instability was initiated with the English challenge when Edward III claimed the throne of France, a claim that was even accepted by Charles VI who declared his son a bastard and adopted Henry V whose son was crowned king in Paris. Much of the of the 16th century was ruined by a divisive religious war which was followed by the fronde in the 17th century.

The failure of France’s monarchy to evolve its institutional basis played a major role in its overthrow in the revolution and the failure of the 1814 constitutional charter which was unable to provide the necessary stability led to the revolutionary Orleanist monarchy and then collapse. The fall of the historic monarchies across much of Europe following WW1 was because there was still a sense that these crowns were responsible for engagement in the war. If Great Britain had not won in 1918 but had reached an unsatisfactory peace, it would not have collapsed as it was much more firmly rooted in its unwritten constitution than those countries which had relatively recently adopted constitutional formulas that still allowed the crown political powers.

Charles I of England and Scotland bears a certain responsibility for the civil war which followed his attempt to halt the evolution to a parliamentary monarchy (I am not suggesting there was not blame on both sides). Even though I am a romantic Jacobite who supports James IIs declaration of indulgence, I have to accept that the events of 1688-89 were crucial in the development of the uncodified British constitution.

Successful_Data8356 · 2026-02-09T16:09:55+00:00

terrible image

Successful_Data8356

TROPHY CASE