naughty-nerdy-nicole: autokratorissa:naughty-nerdy-nicole:soviet-propaganda-disseminator:siest

naughty-nerdy-nicole: autokratorissa: naughty-nerdy-nicole: soviet-propaganda-disseminator: siesta2-4: mapsontheweb: The Return of the King: These European countries tried republic but returned to monarchy. rare spanish monarchist sighting @soviet-propaganda-disseminator  More of this please I’d be really interested what exactly qualified Great Britain for that list. Like unless we count having an non monarchist side during a civil war I can’t think of a time there was a true republic. The English Commonwealth was the first bourgeois republic in history and was extant for over a decade, it was a lot more than just “a non-monarchist [indeed vehemently anti-monarchist; belief in the ‘Good Old Cause’ was completely genuine and widespread] side during a civil war”; it was a victorious revolutionary government at the forefront of history that was responsible for the integration of Scotland and Ireland into the English, consequently British, state. The fervent monarchism here in Britain has meant that the significance of the Commonwealth has largely been downplayed in orthodox historiographies but it was a far more important historical event/entity than, say, the Paris Commune. It’s also kinda funny that the OP describes it as “trying” republicanism and then simply choosing to go back, when the Commonwealth was only destroyed after an invading foreign army backed by various monarchs on the continent intent on toppling what was seen—correctly—as a dangerous force to the ancien régime in Europe crushed the government and reinstalled the Stuarts. Even if you count the civil war as fully years of reign for the anti-monarchists it tallies up to 18 years (42-60) till a monarch was installed again. By the parliament btw. During that time Cromwell disbanded multiple parliaments, waged civil wars (who are linked but not one single war), executed the king and was offered the crown. His son was the designated heir but failed, which lead to the support for reinstating the monarchy. This is best described as a military dictatorship, what little similarities with a republic these years had isn’t much more than powerless dressing up. Yes it was the first attempt by parts of the bourgeoisie in alliance with other parts of society to seize direct power. But it failed, and so they arranged themselves with the monarchy. It was significant, but mostly because it lead to bourgeoisie in many countries preferring a arrangement with feudal power over outright revolt. The Paris commune was different in that it saw true mass mobilization of an exploited class for their own interests. Not just their use as pawns by an emerging exployter class, which pretty much was the case with the commonwealth under Cromwell. A military dictatorship is not at odds with the idea of a republic; what else could the Commonwealth possibly have been as a state born out of a civil war? The Commonwealth never knew true peace or stability and so was never able to be what it was originally intended to be; there was an unspoken understanding among parliamentarians during the Protectorate that Cromwell’s power was a necessary evil considering the circumstances as the long parliament would have been too indecisive and unstable. Cromwell was a distinguished general and a capable politician; they needed him. If they really wanted Cromwell gone they could have engineered his fall probably surprisingly easily. It was not “a monarchy in all but name” (as you said in reply to soviet-propaganda-disseminator)—that’s a level of analysis on par with the idea of a red tsar.The Commonwealth conquered—permanently—whole nations and lasted over a decade as a government and the best part of two decades as a major political-military power, as you point out; the Commune was crushed after a matter of months. There just isn’t anything to compare. Yes, the Commonwealth was ultimately a failure, but so too was the USSR: that doesn’t mean it didn’t achieve anything or that it wasn’t a genuinely revolutionary movement.Anyway, all this is beside the point: ‘commonwealth,’ at the time, was literally a synonym for ‘republic’ (being the dominant English translation of the Latin res publica, from which we get ‘republic,’ until several centuries after this time when republic became more popular) and the Commonwealth thought of itself as such and was treated as such by everyone else. It was born by overthrowing a king and cutting his head off; it died with the crowning of a new king. I’m quite not sure what you want it to have done in order to warrant the title of republic that Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands did? -- source link

More pics about