Which of these four European monarchies was most likely to eventually get overthrown in the absence of World War I?

Which of these four European monarchies was most likely to eventually get overthrown in the absence

  • The Hohenzollerns in Germany

  • The Hapsburgs in Austria

  • The Savoyards in Italy

  • The Romanovs in Russia


Results are only viewable after voting.

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,743
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#31
Yeah, the logic would be to weaken Magyar power in Hungary by giving everyone in multi-ethnic Hungary the right to vote. Of course, as you said, getting broad support among all Hungarian minorities might be quite a challenge. Indeed, I suspect that the Magyars will try playing divide and conquer in such a scenario by making deals with one ethnic group while ignoring the rest.
Yes, I agree with what you say.

In regards to the Hungarians, I thought that they really liked their arrangement under A-H?
I think it was just a temporary solution for them. Otherwise having a separate parliament and thus laws and a separate army (the Honvéd) would make little sense, if other rights were granted to them. IMO they were doing everything possible to have a separate state. These special grants were also weakening the common state.

I didn't say that the Romanovs would be deposed immediately; rather, I said that I suspect that the Romanovs have a high chance of being deposed eventually even without the World Wars.
They'd probably experience such trouble if no big reforms are made. If they become a parliamentary monarchy they could probably stay on the throne though. But I doubt Nikolai would agree to this without a major threat or preassure from the nobles. The democratic movement was on the rise at the time, but giving up absolute power is not something God's representative in Earthly matters would do so easily.

Rasputin could still have a lot of influence in Russia even without World War I. After all, Nicholas's wife trusted him and Nicholas might not have wanted to risk disobeying his wife and Rasputin--especially if Alexei would have died shortly after such disobedience and his wife and Rasputin would have blamed Nicholas's disobedience for Alexei's death.
I really don't like Rasputin, imo they removed him too late. He was an outright devil.

You mean Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich?
I think that's the one.


I don't think that Germany actually wanted to annex any part of A-H, though. Rather, it probably wanted to keep A-H intact in order to have a strong ally in Central Europe. Sure, A-H had its own problems, but it was a German ally for several decades by the 1910s. Thus, I don't think that Germany would have let A-H collapse and break up without a fight. Please keep in mind that, regardless of their genealogical relationship to each other, Kaiser Bill and Franz Ferdinand appear to have been good friends--and let's face it, good friends are willing to help each other out when one of them is in trouble.
Might be, although friendship alone isn't enough always. They'd have to keep their country's interests in mind first.
 
Likes: Futurist
#32
About the link. No I don’t because it just stuck in my memory from very old times.

But the reality is, we know very little about the hemophilia Alexis had. Assuming it was hemophilia B because the mutation found in “Romanov’s bones” was of that type... but maybe not? (Until the Russian church accepts or denies Romanovs’ DNA testing results, I am having my doubts).

On the other hand, the royal mutation was of the rare type. (This is why some even allege Queen Victoria was a Non-paternal event). They cite the chance of the de novo mutation, 1:20000. Exceptionally low. These numbers are true for hemophilia B, hemophilia A is four times as common. So I assume someone, somehow, knew what type of hemophilia Queen Victoria’s descendants had, and it probably was hemophilia B.

Now there are tons of mutations known to cause hemophilia B, some of them minimal, causing mild form of the disease, some, severe. In the affected families, the penetrance is different, as some girls, surprisingly, may, too, have a severe form of hemophilia B, producing only one 10% of clotting factor IX. I don’t know how the mutant gene behaves when passed down from one generation to another, but can the disease get worse? (It is the case for Hungtington’s disease, but hemophilia B is too rare to know for sure).

To make matters more complicated, there is also Hemophilia B Leyden,

“Several mutations near the beginning of the F9 gene sequence cause an unusual form of hemophilia known as hemophilia B Leyden. People with these mutations are born with very low levels of functional coagulation factor IX, but hormonal changes cause the levels of this protein to increase gradually during puberty. As a result, adults with hemophilia B Leyden rarely experience episodes of abnormal bleeding.”

Could it be the case for Victoria’s descendants? We shall never know as Alexis was killed, but given the fact that hemophilia did not spread along all royal families in Europe, I suspect it was severe enough and royal carriers simply died out. (There is a possibility that some children of carriers could have decided not to have kids; this is suspected about Alix’s sister Ella. If so, such decisions could have helped weed the bad gene out).

I think it's unlikely that Queen Victoria's birth could have been a nonpaternal event. Victoria got one of her X chromosomes from her mother, and one from her father. Her mother (Victoria of Saxe-Coburg) had previously had 2 children (a son and a daughter) from a previous marriage. Both of these children lived normal lifespans, and produced children of their own, none of whom were known to have had hemophilia. Queen Victoria's father (the Duke of Kent) passed on to his daughter his one X chromosome (the only one he had), so he'd have to have been a hemophiliac himself if it was a hemophilia X. There's no evidence of that being the case. So Victoria's birth isn't likely to have been nonpaternal. If it were, the father (whoever he was) would have likely had to be a hemophiliac himself.

It's more likely that it was a spontaneous (de novo) X chromosome hemophilia mutation. These mutations are believed to become more common with advanced maternal age at birth. Victoria's mother was in her early thirties when she bore her, which while not particularly advanced, may have slightly increased the chances for a spontaneous mutation.

I suppose that there's also a possibility that the spontaneous mutation might have occurred at the birth of the mother (Victoria of Saxe-Coburg) herself, and that she passed the hemophilia X down to her daughter, Queen Victoria ,who became a carrier, while her first two children fortunately received her normal X.
 
Last edited:

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
#33
We're not allowed to talk about genetics here. Thus, thank you for your information, arkteia, but I really do think that we should either stop this conversation or continue it privately via PM, if that is actually allowed on this forum.
This is not personal ancestry genetics, this is medicine, and surely, we should be allowed to talk about the illness that shaped the history of the Russian empire?

But i agree that it is far from the OP.

Let us discuss why the last Romanov was such a weak, miserable person that he could not revoke Pauline laws.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,055
SoCal
#34
Let us discuss why the last Romanov was such a weak, miserable person that he could not revoke Pauline laws.
Well, it would be unfair to the male Romanov princes--but then again Nicholas had acrimonious relations with his brother Michael and didn't care very much for the Vladimirovichi (the Russian princes in the male line of Grand Duke Vladimir, who was Nicholas's uncle).
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,055
SoCal
#35
Yes, I agree with what you say.



I think it was just a temporary solution for them. Otherwise having a separate parliament and thus laws and a separate army (the Honvéd) would make little sense, if other rights were granted to them. IMO they were doing everything possible to have a separate state. These special grants were also weakening the common state.



They'd probably experience such trouble if no big reforms are made. If they become a parliamentary monarchy they could probably stay on the throne though. But I doubt Nikolai would agree to this without a major threat or preassure from the nobles. The democratic movement was on the rise at the time, but giving up absolute power is not something God's representative in Earthly matters would do so easily.



I really don't like Rasputin, imo they removed him too late. He was an outright devil.



I think that's the one.




Might be, although friendship alone isn't enough always. They'd have to keep their country's interests in mind first.
I agree with everything that you wrote here with the exception of Rasputin. Yes, he probably should have been removed--but certainly not murdered! :(
 
Likes: Shtajerc

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
#36
I agree with everything that you wrote here with the exception of Rasputin. Yes, he probably should have been removed--but certainly not murdered! :(
From what I have read, he was against that war. It shows him in good light.

I don't know what to make out of Rasputin as the "holy father", I don't believe in anyone's paranormal abilities, but maybe he did have some common sense?

Hard to make any firm opinion of him today, as mostly the information we have is based on retellings of stories made by his hysteric female followers.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,055
SoCal
#37
From what I have read, he was against that war. It shows him in good light.

I don't know what to make out of Rasputin as the "holy father", I don't believe in anyone's paranormal abilities, but maybe he did have some common sense?

Hard to make any firm opinion of him today, as mostly the information we have is based on retellings of stories made by his hysteric female followers.
Yeah, Russia shouldn't have entered WWI in 1914. I do think that having him be seen as a puppet-master behind the Russian throne wasn't very productive for public relations, though.
 
Likes: arkteia
Feb 2019
345
California
#38
The Romanovs, and it's not even close. It's a miracle they even managed to survive till 1917, considering the enormous social unrest that dwarfed anything seen in the rest of Europe. Both the German and Austrian empires were remarkably stable and secure in social and political terms - even the occasional religious/ethnic tension in Austria-Hungary was not an existential threat. It was only the devastating consequences of the war that left the government too weak to defend itself in Germany's case, and in the case of Austria-Hungary the Emperor actually refused an offer of the army to crush the revolutionaries, since he didn't want anymore violence, and so he peacefully abdicated. I don't know enough about Italy during this era to comment on them.
I'm not sure I would have used "remarkably" with respect to A-H, but otherwise concur.
 
Likes: Futurist

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,723
Seattle
#39
Yeah, Russia shouldn't have entered WWI in 1914. I do think that having him be seen as a puppet-master behind the Russian throne wasn't very productive for public relations, though.
It was horrible. From the time he appeared in the Romanov’s family, typographers started printing pornographic postcards, with Rasputin and the Tzarina, or Rasputin and the Grand Duchesses.

IRL, Rasputin probably very cunning and knew the line drawn in the sand. He would take the money from rich merchants, and he had enough female followers, be it simple peasants or the Gentry
woman Olga Lakhtina.

Tzarina was smart, hysterical and mystical. Hyperreligiosity probably ran in the family as I find her sister Ella very similar, only in a positive way.

Interesting trait, to make people hate oneself so much. When the Bolsheviks debates, to execute the Romanovs or not, many leaned towards letting the rest of the family go, but executing the Tzarina
 
Likes: Futurist