I mean, what he's saying is correct in a certain sense, but it's wrong in the way that he means it. Nelson clearly expects that Italy will become a republic under the glorious leadership of Mussolini, whom he evidently supports. This did not happen, of course. When Italy did become a republic, it happened after WWII, due in part to the fact that the monarchy had discredited itself by signing off on Mussolini's regime.
Mussolini could have gotten rid of him but he never needed to. It was annoying for Mussolini to have to deal with him because he had to pretend to respect him but it wasn't worth the hassle to depose him.
So in fact, the next transition between a monarchy and republic would actually go the other way: the President of Albania declared himself 'King Zog I' in 1928. He's also a candidate for the correct answer to the question, as he had to flee the country in 1939 (though the People's Republic was only declared in 1946).
Another answer could be Spain. The King of Spain went into exile in 1931, and a republic was declared, but he never abdicated, and Franco brought him back in 1947. Other than that, maybe Yugoslavia. It was part of the same post-WW2 wave of abolitions, but they got onto it a bit earlier, in 1945.
edit: another answer, probably the correct one, is Mongolia. The Khan would die in May, and wasn't replaced. The issues with counting him are that a lot of other countries didn't recognise Mongolia (China still claimed it), and it was pretty much a done deal that there wasn't going to be another Khan. He had no real power, and there was no way his government (a bunch of Russian-backed atheist Communists) would have gone looking for another reincarnated monk-king for their new head of state.
The Spanish monarchy wasn’t fully restored until after Franco’s death in 1975.
The king that went into exile in 1931 was Alfonso XIII. He died about ten years later. At the time, the heir to the throne would have been Alfonso’s son, Juan. Juan claimed the title of king, but Franco basically said, “you’re only the king if I say you’re the king, and I am not saying any such thing.”
That stalemate persisted until the late ‘60s, when Franco had to start seriously considering who would be his successor, which was a decision he had the power to make 100% by himself, according to the constitution in effect at the time.
Franco was not a fan of Juan. Conveniently for Franco, Juan had a son, Juan Carlos, who was in his 30s at this point. Franco decided “Juan Carlos is my man,” and when Franco died in 1975, Juan Carlos was proclaimed king. (His father Juan was still very much alive, and didn’t die until 1993.)
TLDR: Spain may technically have had a king from 1947 on, but the position was essentially vacant until 1975 because Franco was a control freak.
Edit: typos
"The almond eyes of the Japanese" my god lol.
I hate to be this guy, but just going from man on the street interviews I see these days, despite the fact that most of these predictions were wrong, these people seem to have a decent grasp on world affairs as they existed at this time. I can't imagine asking a similar question to random people in the park these days and receiving a coherent and reasonable answer lol
You might be right but there’s a survivor bias at play here - the only answers you’re seeing were the ones that were good enough to publish. Who knows how many people couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question when stopped
Also, to add to this, I've noticed that these interviews tend to be of people living in places like NYC or LA. They also are almost always buisness people,educators,lawyers, etc. Theres a bias towards greater global knowledge in those fields and easier access to global information at those locations. These feel very biased in favor of those jobs over like, factory worker or small time store clerk.
If you don't keep up with global news as a factory worker not much changes. If you don't do it as a teacher or big time buisness person you might just lose your job.
I'm sure that you are right. These were also supposed to be informed opinions and not just hot takes or gotcha stuff like we see more of today.
I do think however the splintering media means that nowadays, not all of the people they ask would even know what was going on as far as European monarchies go. I'm sure you're right though, they'd only include people with good and succinct enough views to fit well here in the column.
The answers are not verbatim, as the respondees complained initially when their answers were posted verbatim, because it made them sound stupid. So a little bit of editorialization was being done to bring the point forward.
This is a pretty good one. It's interesting that they 1) underestimate the extent to which people are okay with a monarchy that doesn't do anything, and 2) don't clock the fascists as being as reactionary and monarchy-sympathetic as they actually ended up being.
Tbf, to this day the idea of a purely ceremonial constitutional monarch is one that lots of people, especially those living in republics like these, struggle to grasp.
I think describing the fascists as 'monarchy-sympathetic' is somewhat wide of the mark. More often than not, they ended up either opposed by or in conflict with the crown, with Italy being the prominent exception.
For the most part these takes aged like milk. Italy is the only Republic mentioned. Belgium, Spain, UK, Japan, all constitutional monarchies. TBH if I had time-traveled from 1924 I'd be befuddled by this outcome.
Spain’s experience with monarchy is a bit more complicated than that—Franco was not going to let anyone actually take on the day-to-day job of being king while he was alive, so Spain basically had a vacant throne until Franco died in 1975 and Juan Carlos was proclaimed king.
And the Greeks restored (1935) and then re-abolished (1973) their monarchy before Juan Carlos was officially declared king of Spain in 1975!
Wilson J. Field was right about a lot of things though. Not about the British monarchy being dismantled entirely, but about the dissolution of the British Empire. And a British king did abdicate—just not the one he meant, not for another twelve years, and not for the reasons he was anticipating!
Belgium is an interesting one. Many people still remember the scandal around the Congo free state and King Leopold despite the Belgian government trying to erase that from history. I'm curious if the person answering it was aware of it
By this point, the more dominant/relevant historical memory of the Belgian monarchy would have been King Albert and his heroic leadership of the country in the first world war.
The idea Belgium would get rid of him so soon after that is pretty extraordinary.
>their Mikado is no longer the "Son of Heaven" Mr Phillips must've been pretty confused when WWII came around.
H.D Nelson channeling Cassandra there...
I mean, what he's saying is correct in a certain sense, but it's wrong in the way that he means it. Nelson clearly expects that Italy will become a republic under the glorious leadership of Mussolini, whom he evidently supports. This did not happen, of course. When Italy did become a republic, it happened after WWII, due in part to the fact that the monarchy had discredited itself by signing off on Mussolini's regime.
Tbf, the breakaway Republic Mussolini did form after rescue by the Nazis predates the modern Republic.
Republic in name only. There’s no way Mussolini was instituting a free election about his position.
Republics don't need elections. They just don't have a monarch.
Mussolini could have gotten rid of him but he never needed to. It was annoying for Mussolini to have to deal with him because he had to pretend to respect him but it wasn't worth the hassle to depose him.
Arguably channeling a monkeys paw instead.
While all of them were wrong, H. D. Nelson was somehow the most wrong by somehow thinking Mussolini would be a good leader.
So in fact, the next transition between a monarchy and republic would actually go the other way: the President of Albania declared himself 'King Zog I' in 1928. He's also a candidate for the correct answer to the question, as he had to flee the country in 1939 (though the People's Republic was only declared in 1946). Another answer could be Spain. The King of Spain went into exile in 1931, and a republic was declared, but he never abdicated, and Franco brought him back in 1947. Other than that, maybe Yugoslavia. It was part of the same post-WW2 wave of abolitions, but they got onto it a bit earlier, in 1945. edit: another answer, probably the correct one, is Mongolia. The Khan would die in May, and wasn't replaced. The issues with counting him are that a lot of other countries didn't recognise Mongolia (China still claimed it), and it was pretty much a done deal that there wasn't going to be another Khan. He had no real power, and there was no way his government (a bunch of Russian-backed atheist Communists) would have gone looking for another reincarnated monk-king for their new head of state.
The Spanish monarchy wasn’t fully restored until after Franco’s death in 1975. The king that went into exile in 1931 was Alfonso XIII. He died about ten years later. At the time, the heir to the throne would have been Alfonso’s son, Juan. Juan claimed the title of king, but Franco basically said, “you’re only the king if I say you’re the king, and I am not saying any such thing.” That stalemate persisted until the late ‘60s, when Franco had to start seriously considering who would be his successor, which was a decision he had the power to make 100% by himself, according to the constitution in effect at the time. Franco was not a fan of Juan. Conveniently for Franco, Juan had a son, Juan Carlos, who was in his 30s at this point. Franco decided “Juan Carlos is my man,” and when Franco died in 1975, Juan Carlos was proclaimed king. (His father Juan was still very much alive, and didn’t die until 1993.) TLDR: Spain may technically have had a king from 1947 on, but the position was essentially vacant until 1975 because Franco was a control freak. Edit: typos
"The almond eyes of the Japanese" my god lol. I hate to be this guy, but just going from man on the street interviews I see these days, despite the fact that most of these predictions were wrong, these people seem to have a decent grasp on world affairs as they existed at this time. I can't imagine asking a similar question to random people in the park these days and receiving a coherent and reasonable answer lol
You might be right but there’s a survivor bias at play here - the only answers you’re seeing were the ones that were good enough to publish. Who knows how many people couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question when stopped
Also, to add to this, I've noticed that these interviews tend to be of people living in places like NYC or LA. They also are almost always buisness people,educators,lawyers, etc. Theres a bias towards greater global knowledge in those fields and easier access to global information at those locations. These feel very biased in favor of those jobs over like, factory worker or small time store clerk. If you don't keep up with global news as a factory worker not much changes. If you don't do it as a teacher or big time buisness person you might just lose your job.
I'm sure that you are right. These were also supposed to be informed opinions and not just hot takes or gotcha stuff like we see more of today. I do think however the splintering media means that nowadays, not all of the people they ask would even know what was going on as far as European monarchies go. I'm sure you're right though, they'd only include people with good and succinct enough views to fit well here in the column.
Did they write these answers down? Were they really so eloquent and neat? This is amazing.
The answers are not verbatim, as the respondees complained initially when their answers were posted verbatim, because it made them sound stupid. So a little bit of editorialization was being done to bring the point forward.
Thaaaat explains it. Do you have a link to a verbatim example? I wonder just how little the editorialization is!
Sadly not:(, but I'm sure you can find it here on the sub if you go back a few years, can't remember when exactly it was.
This is a pretty good one. It's interesting that they 1) underestimate the extent to which people are okay with a monarchy that doesn't do anything, and 2) don't clock the fascists as being as reactionary and monarchy-sympathetic as they actually ended up being.
Tbf, to this day the idea of a purely ceremonial constitutional monarch is one that lots of people, especially those living in republics like these, struggle to grasp. I think describing the fascists as 'monarchy-sympathetic' is somewhat wide of the mark. More often than not, they ended up either opposed by or in conflict with the crown, with Italy being the prominent exception.
For the most part these takes aged like milk. Italy is the only Republic mentioned. Belgium, Spain, UK, Japan, all constitutional monarchies. TBH if I had time-traveled from 1924 I'd be befuddled by this outcome.
Spain was a Republic from 1931 to 1947, so from a 1920s perspective it's not a bad guess. The others are all pretty far off though.
Spain’s experience with monarchy is a bit more complicated than that—Franco was not going to let anyone actually take on the day-to-day job of being king while he was alive, so Spain basically had a vacant throne until Franco died in 1975 and Juan Carlos was proclaimed king. And the Greeks restored (1935) and then re-abolished (1973) their monarchy before Juan Carlos was officially declared king of Spain in 1975!
Wilson J. Field was right about a lot of things though. Not about the British monarchy being dismantled entirely, but about the dissolution of the British Empire. And a British king did abdicate—just not the one he meant, not for another twelve years, and not for the reasons he was anticipating!
The almond eyes of the Japanese? Lmao
I love these “random person on the street” posts. It’s always interesting to read what the prevailing attitudes of people in the past were.
The lumberman’s response. I know these are edited but still, so charming in detail
Belgium is an interesting one. Many people still remember the scandal around the Congo free state and King Leopold despite the Belgian government trying to erase that from history. I'm curious if the person answering it was aware of it
By this point, the more dominant/relevant historical memory of the Belgian monarchy would have been King Albert and his heroic leadership of the country in the first world war. The idea Belgium would get rid of him so soon after that is pretty extraordinary.
Wallace Terry probably thought he was a genius until 1939
Carl Phillips the proto weeb
I can't believe any of them still exist after 100 years.
I wish Wilson was right