I can think of no examples in history where a restored monarchy has assumed dictatorial powers, or even been in a position of being able to. On the contrary, restored monarchies always bring to an end a period of dictatorship. Classic examples being England in 1660, France in 1814 and Spain in 1975. If this happens in Iran, it will follow the same pattern.
Absolutely.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:10 pmTotally. And not because we say so; because that's the way Persians also see it.
Are you familiar with the history of the monarchy in Iran?Maia wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:49 pmI can think of no examples in history where a restored monarchy has assumed dictatorial powers, or even been in a position of being able to. On the contrary, restored monarchies always bring to an end a period of dictatorship. Classic examples being England in 1660, France in 1814 and Spain in 1975. If this happens in Iran, it will follow the same pattern.
Spain in 1814, that turned towards absolute monarchy. Ferdinand came back to the throne then, and they had previously had, for a short time, a constitutional government. He abolished the constitution, imprisoned liberal leaders, restored absolute monarchy, and then there was like a whole period of repression, revolt, repression. That's classed as absolutist and repressive, from what I can find.The Shah in '53 in Iran, he became an authoritarian monarch. I think he was helped in by the CIA. He did liberalize the country, but he had secret police torturing people. He suppressed political opposition. He pretty much undermined the power of parliament. And then the Iranian Revolution came in and took all that away and established something perhaps even worse than he was, but yep, not a great guy there.There, I think there's some other examples where, like, the first monarch put in, like, you restore the monarchy, and maybe it goes okay under the first monarch, but then under the second, and Charles I, then James, James II, he tried to retake power, and then, so you needed a revolution to get rid of him, because he tried to eliminate parliament, extend his powers, you know, and go, you know, eliminate legislation by his own decrees. So, that's an example.Maia wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:49 pmI can think of no examples in history where a restored monarchy has assumed dictatorial powers, or even been in a position of being able to. On the contrary, restored monarchies always bring to an end a period of dictatorship. Classic examples being England in 1660, France in 1814 and Spain in 1975. If this happens in Iran, it will follow the same pattern.
The reason to believe that he would be a constitutional monarch is that he has no power base there. There has been a gap of nearly 50 years. He has no current members of the army who served under the previous monarchy, no officers of state, no members of the civil service, and so on. He would be there solely at the will of the people.phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 8:11 pmAre you familiar with the history of the monarchy in Iran?Maia wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:49 pmI can think of no examples in history where a restored monarchy has assumed dictatorial powers, or even been in a position of being able to. On the contrary, restored monarchies always bring to an end a period of dictatorship. Classic examples being England in 1660, France in 1814 and Spain in 1975. If this happens in Iran, it will follow the same pattern.
The cycles of limitations placed on the monarchy which are then removed and the shah becomes dictator again.
There is no reason to believe that a reinstalled shah will only be a figurehead,
My example was France in 1814, not Spain.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 8:23 pmSpain in 1814, that turned towards absolute monarchy. Ferdinand came back to the throne then, and they had previously had, for a short time, a constitutional government. He abolished the constitution, imprisoned liberal leaders, restored absolute monarchy, and then there was like a whole period of repression, revolt, repression. That's classed as absolutist and repressive, from what I can find.The Shah in '53 in Iran, he became an authoritarian monarch. I think he was helped in by the CIA. He did liberalize the country, but he had secret police torturing people. He suppressed political opposition. He pretty much undermined the power of parliament. And then the Iranian Revolution came in and took all that away and established something perhaps even worse than he was, but yep, not a great guy there.There, I think there's some other examples where, like, the first monarch put in, like, you restore the monarchy, and maybe it goes okay under the first monarch, but then under the second, and Charles I, then James, James II, he tried to retake power, and then, so you needed a revolution to get rid of him, because he tried to eliminate parliament, extend his powers, you know, and go, you know, eliminate legislation by his own decrees. So, that's an example.Maia wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 7:49 pmI can think of no examples in history where a restored monarchy has assumed dictatorial powers, or even been in a position of being able to. On the contrary, restored monarchies always bring to an end a period of dictatorship. Classic examples being England in 1660, France in 1814 and Spain in 1975. If this happens in Iran, it will follow the same pattern.
Ah, apologies, you certainly did.
I'm not saying he didn't want to do good things. I am saying he tried to assert royal absolutism and the "divine right of kings". His actions aimed to centralize power within the monarchy and bypass the constraints of the English Parliament, ultimately leading to his removal during the Glorious Revolution.The English monarchs after 1660 were completely dependent on parliament. This was proved when James II tried to extend religious toleration to Catholics, definitely not a dictatorial act, but one that the English establishment didn't like. Those examples from Iran before the revolution are not examples of a restored monarchy.
But he abolished opposition, had full power of Parliament, he made it a one party state, a party he was completely in control of, etc. He hadn't cleared out all power from everyone. There were some figures with power. But he fits the model of a restored monarchy turning back to traditional absolute monarchies. That the theocrats who came out of the revolution against him were worse doesn't take away from that.I'm not in any way suggesting that the pre-revolution Iranian monarchs were paragons of virtue, as they clearly weren't. I'm talking about monarchy itself, and how it compares to other systems, especially, in this case, after a period of repressive theocracy.
James II only lasted three years before being replaced, so it could be argued that his example proves the case that restored monarchies lack the ability to assume dictatorial powers, even if they try.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 9:21 pmAh, apologies, you certainly did.
That said, Spain still serves as a counterexample.I'm not saying he didn't want to do good things. I am saying he tried to assert royal absolutism and the "divine right of kings". His actions aimed to centralize power within the monarchy and bypass the constraints of the English Parliament, ultimately leading to his removal during the Glorious Revolution.The English monarchs after 1660 were completely dependent on parliament. This was proved when James II tried to extend religious toleration to Catholics, definitely not a dictatorial act, but one that the English establishment didn't like. Those examples from Iran before the revolution are not examples of a restored monarchy.
He took several specific steps to expand his authority and undermine parliamentary power:
Suspending and Dispensing Powers: He used royal prerogative to "suspend" laws (stopping their operation entirely) or "dispense" with them for individuals. He specifically used these powers to appoint Catholics to key government, military, and university positions, despite laws like the Test Acts that prohibited them from such offices.
Packing Parliament: To ensure the repeal of religious laws he disliked, James engaged in a "purge" of local government and town corporations. He replaced officials with loyalists to create an electoral machine that would return a "pliable" Parliament supportive of his absolute rule.
Expansion of a Standing Army: James significantly increased the size of the professional army during peacetime—a move seen as a traditional instrument of autocracy intended to overawe the population and threaten Parliament.
Ruling by Decree: When Parliament refused to repeal the Test Acts in 1685, James simply adjourned and eventually dissolved it, choosing to rule by decree for the remainder of his reign.
Ecclesiastical Interference: He established a Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes to control the Church of England and famously prosecuted seven bishops for seditious libel after they petitioned against his orders.
I'm not saying he was purely Machiavellian, he did have religious convictions that fit with his support of Catholics, but it's not contested that he had aims at absolute monarchy. James was deeply influenced by his cousin, Louis XIV of France. He saw how Catholicism served as a unifying, centralizing force for absolute rule. In his view, a "Catholic style" of monarchy was more stable and authoritative than the messy, decentralized Protestant model that had led to his father’s execution (Charles I).
But he abolished opposition, had full power of Parliament, he made it a one party state, a party he was completely in control of, etc. He hadn't cleared out all power from everyone. There were some figures with power. But he fits the model of a restored monarchy turning back to traditional absolute monarchies. That the theocrats who came out of the revolution against him were worse doesn't take away from that.I'm not in any way suggesting that the pre-revolution Iranian monarchs were paragons of virtue, as they clearly weren't. I'm talking about monarchy itself, and how it compares to other systems, especially, in this case, after a period of repressive theocracy.
Also, his presence and connections to foreign powers led to the takeover by the theocrats who managed to take power from, for example, the communists and others in the Revolution.
Because restoring monarchies can in fact lead to absolute monarchism AND since the West would likely have a lot of control over the monarch (or the strongman options they are a bit more interested in having in power) it is a very dangerous option, especially given Iran's history with this kind of process. Of course, if they manage to regime change, any leader Israel and the US put in better be really, really temporary, because of this history. But the US and the West have a habit of messing these things up royally (pun no intended). They manage to make many situations much worse than they were. As Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and other countries show.