The Impact of World War II on the Status of European Monarchies

Shchegolikhina Svetlana Nikolaevna ORCID: 0000-0002-9345-2254 PhD in History Associate Professor, Department of General History, A.I.Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University 193230, Russia, Saint Petersburg, nab. Moika River, 48 sveta.shc@mail.ru

In 1918, the famous English science fiction writer H. G. Wells published a collection of essays on the problems of the future world order. In the seventh chapter, he raised the question of monarchies, their fate and significance after the end of the "war of ideas". Having supported his conclusion with the authority of I. Kant, the writer concluded that the monarchy is a thing of the past. The fall of the Romanovs, the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs, the establishment of a republic in China, the rising social movement in the East, the entry of the United States into the world of big international politics - all this could be perceived as proof of the correctness of Kant's idea that peace is possible only in a world consisting of a union of republics ^{[1, p. 89]}.However, monarchies still exist.

Their number is relatively small – 29 states, that is, about 15% of all countries in the world. They differ from each other in history, institutionalization of the monarchy, and the attitude of society to the ruler. Interest in the "phenomenon" of the monarchy is noted among different groups. The monarchy is interesting to both professional politicians, political scientists, historians, journalists, and ordinary people. An essential feature of professional research is that each author considers the phenomenon of monarchy from his own position. There are many works describing the history of individual monarchical houses (I. G. Kovalev, V. V. Lobanova, H. Morre, G. S. Ostapenko, S. P. Pozharskaya, T. Aronson, D. Kedbury, V. Der Kiste, E. Morton, F. Millard, etc.) ^[2-11]; there are political theories about different types of monarchy, journalistic articles about certain subjects of royal life, even anthropological studies of modern monarchies appear ^{[12, 13]}. The problem lies in the fact that there is no analytical work considering this phenomenon in a complex, identifying the main problems and key moments of its existence in the twentieth century, trends in the transformation and evolution of relations with society.

The monarchy is a historically established socio-political institution that includes, in addition to heredity, statehood, religious sanctioning ^{[14, p. IV]}, such characteristics as the expression of tradition, nepotism, a special psychological and ideological warehouse. This set of properties has been formed over the centuries, creating a pattern within which the ruling houses existed.

The First World War was an event that had a serious impact on the transformation of the aristocracy and the highest aristocracy – monarchical houses ^[9]. The short interwar period was marked by a twofold process related to monarchies. Firstly, the change of heads of state in the remaining monarchical states. Half of the monarchs who were on the throne during the Second World War entered it in the late 1920s - 1930s, in conditions that are commonly called "pre–war". By the beginning of the war, their age ranged from 20 to 40 years, that is, they were from the generation that was formed during the turbulent interwar period. Secondly, during the same period, the establishment of monarchies that appeared in the process of forming the Versailles system took place.

Thus, by the beginning of World War II, there were 15 monarchies in Europe. With the beginning of the conflict, all monarchical states were divided into occupied (Albania - King Ahmet Zogu fled the country, but did not formally renounce power, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Yugoslavia), allies of Germany (Bulgaria, Italy, Romania), and free (Great Britain, Liechtenstein, Sweden). 

In the critical conditions of the world confrontation, it was the monarchs, first of all, who determined the status of their state. The choice depended on many reasons - the country's position in the conflict based on pre-war foreign policy, the monarch's relationship with the government, political parties, public support, and, of course, on his personal qualities. 

With the outbreak of the World War, the activity of the rulers was strongly influenced by social and political forces, dependence on which became an objective factor. An example is the situation in Luxembourg. In the First World War, the situation in the country led to the political crisis of 1919 and the abdication of Maria Adelaide, who did not resist the German invasion. With the outbreak of World War II, Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg, taking into account the existing experience, no longer doubted – no agreement with the occupiers. 

Another position was taken by King Leopold III of Belgium. Back in the 1930s, he declared that if his country was attacked, "we would defend ourselves with the same enthusiasm as in 1914 and with tenfold power" ^{[15, p. 204]}. But with the beginning of the Second World War, his position changed dramatically. Initially, Leopold's decision to capitulate and remain in the country as a prisoner of war did not cause a sharp rejection of the Belgians, it was perceived as self-sacrifice, as a "fulcrum" for the population of the country. However, in the future, the behavior of the king, his reaction to what is happening, relations with political forces became the basis of discontent and the decline of respect, sympathy and support for the monarch. He was accused of meetings with Hitler and even Leopold's second marriage, concluded in 1941, which was negatively perceived by his subjects, as evidence of the king's remoteness from the interests and opinions of the Belgians ^{[16, p. 4, 8]}.

The decision of the Belgian king to stay in the occupied country negatively perceived by the public contrasts with the loyalty of the population to the Danish King Christian X. 70-year-old Christian X Danish chose, consciously or not, the tactics of passive resistance, which turned out to be quite acceptable. Other gestures of defiance of the king (real or fictional, which also testify to the quality and effectiveness of this method of resistance) made the head of state a symbol of the Danish struggle and moral advantage ^{[9, p. 98-99]}. The positive attitude towards the position of the king was even added by the fact that he became disabled after falling from a horse during a daily trip in front of his subjects. In relation to Christian X, the importance of public influence is indicative in another event – despite the high personal popularity of the monarch, the actual importance of the crown began to decline ^{[6, p. 139]}, as evidenced by Iceland's break of the union with Denmark in 1944. 

Thus, the reduction of independence in decision-making and the dependence of the monarch not only, but above all, on the public position, become an important characteristic of the position of the head of state. Accordingly, the future fate of the monarchs will depend on their choice and real activity.

During the war, the monarchs actively performed in different guises. Some of them took part in military operations; some engaged in propaganda work, mainly speaking on the radio (this concerned, first of all, those monarchs who were in exile); finally, diplomatic activities, secular receptions with fundraising for the needs of the front, etc. 

The leader in many royal endeavors was the United Kingdom. As in the First World War, the British royal family took an active part in the events taking place. First of all, the British monarchy acted as the "savior" of the monarchs whose countries were occupied. With the outbreak of the war, crowned refugees began to arrive in London by simple or complex routes (for example, Peter II of Yugoslavia traveled through Greece and Egypt).  In May 1940, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, in a "moment of terrible stress" ^{[17, p. 26]}, decided to leave for London. It is worth noting here that not all monarchs felt sympathy for each other, including the English king, who sheltered the crowned exiles. For example, the Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg went into exile in 1940, first to France, then to Portugal, and only then to Great Britain, but from there she soon moved to North America. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, "corporate ethics", "family ties" contributed to the unification of the monarchy as a socio-political institution to solve common issues, although political positions remained a priority. 

The British royal couple inspected troops, visited hospitals and bombed places, participated in diplomatic and political events, the king went abroad to a war zone, etc. ^[7] Members of the royal family also entered military service, such as George, Duke of Kent ^{[18, p. 104-109]}. The example of the British was followed by other members of the royal families of Europe. Prince Rainier III of Monaco served in the French army with the rank of second lieutenant ^{[6, p. 204]}, took part in the battles in Alsace in 1944, was awarded the Military Cross, became a knight of the Legion of Honor. Prince Jean, the future Duke of Luxembourg, while in exile with his family, served as a volunteer in the Irish Guards. The Grand Duchess Charlotte herself conducted radio broadcasts for the residents of Luxembourg; as well as King Haakon VII of Norway, who appeared on the BBC. The peculiarity of the situation in Norway was the desire of King Haakon to observe constitutional law. On July 18, 1940, he spoke on the radio from London and, referring to the Constitution giving the king the right to "wage war from abroad," called on Norwegians to preserve the country's independence. Thanks to the stay and active activity of King Haakon and Prince Olaf, the ties between Norway and Great Britain were greatly strengthened, which became a refuge for many Norwegian refugees mainly in Scotland, which "was closest to Norway" ^{[19, p. 93]}. 

In addition to the UK, the United States has become another attractive political partner for the "monarchs in exile". So, in 1942, Peter Iyugoslavsky went on a diplomatic visit to the United States, where he met with the president to discuss the lend-lease issue. Consideration of public interests, according to the Constitution of the Netherlands ^{[4, p. 64]}, required Queen Wilhelmina to resume her duties of managing the royal house and the state. Having left for London with the beginning of the occupation of her country, in August 1942, Queen Wilhelmina went to North America ^[20]. On August 6, 1942, she addressed the US Congress with an appeal "in the name of her subjects ... to resist, to resist to the end" ^{[21, p. 8]}. Her daughter Juliana, who had been in exile in Canada since the beginning of the war, being four months pregnant, also came to the United States. Together with the Soviet Ambassador M. M. Litvinov, his wife Ivy Low (Litvinova), the princess attended the first open concert of the Seventh (Leningrad) Symphony of D. D. Shostakovich in Tanglewood (Massachusetts) ^{[22, p. 13]}. On March 2, 1944, Princess Juliana paid an official visit to the Dominican Republic in connection with the centenary of the state, meeting with President Rafael Trujillo Molina. On March 15, Queen Wilhelmina sent a welcome telegram to the President from London and awarded him the Order of the Netherlands Lion ^[23].

Thus, the position of the monarchs symbolized unity with the fighting nations. In many ways, this was to the benefit of the rulers themselves, the world war became for them the "finest hour", which allowed society to show itself from the best side. Perhaps only the Greek King George II, being in exile in London, emphasized that he was not engaged in any business, attending numerous receptions ^{[15, p. 123]}. Not for the first time being in exile, he still convinced everyone that the monarchical form of government was better than the republican one. According to the king, any president always thinks more about his political career. While the monarch has his own angle of view, more connected with the fate of the country and less with personal ambitions ^{[15, p. 124-125]}.

The monarchs, who were allies of Germany, had a certain specificity in their position. They were united by one thing – submission to a stronger ally. Of course, the personality of the monarch determined the degree of subordination to the German leadership, an example of which is the position of Bulgaria. The country declared war on Great Britain and the United States, but refused to send troops to the Eastern Front, which "probably was a considerable merit of the monarch" ^{[3, p. 22]}. But the Bulgarian tsar Boris III died in 1943, 6-year-old Simeon II was elevated to the throne, on whom it is hardly necessary to assign responsibility for the country's policy after the death of his father.

The second factor, which in many cases determined the situation in the States, was associated with the instability of internal regulation in the countries themselves. An example is the situation in Romania. The death of Queen Maria (Missy) in 1938 proved to be a turning point in the history of Romania. The internal and external problems of the royal court came out. As they wrote in the British press about the visit of the new ruler of Romania, Carol II, to England in 1938: "Romania is put up for auction." Karol was surprised by the lack of interest on the part of Britain – she did not need either Romanian oil, grain, or food ^{[10, p.182-183]}. Accordingly, protection and assistance could not be expected, although formal guarantees were given. Karol left Romania, saving himself, his wife (a Jew, she was a "red rag" for the anti-Semite I. Antonescu ^{[10, p. 202]}), without inciting a civil war. King Mihai – a new, 19-year-old ruler who actually had no powers, who lived for many years with his mother Elena of Greece in exile, quickly found himself removed from active political affairs by Marshal Ion Antonescu. Mihai had to wage not so much an external war as an internal political one for the return of the fullness of royal power. The young ruler realized his capabilities only at the end of the war. Relying mainly on civilian political forces, Mihai tried to bring the country out of the war and come to an agreement with the anti-Hitler coalition ^{[19, p. 134-135]}. It is also worth noting that his father Karol, who was removed from power, while in exile, nevertheless conducted an active correspondence with his European relatives and the US government, asking both for himself and for the country ^{[10, p. 213]}.

Perhaps only Victor Emmanuel III (Italy) consciously took the position of compromise and non-interference, but he has held it since the 1920s. His successor Umberto II later claimed that his father overestimated the people's support for the Duce and underestimated his (people's) loyalty to the older institution of the monarchy. The helplessness of the king was manifested even in the matter of saving members of his own family. Victor Emmanuel's daughter, Princess Mafalda, was imprisoned in Buchenwald, but the Italian family could not do anything for her release ^{[9, p. 79-81]}. The king did not decide much on his own, and this became his fatal mistake. In January 2021 Emanuele Filiberto, the heir to the Italian monarch, the great-grandson of Victor Emmanuel III, has officially apologized for his grandfather's signature on "unacceptable documents" related to the persecution of Jews in Italy. Although immediately the heir did not fail to recall the role of the monarchy in the unification of the country and that some members of the royal family also passed concentration camps ^{[25, 26]}.

The German leadership seriously considered the change of the monarch as one of the ways of waging war. Crown Princess Marta (Norway) urgently took advantage of the invitation of President F. Roosevelt and took the three–year-old Prince Harald to the USA - according to rumors, the Nazi leadership intended to put the baby on the throne after the detronization of Haakon ^{[19, p. 92]}. In Greece, the anglophile and unsuccessful George II was intended to be replaced by his brother Pavlos, married to the granddaughter of Emperor Wilhelm II, Frederica ^{[19, p. 139]}. But the calculations of the German leadership were shattered by the human factor – Frederica's anti-Nazi position turned out to be in no way related to her nationality. 

As for the "neutral monarchies", their position was even more uncertain during the entire period of the war. Liechtenstein, approaching Switzerland, was constantly under threat of invasion by German troops. The Swedish king Gustav V allowed a departure from non-participation in the war, which created a threat to the country's neutrality. Probably, only the duration of the existence of the Swedish monarchy and the personality of the heir, the new king Gustav VI, saved the Swedish monarchy after the war, but, as in other cases, leveled its importance in the affairs of the state ^{[6, pp. 177, 251]}.

Thus, the Second World War had a dual character for the monarchies of the world. First of all, of course, it was the war against fascism/Nazism. Secondly, it was a struggle to maintain its position as a political, state-social element of the country.

"The monarchies that fell at the end of World War II were victims of either fascism or communism" ^{[19, p. 7]}. Those monarchies that did not have a long tradition fell, which failed to transform in the interwar period, which had significant internal problems, etc. The conclusion of the historian, specialist in European monarchies E. Devere-Summers can be corrected in this way - radical ideologies and regimes accelerated one of the possible vectors of development of the monarchical political structure.

The first to fall were the young monarchies that had existed for less than half a century – Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Albania. Weak in themselves, having no traditions, they were easily rejected by the new political forces ^[27]. In the "old" European monarchies, there was also a "rethinking" of the experience of war, in some states accompanied by political crises.  Even in the winning countries of the question, there were significant developments. So, in the late 1940s - early 1950s, Wilhelmina of the Netherlands abdicated in favor of her daughter; Leopold III of Belgium was forced to abdicate in favor of her son ^{[6, p. 55]}.

During the Second World War, there was a conflict with a double content: between autocracy and democracy (in the broad political science understanding of these terms) and between royalism and monarchism. In the twentieth century, the position of monarchs more than ever depended on public support ^{[2, pp. 496-497]} and the ability to comply with the new rules - to remain politically neutral, avoid scandals and suspicions of corruption, not to grow, to be responsible for members of the royal family, allowing them to arrange life in their own way, to act like any other public institution that has certain rules ^{[28, p. 3-6]}.

Thus, after the Second World War, the revision of the form of government affected all parts of the world. The war dealt a final blow to the European monarchies. It consolidated democratic royalism as the main type of socio-political perception of the monarchy. As long as the monarch follows the established rules, the monarchy will exist. They have lost most of their key characteristics, remaining only as a historical and cultural sign, as an element of heritage - without real power or significance for political and social life, depending on public and political sentiments.