What defines "legitimacy" for a monarchy?

[Sunforged General]

Many people will go on about bloodlines, historical claims, or religious factors (divine right of kings) as being the driving factor of legitimacy for a monarch. But I believe all you truly need is genuine, heartfelt support of the people you're trying to rule over. I provide two examples. First, Napoleon Bonaparte. He was not French by blood, and he was of minor Italian nobility, he had no claim to rulership over France, yet the French people, then and now, consider him to have been a genuine and legitimate Emperor of France. Meanwhile, for my other example, we have Aisin Gioro Puyi, a direct descendant of the Qing Emperors who ruled over China for centuries. Yet not only was he overthrown, but when the Japanese tried to restore him to a throne ruling over parts of China (Manchukuo) this was strongly opposed by people all across China. No one accepted Puyi's rulership over anything, despite being of imperial royal blood.

So I ask for your opinion, are all other factors, such as bloodlines, historical claims, and supposed divine rights to rule, are all of these things just shams? Is the true meaning of legitimacy for a monarch entirely dependent on his popularity among the people he is trying to rule?

 

[Rubidium]

Legitimacy ultimately comes down to "will people follow me."

Which is a nexus of all sorts of things. "Power flows from the barrel of a gun" is an exaggeration, but so is the idea of a "rightful monarch." It's always a continuum, with a side helping of "what have you done for me lately." And note that there are different kinds of legitimacy for a monarch. If I were to land with an army of mercenaries, kill Elizabeth II and declare myself King of the UK, no one would accept me and the British military would oppose me. On the other hand, if Elizabeth II decides to put an end to all this "democracy" business, dissolve Parliament and rule as an absolute monarch by divine right, I'm pretty sure the British would oppose her and Britain would become a republic within a day (or at the very least, she'd be declared insane and Charles would take over as regent).

 

[Director]

'Legitimacy' is a carefully crafted construct. Like a state-supported religion or an origin myth, it increases the chance that the people will obey the leader and increases the chance that his or her heir will rule in succession.

Hence the elaborate and sometimes convoluted attempts to prove a potential (or actual) ruler illegitimate by birth, religious transgression or improper rule.

 

[bz249]

'Legitimacy' is a carefully crafted construct. Like a state-supported religion or an origin myth, it increases the chance that the people will obey the leader and increases the chance that his or her heir will rule in succession.

Hence the elaborate and sometimes convoluted attempts to prove a potential (or actual) ruler illegitimate by birth, religious transgression or improper rule.

Almost... it is enough if the people who matter follow the leader. Whether it is the knightly, preastly, or merchant class is up to the socioeconomic circumstances.

 

[Director]

I take your point, but there were successful (and near-successful) peasant revolts that endangered or toppled a monarchy without regard to the support of the noble and priestly classes. Enough pawns can win you a chess game - but, usually, it is the more powerful pieces that have the greater effect.

 

[IsadorBG]

Napoleon lack of legitimacy played an important role in the Napoleonic wars and his eventual downfall. Whatever the French thought of him, the other Europeans powers were fighting to restore the Bourbons to the throne. They would not let the Revolution destroy their world order without a fight.

Puyi claim was actually far more dangerous that you believe it to be. The fact that a foreign power used him as a puppet to rule over the Chinese should actually tell you a lot.
That he wasn't exactly popular with various power hungry warlords doesn't say much about what the people in general thought of him.

And that's something to keep in mind when talking about this subject. What the common man thinks about the ruler rarely mattered in the long run.

The Bourbon came back despite what Napoleon or the Republicans achieved. And it took two more revolutions to definitely oust them out. And if the people had a say, France would still be a kingdom to this day.

 

[Director]

It has been argued that a good bit of Napoleon's later military adventurism - say, 1810 to 1814 - was driven by his need to bolster his legitimacy through military victories, and I think there is some merit in that.

The legitimacy of Napoleon III seems to have been more secure, at least until the latter days of his regime, which makes for some interesting comparisons with his uncle. N3 did also use military adventurism to glorify his reign, but that's common among governments, particularly of the era.

 

[pithorr]

Nothing. Death to monarchy.

 

[VTs]

Not just for monarchy, but for all forms of government, political legitimacy derives from popular explicit and implicit consent of the governed.

It went well for the French until it didn't, and some people lost their heads in a revolution, when consent for the monarchy was withdrawn.

The same in Russia.

In recent times, just look at the Spanish monarchy, where the king was more or less forced to abdicate because of scandal.

 

[cpreston5]

It has been argued that a good bit of Napoleon's later military adventurism - say, 1810 to 1814 - was driven by his need to bolster his legitimacy through military victories, and I think there is some merit in that.

The legitimacy of Napoleon III seems to have been more secure, at least until the latter days of his regime, which makes for some interesting comparisons with his uncle. N3 did also use military adventurism to glorify his reign, but that's common among governments, particularly of the era.

I think Napoleon III was an odd case where he managed (very skilfully, tbf) to convert democratic legitimacy into monarchical legitimacy.

Unlike his uncle, Napoleon III actually had to run a genuine and relatively competitive election campaign, and won. So, he could point to previous democratic support, all the while exploiting the obvious connection to a glorious imperial past, and between the two he managed to weld-together a surprisingly effective kind of legitimacy.

Who knows what could have been if he had just stuck to colonial adventures and didn't run headfirst into Bismarck's trap.

 

[Gurkhal]

Who knows what could have been if he had just stuck to colonial adventures and didn't run headfirst into Bismarck's trap.

While I agree that Napoleon III fell into Bismarck's trap the way I read the history of that period, and I am in no way an expert, it seems to me that a showdown between France and the rising Prussia was going to happen. Bismarck wanted his war with the French and if I don't recall wrong there were French calls for halting Prussia's growtth. And this was in the age where common people were politically aware and nationalism was going strong. Thus a showdown seems unavoidable.

Mind you such a resolution wouldn't necessary need to be military but I think that either Bismarcks beat Napoleon III or Napoleon III beats Bismarck in some form and to the victor goes the spoils.

*****

I think one of the prime issues with legitimacy for a monarchy is that it changes along with society and the culture over time. Hence its essentially a folly to find one sort of legitimacy that stretches across the history of monarchy. And it seems to me that monarchies tends to fall when they rely on a legitimacy which is out of step with the world they exist within.

But like above I am interested but not an expert in this.

 

[Henry IX]

Legitimacy is ultimately about the reason a leader is a leader. Even if you take the cynical view of 'power from the barrel of a gun' you still need to explain why the military follows a given leader.

Although legitimacy varies throughout various states and times, it is based on the reasons why people follow a given leader. A good example of the power of symbolic legitimacy can be found in Medieval kings, like King John, who were opposed by his magnates and was beaten by them in war but who remained acknowledged as king throughout. His legitimacy clearly remained in spite of military weakness and widespread dislike.

The importance of legitimacy can be seen throughout history with rulers striving to portray themselves as blessed by the gods or of the correct bloodline. Even at the beginning of history we find king Sargon (a usurper) constructing a narrative of legitimacy, portraying himself as 'beloved of Enlil' and being abandoned as a baby in a basket on the river and being found and adopted by a royal family. His inscriptions emphasize his legitimacy and the translation of his king name is literally legitimate king (Sarru-ken, which can be translated as 'the king is legitimate'). His grandson even had himself recognized as a god.

The importance of legitimacy and how it can be created is well illustrated by the two Napoleons. Napoleon Bonaparte had himself crowned by the pope and married into the Austrian monarchy, both actions designed to have him recognised as a part of the European monarchies. Napoleon III also created a legitimizing story based around his uncle's legacy and will of the French people. If all it took were genius and the loyalty of ones followers then none of those actions would have been necessary.

 

[Captain Frakas]

Many people will go on about bloodlines, historical claims, or religious factors (divine right of kings) as being the driving factor of legitimacy for a monarch. But I believe all you truly need is genuine, heartfelt support of the people you're trying to rule over. I provide two examples. First, Napoleon Bonaparte. He was not French by blood, and he was of minor Italian nobility, he had no claim to rulership over France, yet the French people, then and now, consider him to have been a genuine and legitimate Emperor of France. Meanwhile, for my other example, we have Aisin Gioro Puyi, a direct descendant of the Qing Emperors who ruled over China for centuries. Yet not only was he overthrown, but when the Japanese tried to restore him to a throne ruling over parts of China (Manchukuo) this was strongly opposed by people all across China. No one accepted Puyi's rulership over anything, despite being of imperial royal blood.

So I ask for your opinion, are all other factors, such as bloodlines, historical claims, and supposed divine rights to rule, are all of these things just shams? Is the true meaning of legitimacy for a monarch entirely dependent on his popularity among the people he is trying to rule?

You mix up many kinds of monarchies. The sole common thing between monarchs is that they are alone to rule their function (being limited to one of the powers, or being generalized to all powers). Their legitimacy roots from the kind of regime, not from their lonesome function. On monarchies, despotism and tyrannies, you might be interested reading Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws.

Bonaparte, who was born French and who was raised at a time where being "French by blood" made no sense, was the monarch of the French Republic. The regime of the French Republic, back then, was a representative one, albeit an authoritarian, meritocratic and popular one, who resulted from a military coup. The legitimacy of Bonaparte rooted from both the bourgeoisie who accepted to renounce being the ruling class in order to stay the dominant class (a bit like in Russia, if you want an example), from the people who acclaimed and plebiscite him and his policies and from the army who contributed to make its forces in the service of Bonaparte military coup. His popularity was build from his military victories and from his propaganda which underlined such victories, so, as soon as he did lose, his rule collapsed quite fast. But that is specific to his own regime. It could be used to deduce the legitimacy of very similar regimes (the 2nd Empire, the Gaullist era of the French Republic), but obviously not to any regime, including the ones having a monarch.

Ancient Regime French despotism rooted, instead, its legitimacy on pomp and tradition.

 

[Yakman]

I take your point, but there were successful (and near-successful) peasant revolts that endangered or toppled a monarchy without regard to the support of the noble and priestly classes. Enough pawns can win you a chess game - but, usually, it is the more powerful pieces that have the greater effect.

ergh... not a lot of successful peasant revolts which toppled monarchies.

it's almost always an existing elite removing the king.

 

[Director]

ergh... not a lot of successful peasant revolts which toppled monarchies.

Maybe so, 1917-18 notwithstanding. But sufficient peasant unrest is a good motivation for the lords to stir themselves, perhaps.

 

[IsadorBG]

Or a good pretext, yes.

 

[Yakman]

Maybe so, 1917-18 notwithstanding. But sufficient peasant unrest is a good motivation for the lords to stir themselves, perhaps.

Uh… the Czar and all of the Emperors were toppled by their governments not by the peasants or workers

 

[JodelDiplom]

Uh… the Czar and all of the Emperors were toppled by their governments not by the peasants or workers

Kerensky was overthrown by organized rabble though

 

[Yakman]

Kerensky was overthrown by organized rabble though

The Petrograd Soviet overthrew Kerensky.

That was also part of Kerensky’s provisional government

 

[IsadorBG]

The instauration of the Ming dynasty is probably the most famous exemple of a peasant revolt ending with a peasant on the throne. But even they are the exception. Usually it's the ones who crush the revolt who end up usurping power. And not only in China.