This question originally appeared on Quora, the knowledge-sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus.
Answer by Stephen Tempest:
This is something that happened a lot in the 19th century, as new countries were formed on the basis of national self-determination. Most of these countries preferred to become constitutional monarchies, since the existence of a king was felt to ensure stability and provide a check against factionalism or a military coup.
When a new nation was formed by breaking away from a parent country, often the monarch would be a relative (brother, younger son, cousin, etc) of the parent country’s royal family.
If a country gained independence as a result of help from a larger kingdom, then that larger nation might insist on a member of its royal family taking the throne of the new state as a quid pro quo for its help. On the other hand, sometimes the opposite happened, and the great Powers of Europe would intervene to insist that the new state’s king must not be a member of any existing powerful families in order to preserve the balance of power.
And sometimes the new king would be the leader of the independence movement, though that was actually quite rare.
The following four examples illustrate the different types of procedure that might be involved.
Belgium
Belgium was a part of the Netherlands until 1830, when the Belgians rebelled against Dutch rule. Britain supported its bid for independence and agreed to guarantee its neutrality, but in return it insisted on Belgium becoming a British-style constitutional monarchy.
The revolutionary Belgian government spent several months considering candidates to become its king. Some wanted a Dutch prince from the House of Orange, but most were violently opposed to this. For a time it looked like a French prince would be given the throne, and three rival candidates were considered, but nobody could agree on any of them. Besides, the British were suspicious of Belgium falling under French influence. So in the end Belgium settled on a German prince with ties to the British royal family.
The new King Leopold I was a minor member of the German nobility, the youngest son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. In 1816 he married Princess Charlotte, the daughter of the British prince regent (and a cousin of the future Queen Victoria), thus briefly becoming a member of the British royal family. Unfortunately his wife died in childbirth after only a year of marriage. However, the British crown awarded him the title of “prince” and a mansion to live in, and he lived in England until being offered the throne of Belgium.
Greece
Like Belgium, Greece won its independence in a rebellion, thanks to military and diplomatic support from Britain, France, and Russia. In the London Conference of 1830 the three great powers decided (without bothering to ask the Greeks’ own opinion!) that the Ottoman Empire should be forced to recognize Greek independence and that Greece should become a constitutional monarchy.
One of the first candidates to be offered the Greek throne was in fact Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. He turned it down, put off by stories of Greece’s instability and weak position. He became king of Belgium instead a few months later.
In May 1832 the great powers held another conference in London and this time decided to offer the throne to another minor German princeling, this one from Bavaria. The Greek National Assembly voted to accept the choice, and King Otto I arrived in Greece in 1833.
Prince Otto Friedrich Ludwig was the younger son of the king of Bavaria. He was only 17 when he became king of Greece and won sympathy at first by changing his name and adopting Greek national costume. However, his popularity did not last, and in 1862 he was overthrown in a rebellion.
The National Assembly wanted the country to remain a monarchy but preferred a fresh start and did not want Otto’s dynasty to remain on the throne. Seeking closer ties to Britain, it decided to offer the throne to Prince Alfred, a younger son of Queen Victoria. The queen, however, was unwilling to allow her child to become king of Greece, and there were also objections from the other great powers at the thought of a British king ruling Greece.
Several alternative candidates were discussed, including a French duke, a couple of German princes, and an Austrian archduke. In the end, however, a prince of Denmark was picked out as the most neutral choice. The Greek National Assembly approved this decision in 1863.
Prince Vilhelm of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg was the younger son of the heir to the Danish throne. He was also the brother-in-law and personal friend of the prince of Wales, the future Edward VII, so had indirect family ties to the British royal family too. Like his predecessor Otto, Vilhelm—or Geórgios, as he renamed himself on becoming king—was only 17, but he managed to avoid Otto’s mistakes and remained popular.
Serbia
Unlike the previous two examples, Serbia’s royal family was home-grown. The revolt against Ottoman rule beginning in 1804 had been led by a local leader, Karadjordje (“Black George”) Petrovic, the son of a farmer who had gained military experience in the Austrian army. His uprising was defeated, but a second revolt in 1815-17 was successful. It was led by Milos Obrenovic, the son of a herdsman. Obrenovic forced the Ottomans to recognize Serbia as an autonomous principality, self-governing but paying tribute to Constantinople. He also had his rival Karadjordje assassinated and proclaimed himself prince of Serbia.
Obrenovic’s two sons each ruled in turn after him, but Mihailo was overthrown in 1842 by a revolt. The Serbian National Assembly elected Alexander Karadjordjevic, son of the rebel leader killed by Milos Obrenovic, as its new prince. (Serbia would be recognised as a kingdom instead of a principality in 1882.)
The throne of Serbia then alternated between the Obrenović and Karađorđević dynasties, usually violently. Aleksandar was forced to abdicate in 1858 and an Obrenović took the throne. They ruled until 1903, when King Aleksandar Obrenović was murdered, and Petar Karađorđević became king.
Brazil
Brazil gained its independence from Portugal in 1822, and unlike most post-colonial nations, it decided to become a monarchy. The circumstances behind this were somewhat unusual.
In 1807 Portugal was conquered by France, and the Portuguese royal family fled abroad. The 74-year-old Queen Maria suffered from severe dementia and her son João, the prince regent, ruled in her name. He went to Rio de Janeiro in the Portuguese colony of Brazil and set up court there.
After Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, it was expected that the royal court would return back to Portugal, but João preferred life in Rio and was reluctant to move. He therefore decided to declare that Brazil was now no longer a colony but a kingdom in its own right, in personal union with Portugal under the same monarch; as such, Lisbon and Rio were co-equal capitals. In December 1815 his mother became the first queen of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves.
This change was resented back in Portugal, and in 1820 a revolution broke out. The rebels demanded a constitutional monarchy, the return of the royal court to Lisbon, and the downgrading of Brazil back to a colony again instead of a kingdom. João, now king since his mother had died in 1816, agreed in April 1821 to return to Portugal. He appointed his son and heir, Pedro, as regent of Brazil to rule the kingdom in his name while he was away in Europe.
In Portugal, things were moving fast. A revolutionary parliament, the Cortes, was drawing up a new constitution. Though it had some Brazilian delegates, the Cortes was dominated by Portuguese, and they quickly proposed new laws to curb Brazilian autonomy, restrict its trade, and return its to colonial status. These measures aroused great anger and alarm in Brazil.
In January 1822 Pedro defied the orders of the Cortes to return to Portugal. In May he issued a proclamation saying that the Cortes in Lisbon could not pass laws that applied to Brazil unless he, as regent, also approved them, and in June he announced elections for a constituent assembly. In response to this the Cortes stripped Pedro of his position as regent of Brazil; Pedro’s response to that in September 1822 was to declare Brazil’s independence from Portugal.
With the agreement of the various provincial assemblies of Brazil, Pedro was acclaimed as “constitutional emperor and perpetual defender of Brazil” in October 1822. The title emperor rather than king was chosen because of its Roman (and possibly Napoleonic) connotations, as a ruler chosen by popular acclamation rather than dynastic succession. A brief war with Portugal resulted in Brazilian victory, and in 1825—thanks to British diplomatic pressure—Portugal reluctantly agreed to recognize Brazil’s independence in return for a 2-million pound reparations payment.
How do newly formed countries find a royal family if they want to become a monarchy? originally appeared on Quora. More questions on Quora:
.jpg){kind=link}