SPIEGEL: When the Weimar Constitution came into force in 1919, the monarchy ended in Germany. In addition to the emperor, more than 20 regional monarchs of the individual states had to abdicate. How could all this, unlike before in Russia, happen almost silently, without bloodshed and within a few days?
Frank Lorenz Müller: It is a symptom of the revolutionary changes that had taken place before. Almost nowhere did the monarchs turn on the big political wheels. Some were also, like Friedrich August III. of Saxony or King Wilhelm II of Württemberg, rather inconspicuous, quite amiable personalities. Neither the people nor the revolutionaries wanted to seize them. Many have avoided dubbing castles. They knew that was the final whistle - so they tripped off the field.
SPIEGEL: De facto, the parliaments have long ruled. How big was the influence of the monarchs at that time?
Müller: We could not yet speak of a real parliamentary rule, especially as the monarchy as an institution was still accepted by broad sections of the population. However, retaliated that the monarchs in the First World War at the head of the nation and the army had made: Now they had to present their people after millions of dying a defeat. Napoleon III was already in this dilemma in 1870. went down when he was defeated in the war against the German states. And the same thing happened to the rulers in Berlin, Vienna and St. Petersburg. The defeat accelerated the turning away from the monarchy.
SPIEGEL: You had a long warning period: On January 21, 1793, France's last King Louis XVI died. on the scaffold, the ideas of democracy and equality spread throughout Europe. Was thus the end of the monarchies in other countries only a matter of time?
Müller: At the turn of the nineteenth century, everything that had been valid so far was put to the test: the great revolution in France had shaken the political order that revolutionized the industrial revolution with its new production methods and means of transport. Everywhere new things broke in, and suddenly the old thing was under tremendous pressure to justify itself.
SPIEGEL: Even the monarchs?
Müller: Emperors and kings had represented themselves for centuries as god-elect rulers. To question them was heresy. This matter of course was lost now. They were no longer automatically legitimized by birth, but had to make a compelling offer to the people and actively strive for the "subject love" that they had previously just claimed.
SPIEGEL: How did you try that?
Müller: They presented themselves as loyal patriarchs, who felt responsible for the well-being of the nation and the people - also for the farmers and the simple workers. Paradoxically, nationalism also became a pillar of the monarchy, even though it was actually a threat to the rulers. They had to come up with something to avoid being swept away by it.
photo gallery
16 pictures
Europe's monarch: reigns When the nobility had to leaveSPIEGEL: To what extent did nationalism radiate danger to the kings?
Müller: Because he contradicted the dynastic principle. The European royal houses were closely networked, ultimately all related to one another and by marriage. It was not so easy to set oneself apart through national borders. Above all, however, the idea of the nation is actually egalitarian: Every citizen has the same rights as a member of the nation. The king, too, is no better German, Italian or French than anyone else.
SPIEGEL: How did monarchs manage to resolve this contradiction?
Müller: They embraced nationalism and took their lead. When, after the so-called Rhine crisis, a border conflict with France in the 1840s, a national storm broke loose, the German princes rushed to express their enthusiasm. They overwhelmed Nikolaus Becker, composer of the song "They should not have him, the free German Rhine," with honors and gifts. Because they feared to be perceived as heads of small states and therefore as opponents of a powerful German patriotism. So they gave themselves as glowing representatives of this idea ...
SPIEGEL: ... and as a representative of the nation.
Müller: Exactly. The respective monarch claimed to represent the interests of the country particularly well, because he embodies its highest virtues. Loyalty to the royal family is therefore patriotic. By this logic, it was hardly possible to be critical of the monarchy without being suspected of being a true patriot. This trick succeeded most rulers very well.
SPIEGEL: Many emphasized at the same time their role as supreme army commander.
Müller: From the point of view of the 19th century an almost self-evident justification for the prominent position of the ruler, who had already commanded the troops as a general in antiquity. Thus, kings or emperors staged publicity as commanders, appeared in uniform and spread the image of the able-bodied ruler who protects his nation. Ironically, however, wars had become so complicated at that time that the monarchs were in fact unable to lead their army. This was done by specialized military personnel.
SPIEGEL: The monarchs were just doing that?
Müller: Yes, it was a big staging. And quite bizarre: The kings usually had no idea of the complexities of a modern army, but had to figure out how indispensable they were in that position. The military showcases got something operetta. The best example is the Hohenzollern Kaiser Wilhelm II, who celebrated the military in an almost grotesque manner, while his generals considered him to be ridiculous and incompetent.
SPIEGEL: Why was the people fooled?
Müller: Military spectacles made people's everyday lives colorful. All the parades and memorial days were part of their lives. And because the 19th century was a mostly peaceful time, marching under arms and all of Chingderassa did not seem as alarming to contemporaries as it seems to us today. The historian Jakob Vogel has coined the apt term "Folkoloremilitarismus".
SPIEGEL: Already during this time, many kings gave insights into their private lives, for example, by being photographed with their families. What drove her to do that?
Müller: There was nothing left for them. The so-called royal obligation to show it was long: Monarchs had to present to the people on certain occasions, or at least their court. But now the public changed. More and more media reported, more people were allowed to vote and were thus interested in politics.
SPIEGEL: So monarchs had to compete for the affection of the people?
Müller: That's why the monarchs, at least outwardly, made the bourgeois catalog of virtues their own - according to the motto: We are just like you, only better. Now the ideal of bourgeois marriage, founded on love and loyalty, entered into its public presentation. The spectators should be amused by how beautiful and perfect the local happiness was at court. What was really real about that, of course, is another question.
SPIEGEL: That's reminiscent of some royals these days.
Price query time:
10.12.2019, 07:38 clock
No guarantee
DISPLAY
Müller, Frank Lorenz
The heirs to the throne: power and future of the monarchy in the 19th century - with numerous illustrations
Publishing company:
Settler publishing house
Pages:
464
Price:
28,00 €
Buy from Amazon Buy from Thalia
Product information is purely editorial and independent. The so-called affiliate links above, we usually receive a commission from the dealer when buying. More information here.
Müller: The mechanisms of this royal spectacle are exactly the same today. But they were invented in the 19th century and have worked surprisingly well. The "long 19th century" begins with the French Revolution, but in 1914 Europe is completely monarchic except for France, Switzerland, Portugal, and perhaps even small San Marino. Not a single state that re-established itself during this period, mostly by secession, began its independence as a republic.
SPIEGEL: Even after the First World War, the monarchy survived in some countries. Also all a question of staging?
Müller: The monarchies of the victorious powers developed a completely new task for themselves: the politics of remembrance. This was especially pronounced in Britain and Belgium, where the monarchs henceforth led the nation in mourning for the fallen heroes. The "Remembrance Day" on November 11 became a national holiday in the UK, until today the royal family plays a central role. So the war experience could turn one way or the other for the monarchy, depending on how it dealt with it. In the case of the German Emperor and his Crown Prince, one can only beat one's hands over one's head - there was little to save.
