Royal Children

Did all the Royal Children deserve to be killed, despite they have nothing to do with father tyranny?

It happened both in French Revolution and Russian Revolution.

Forgot to remove shitposting flag

So i asked this the last time a regicide thread came up and never got an answer:
How come they regicided the tsar but didnt regicide stalin?

Deserve to be killed? Probably not. Given the circumstances of the respective revolutions though, it was necessity.

In the in the wake of the French Revolution's collapse and downfall of Napoleon, the other rulers of Europe were quick to install another relative of the old King on the throne, but the eradication of large swathes of the old nobility meant that stepping back into feudalism was increasingly less of an option for the new government.

In the case of the Russian Revolution, the royal family were not intended to be killed as they were; it was done due to advancing enemy forces near the location where the family was held. Had the Whites gotten ahold of the Tsar or any of his children, their legitimacy as an opposition force internationally and domestically would have been greatly bolstered. The Whites under such circumstances probably still wouldn't have won, but the threat of having living royals in exile as the "legitimate alternative" to the Soviets would have been worse for the revolutionary project than the royals simply dying.

yep. in feudalism titles are attached to people. the kids are more legitimate title holders for the for the counter revolutionaries to put on the throne. they are also rallying points for the counter revolutionaries.


stalin wasn't a king, dipshit.

It was a small price to pay for being sure that none of them would ascend to throne.

Thankfully, Trumps spawn are nearly all adults, so we won't have this kind of dilemma when we chop their heads off.

except for barron but he's our inside man

...

...

What, by some faggy meme definiton that doesnt matter at all?

By what definition was Stalin a king? And if he was why didn't his first born take his place after his death?

Dictator =/= king

He ruled with absolute personal authority. He was the sovereign. Kingship does not require a hereditary succession, many monarchies have been elective.

You got memed on by modernity if you think theres any difference between a "dictator" and a king

Elective monarchies were also hereditary. You had to be a member of the family to be elected. I'm sorry Holla Forums memery rotted your brain to retardation, but please stop shitting up the board.

Sure you had to be a "noble" ie: part of the ruling class. Was the soviet union not ruled by a distinct class?

You know im used to hearing bullshit propaganda about how anyone in the US no matter how low could rise to the station of the president. Are you saying this was actually the case in the soviet union?

No you didn't, in fact they often deliberately passed up relatives of the old king to damage the centralization of royal power.

But then the title will just pass to brothers, cousins and other distant relatives

the weaker claim of a distant relative weakens domestic counter-revolutionary forces because they don't have the undisputed true heir to rally behind. they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people who care about that sort of thing. hell if the revolutionaries are lucky that may force a succession dispute among the counter-revolutionaries.

Yeah but for France at least they just moved on down the family tree and put another Bourbon back on the throne. So was it really worth it in the end to torture and kill Louis' son?

While I do oppose killing innocents like this:

Removing all heirs is a blow against any royalist resurgence. An heir can be used to rally behind to "restore their rightful place" by playing on old nationalist and royalist feelings.

Granted, this is much less of a problem in modern western states than it used to be, but it needs to be kept in mind. The total destruction of the royalty is a devastating blow to the morale of reactionary forces.

See I'm with Kropotkin on this:


He was talking about the French Revolution, but the same principle applies. If the Revolution is carried through to the end, no matter how many pretenders the reactionaries have, it won't matter.

Look at what China did with Puyi. It worked fine, Puyi eventually went back into the society as a minor political celebrity and never was a serious rallying point against the state. So, no, they didn't deserve to be killed, China in a rare instance, is a good example of a decent way to handle the situation.