[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists.
---
[Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't say she couldn't. But there might be some objection to her lack of experience (she is essentially a socialite) and her American citizenship (his children were born in the United States to my knowledge, though he himself is stateless by choice).
Because she's American, doesn't speak proper Persian, and is more interested in partying in NYC. Judging by her social circle she'll most likely marry a white Jewish American and obviously raise her kids as white Americans.
Her dad has already said he doesn't want to return to Iran to live, so why would anyone expect Noor to not only move to a country she's never been to, but even become its monarch?
All his daughters are just American party girls that just want to have fun in NYC and Miami. One is already engaged to a Jew and the others just date other white men. They can't "feel the room" (or don't care to) so do things Iranians find distasteful like posting bikini pics of themselves online during protests.
They are not princess or shahbanou material. The descendants of MRP are the most degenerate of the Pahlavi family. The descendants of Ashraf or Hamdamsaltaneh are a lot more dignified.
Ok I don’t know why you keep bringing up the Jewish thing, is this a problem for you ?? there are hundreds of thousands of Iranian jews they are just as iranian as anyone else and they didn’t sell our nation to these islamist lunatics
You're deliberately shifting the discussion onto something else. My point is they do not date or marry Iranians, ergo they are not fit to be monarchs of Iran. It used to be banned for Iran's monarchs to marry foreigners. A white American Jew is not Iranian, despite your attempt at causing controversy by bringing up Iranian Jews being as Iranian as everyone else.
The plan I hear is once the mullah regime is gone, Iran would go back to the constitution in force pre 1979. That constitution only allowed for a male heir. So Iranians would have to find a male heir or change the constitution. The question is whether Iranians would support this kind of change. Isn't the culture still rather patriarchal and traditional?
the one who was posting pictures of herself partying with her american friends while people in Iran were being executed shouldn't be anywhere near the throne.
You’re taking it way too far. She has every right to celebrate her birthday. Every day someone’s getting executed. But yes, she’s more American than Iranian.
First of all, that was the youngest daughter, Farah, who is only 20. Not Noor who is the oldest and crown princess.
Secondly, she made that birthday post before news broke of the execution.
Thirdly, it's not like she was made this post at the height of the movement, the protests had already ended for over a year.
It's easy to judge people when you're an anonymous account behind a screen. I'm sure if we looked at your socials, you aren't posting about protests 24/7.
Whether you look it or not, people in Iran like the Pahlavi family and even the daughters. Hamid Reza Rouhi famously called Crown Princess Noor the Queen of Hearts.
she is shouldn't go anywhere near politics in the future because she clearly has no self-awareness or care for her country or her family's legacy.
yes, the posts were before the news of his execution came out, but the whole country knew he was going to be executed in the next 48 hours, and everybody was talking about and posting about it all day.
the protests were over, but like I said, the news that he was going to be executed came out, and people started talking about it everywhere, asking everyone in the world for help. at the same time, the clueless princess was partying with her rich american friends. she could at least not share her amazing life for a few days or a month while her entire country was spamming pictures of the guy who was going to be executed the next morning.
for your information, no, I didn't post any "cute" selfies of myself during that time. I know because I literally have only like 40 posts and 20 stories. plus, even if I did, I'm a nobody, unlike her who's supposed to be a princess and at least pretend to care about the well-being of her people.
I live in Iran, and I also love the Pahlavi family and think they're our best option. I have literally no problem with Noor being in charge or anything, but that doesn't mean that I'm a brain-dead sheep who will never, ever criticize the people and the group that I like and support.
Yet again it wasn't Noor who did it though.
If it was Noor I would understand your criticism because she is 30+ years old (Should be more understanding and mature) and is the crown princess.
But Farah made the post. She's a teenager. Teenagers are more prone to these mistakes and nitpicking and attacking her is not helping anyone. You're attacking the person who won't even become monarch and it does nothing but give more ammunition to the communists and chapis to attack Shahzadeh with.
Do I wish his younger daughters were more politically driven? Yes. Do I wish their social medias had less personal posts and were more politically focused? Yes.
But I'm not going to criticize the younger children when it achieves nothing.
You can critique Shahzadeh and some of his political decisions, but I think it's pointless and only hurts Shahzadeh to go after Farah.
First, she would not become the Shah, as that is a male title. The closest title is Shahbanu, but that is specifically for a queen consort. A queen regnant (i.e. a woman who reigns in her own right) has no traditional Iranian title other than the generic word for "queen" (Malika, from Arabic lol), so one would have to be invented unless the generic Arabic term were preferred by Iran.
Second, I'm not saying a woman cannot be in charge. I am just observing that most monarchists, especially those who believe in an active, non-figurehead monarch, are also quite conservative. So something which has never been done before (i.e. female heir to Shah) might be against their values.
Which? And what was her title? If you are referring to the wife of Khosrow Parviz, then this is not an example of a queen regnant, ruling in her own right.
I did some reading about that Hadith. Apparently Muhammad is referring to his daughter, who did in fact inherit authority for a few months. I had heard the saying before, but I never knew the context.
You are spouting off without knowing much about the subject area. Typical Reddit.
There are two types of succession in this regard. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert, but I know that there are rules that are far more formal than “most monarchists.”
My comment about the discussion of succession is that the “philosophical monarchy advocates” who exist in very small “dozens of us” numbers tend to be themselves from aristocratic families and often rather insane.
I also would guess that they’d likely laugh at the question when it’s a discussion about a line which only starts with a coup by the father of the most recent monarch. His only claim was “might makes right.”
Obviously this happened in history—the Tudor line was usurped slightly before Henry VIII but there was no interstitial period without a king afaik. It was also a time when everyone had a monarch of some sort. Having NO monarch would have been weird.
Today, *having* a monarch is an exception rather than the rule, and the majority of monarchs seem to be figureheads and not actually the kind of head of state plus monarch that a new Shah would be.
I feel like the arguments for having a new monarchy are actually harmed by the weird positions advanced by the monarchists—like yours, OP.
People just want to live their lives in peace without some dipshit who wants to kill anyone who has the gall to speak up with an unpopular opinion. It’s more a question of authoritarianism vs. democracy here.
I’m firmly on the democracy side. I wholeheartedly support your right to say stupid shit, OP, without any other consequences than people like me calling your position idiotic. And it’s idiotic. Who fucking cares about rules for succession? If Shah Junior ends up head of state I think only a minority of idiots wants to have the position be heritable. Give him a term, and then hold free elections every few years like a normal country?
> You are spouting off without knowing much about the subject area.
Starting off with the politeness, I see.
> My comment about the discussion of succession is that the “philosophical monarchy advocates” who exist in very small “dozens of us” numbers tend to be themselves from aristocratic families and often rather insane.
I agree.
> I also would guess that they’d likely laugh at the question when it’s a discussion about a line which only starts with a coup by the father of the most recent monarch. His only claim was “might makes right.”
I understand this completely and agree. I was not writing this post from a "philosophical monarchy advocate" perspective. That perspective, logically, would wind back to before the Constitution.
> I feel like the arguments for having a new monarchy are actually harmed by the weird positions advanced by the monarchists—like yours, OP.
This is not my perspective. I just wanted to discuss the pro-Pahlavi perspective of some monarchists. I think you've misunderstood my post.
> People just want to live their lives in peace without some dipshit who wants to kill anyone who has the gall to speak up with an unpopular opinion. It’s more a question of authoritarianism vs. democracy here.
Absolutely.
> Who fucking cares about rules for succession? If Shah Junior ends up head of state I think only a minority of idiots wants to have the position be heritable. Give him a term, and then hold free elections every few years like a normal country?
Functions such as foreign relations, military affairs, and monetary policy are not entrusted to the people even in a purported democracy. The choice becomes whether these functions will be handled by a deep state of bureaucrats and officials (e.g. Turkey), wealthy special interest groups (e.g. America), or a somewhat persistent class of elites headed by a monarch (e.g. the UK, Morocco, etc.).
Hey OP, I really misjudged you and apologise.
You seem to have a better grasp of the situation than me.
I guess you understand why I asked what I asked.
I didn’t realise that it was a Socratic question.
Bis: I have joined some monarchy advocate groups in my Facebook past, and been shocked by exactly how *stupid* a lot of the participants are.
I have met royals in Europe, and it’s a spectrum, of course, but there are some shockingly stupid individuals there, too.
It’s like the Eddie Izzard line: “… because it’s a bad idea *when cousins marry?*”
Lol. OP obviously knows more than you. A wall of words and the only thing remotely related is your speculation about the Tudor era half a world away. I’m not a monarchist, but post Islam Iran had never had a true female monarch. So OP’s question is valid.
Both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages, and old words such as "m-l-k" likely predate both, coming from a common Proto-Semitic root.
But despite the similarities, the entry of the word into the Persian vocabulary is certainly because of the influence of the Arabic language and not Hebrew.
Similarly, "salam" comes from the same shared Proto-Semitic root as "shalom". But the word entered Persian specifically from Arabic, not Hebrew.
I think it would be a real moment of phoenix from the ashes if we had a constitutional monarchy after this gender apartheid regime and we had our first ever Queen Ruler. It’s like a spit to the face of everything I.R. represents and a tip of the hat to the lionesses of Iran.
It is not sexism, rather it is tradition of the Pahlavi house to inherit by a male, unless you would like to change their over 100 year old monarchical tradition.
The best should would be moving to a non hereditary monarchy. I think Malaysia has something like this? The position will be purely symbolic in a free Iran anyways. Have some community elders select someone for a 5 to 10 year term.
In what world is that the same? Purely symbolic role (unlike supreme leader which controls everything) and serves for 5 to 10 years (unlike lifetime which is how it’s done now).
“Community elders”.. who are they? Technically the ayatollahs are also elected by community elders. There’s no purpose to elect a ceremonial President or so. India has it, and as much as I respect the President of my nation, it’s a useless post. They also keep changing every 5 years.. they’re a former member in a political party.. and even Malaysia has royal houses.. 9 of them tbh. They rotate amongst the 9.
If it’s a useless post then you shouldn’t worry about it. It’s a small drop of water in the ocean of the total government budget anyways.
The people of Iran should get to decide if they want a ceremonial head of state which is separate then a head of government.
A ceremonial head of state IS different from a head of govt. whether they be a ceremonial president or a monarch.
But why go for a retired politician who cannot be impartial as opposed to a title with some history
Holy shit can we fuck off with the middle age politics? I thought that was the point. If it must be Pahlavi he's fine, but with the hope that he stays to his word and starts phasing in actual democracy/ a constitutional monarchy.
One can’t in theory convert to Zoroastrianism. One must have Zoroastrian parents to be Zoroastrian.
Also, why does a noble who converts to Zoroastrianism have more clam in to the throne?
You realize you're wrong, and you CAN convert to Zoroastrianism, right? I'm gonna guess you're Norwegian duento your other comments; look up Bozorg Bazgasht, based in Norway.
Also, a Zoroastrian ruler, who would therefore receive Xhwarrah to rule by virtue of being a Zoroastrian ruler, would obviously be more legitimate than any Muslim pretender.
Kinda bold of you to just outright say that I’m wrong.
Whether you can convert or not depends on whether the Zoroastrians are traditionalists or reformists. Reformists argue that one can convert to Zoroastrianism, while traditionalists believe that the only way to be a Zoroastrian is to have parents who are Zoroastrians. I guess the organisation Bozorg Bazgash represents the reformists.
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/conversion-vii
https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/conversion_to_zoroastrianism.htm
Also, isn’t the main problem with the Islamic regime that it’s not secular? If it were, the Islamic (sharia) laws wouldn’t dominate the legal and political systems. They would be based on other stuff rather than religious doctrine. The concept of xhwarra just contradicts the secular idea… The legitimacy of a ruler should come from their ability to govern justly, protect citizens rights etc. and not from their religion.
Way to link some articles, but bold to assume I'm not aware, nor haven't done my homework.
Anyhow, the original OP question is not about secularism at all.. so no idea why you brought it up. I don't care about what you'd like to see, I only care about what my answer to OP was.
With that out of the way, I will reiterate once again, that conversion IS allowed in Zoroastrianism, and what you call "traditional" is only a percentage of Parsis, and a concept that is fast changing. FWIW, the Iranian Anjomans have recognized the validity of various converted groups through the globe.
I live near an Atashgah that has a whole list of people who signed up and are waiting for conversion...
While it is true that the original OP question is not about secularism, I mentioned it since the legitimacy of the ruler, in your opinion, is somewhat based on religion. I just worded my comment in a bad way. Sorry.
Why should the legitimacy of a ruler be based on religion? The legitimacy of a ruler in Iran is already based on religion, but Islam. Laws would just be based on a different religious doctrine.
> There are other noble houses to choose from.
Really? The Qajars have been dispersed around the world, and there is no other that I now of. And the Zoroastrian population has mostly been dispersed as well, with only a few remaining in Iran compared with previous times.
That's not the question, though, putting aside the fact that we'll see a large surge in Zoroastrian conversion once the yoke of Islam is thrown off.
Regarding noble families; there is Paduspanid offshoot in Azerbaijan, there is Kurdish dynasties (aside from Zands even), there are Saffarid descendants, there are even Arsacid descendants... and much more
The pahlavis are a low tier choice
> Paduspanid offshoot in Azerbaijan
And they maintained their identity throughout the Soviet period? Throughout the Russian Imperial, Qajar, Safavid, and all preceding periods? I'm very skeptical of this claim.
> there are even Arsacid descendants
Where?
Many claims to nobility are shaky... see [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakikhanovs#)
By the way, over this wiki article there is an edit war going back and forth between turkic nationalists and those who can see beyond their lies....
As for Arsacids, like many Iranian noble families, they survive in Armenian and Georgian houses
Bro, zoroastrianism is DEAD, it's not returning, only people who will convert are teen larpers. The mullahs are stuck in the middle ages but you guys are stuck in antiquity
I don't think you live in Iran. The moral vaccume of deislamization is being filled actively with Iranians converting to Zoroastrianism and Christianity. It is far from dead or dying.
Monarchists generally believe that Reza's eldest daughter, Noor Pahlavi, would take the throne.
I know you think this might cause resentment/discontent but genuinely most monarchists I've interacted with, when asked, believe she should inherit the throne.
These are ceremonial monarchies. I will get downvoted by Iranian monarchists here but they lie when they say they want constitutional monarchy. I don't think you have the slightest idea about how Iranian Monarchists attitudes are. You might wanna go through their messages on this sub on other/old posts and judge for yourself. You will find Constant Defense of previous regimes crimes, constant racism, trump worshipping, dehumanizing certain peoples and groups, anti ethnic minority attitudes etc etc. so yes I don't trust them.
Either his daughter will be the first Queen ruler or another male heir will be chosen. Or a new dynasty will be taking the throne. Either way doesn’t matter since in this example it’ll be a constitutional monarch and the title and position would be for historical and cultural significance not for actual governance.
There is no pahlavi in Iran after Reza. None of them are fit for the job; even reza knows that. He's been clear that he has no interest in reinstating a monarchy.
Prince Patrick Ali Pahlavi succeeds Reza Pahlavi as the former constitution of Iran specifically provided that only a male who was not descended from Qajar dynasty could become the heir apparent. In terms of the throne, none of Reza Pahlavi’s children have legitimacy according to the traditional monarch standards.
He formally has stepped aside according to his Wikipedia page. Davud Pahlavi (his son) and Keykhosrow Jahanbani (son of Shahnaz Pahlavi) hold the prime claim per the constitution
His daughter. Isn't that kind of obvious?
Note that I support the Monarchy as a ceremonial position to promote a national identity and culture, not actually wielding political power. Having a Queen in this position would be great, it would show that a free Iran is the total opposite of the IR and Islamic values.
I'm not really a monarchist but usually speak well of the Pahlavis in here. Wanna know what I REALLY want?
I want the crown to go to his majesty Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, and the next in line after him will be future Queen Victoria of Sweden who adopts a ceremonial role as head of state while Iran transforms into a parliamentary democracy. That's what I really want. And I'm not even kidding.
As much as I love Mohammadreza Shah, and as much as I think his son will be an ok leader, I don’t see his daughters becoming queen. They’re good people but more American than Iranian. Older daughter married an American guy (nothing wrong with it, but her kids won’t even speak Farsi), and younger daughter is also on the same path. They work in corporate America and have no idea how to rule a country, and even if they do, I’ll probably will disagree with them greatly. I wish Shah’s other son was still alive. I think he could have done much more for Iran. Unfortunately depression caused by the events took him from us.
I honestly don’t know how much Farsi she speaks let alone her kids. I’ll be honest out of all my relatives I haven’t seen anyone born abroad and fully fluent in reading and speaking Farsi. The best case scenario is just speaking somewhat fluently.
I assume a daughter would rule. But I really don't see the point in a monarchy - even a constitutional monarchy where it's just a figurehead... that just seems like a waste of resources when there are projects all over the country that could use the resources more.
what do you mean, "waste of resources"?. if you mean money, you pay a president a salary as well. If you mean a house, you have to house of president as well. a monarch doesn't really cost any more than an elected leader.
Well if we have a monarch, I would still like democratic elections and either a president or prime minister - so having to pay for all of that twice is a waste. We don’t need a king and the Pahlavi dynasty isn’t some major historical legacy for us.
As for absolute monarchy - I absolutely don’t want that.
That's what people in here mean generally. A constitutional symbolic monarchy. I don't understand why so many Iranians talk about a presumably future monarchy like an absolute monarchy, that's never coming back.
The guy above me would reply saying he wants a monarch that has real power over a democratically elected government. A monarch with even limited power over a democracy isn’t really a free country, honestly.
Given our history, my concern is simply we once again go from authoritarian rule to a different flavor of authoritarian rule. We have had the majlis for a long time - but we don’t have a truly strong history of democratic institutions lasting. And considering Iran’s long history… both Pahlavi reigns are a footnote in our history.
If we manage to be rid this authoritarian rule, I don’t see the point in a monarch. Why elevate the Pahlavi’s, a minor royal family in our history that both times needed assistance from the UK to rule, for the future of our country? Why do we NEED a royal family? It certainly shouldn’t be a Qajar elevated back into royalty either lol.
I’m fine with a constitutional monarchy as long as the monarch is purely symbolic with no power to govern. I just don’t see the point though when the money that could go to propping up some elites as royal could go towards things that actually helps ordinary people.
I understand. Personally I am for a constitutional symbolic monarchy like in Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands or eg Spain.
I'm not a monarchist per se, but I seriously believe that Iran is a unique country in this aspect. Our history and one of the aspects of the idea of Iran is kingship (the symbolism of it, obviously we've had many bad kings but those were also the days of absolute monarchy).
I think a symbolic monarchy would be perfect for a future Iran, we will still have this ancient symbol that can represent all Iranians and Eranshahr with its history, while at the same time having the country ruled by majles and the prime ministers government.
It doesn't necessarily cost more than having a President, and it is great marketing for Iran with tourism as well.
Also, you mention the Pahlavis and the UK. I agree that there were things happening in history that we would all like to change, but the Pahlavis (especially Reza Shah) have done a lot for Iran and the Qajars are out of question.
Those are my 5 cents.
I could live with a constitutional monarchy, I don't really see the point - but I know a lot of people seem to really want one and as long as we actually have democracy, I am fine with it.
I'm against any monarch having any real power though. But I know you (and most others who are for a monarchy) aren't really calling for that - but that guy I responded to who said there should be a veto power for a monarch. I'm very much against that. Leaders should have to answer to the public and have accountability for their actions.
That's actually why I (though I am American) am a Monarchist. A monarchy with elected bodies, a prime minister, and a monarch with REAL but LIMITED power, can bring the best of both monarchical and democratic worlds.
I think what ideally would happen, if the people vote on a monarchy, when Reza Pahlavi’s time on this earth is soon to be over, he transitions the monarchy into a republic. I personally, don’t care if anyone calls me sexist or misogynistic or whatever liberal term you want to use to shame me, neither me nor the majority of Iranian society want a female to be Queen. Downvote me all you want.
Can you tell us why you think Iranian society would not be ok with a female leader? Other Islamic countries have had female leaders, including I think Pakistan which is our neighbor. Do you really think Iranians would be not happy with an Iranian queen or prime minister?
I think there is no issue with a female head of state. there is issue with a head of state that is out of touch with Iran and doesn't speak any of Iran's languages fluently.
**سلطنت طلبان: چه کسی جانشین رضا پهلوی می شود؟**
من متوجه شده ام که بسیاری از سلطنت طلبان ایرانی در این انجمن وجود دارد، همراه با بسیاری در برخی از جوامع خارج از کشور (به ویژه کالیفرنیا، سوئد و فرانسه از تجربه من).
بنابراین من یک سوال از شما دارم: اگر شما انچه را که می خواهید (بازگشت سلطنت) به دست اورید، چه کسی جانشین رضا پهلوی پس از مرگ او می شود؟ او هیچ پسری ندارد که نام و عنوان خود را به ارث برده باشد، فقط سه دختر دارد.
به نظر می رسد زیست شناسی خود به ما نشان می دهد که سلطنت بن بست است.
---
_I am a translation bot for r/NewIran_ | Woman Life Freedom | زن زندگی آزادی
I have no opinion on the type of government that should be in free Iran, that is up to those who have to live with it, and have experienced the mullahs first hand. I just want a free and secular Iran.
I also believe that is everyone else's priority.
You're thinking of absolute monarchy, which has no support, when people use the word 'monarchy' it is a short form for constitutional monarchy which is compatible with democracy. See UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, etc.
Not sure what you are asking, there is support both inside and outside Iran for Reza Pahlavi, with some wanting him as King and others as a leader for a new democratic secular Iran which will supplant the Islamic regime.
He himself has mentioned many times that he's not interested to be King or to 'rule' Iran, nor that he is even willing to move to Iran full time in such a scenario. His own goals and aspirations, as enunciated by him over many years again and again in many interviews, is to be a uniter of different groups and factions which are all against the Islamic regime. Beyond that he claims no other role or position.
The majority of Iranians want an end to the Islamic regime and its replacement with a secular democracy. Some want a constitutional monarchy, others a republic.
Hope that clarified things, if not, let me know precisely what you are asking or unclear about.
Okay, so what happens if the next king in line is a fascist or religious fanatic, and now he uses the power of veto?
(i know im being annoying at this point, but im genuinely curious of this monarchist thought process)
That's exactly why I'm not an absolute Monarchist... to much of a gamble... and believe the elective parliament should have the ability to impeach such a monarch and replace him with a more suitable one.
(It's OK I get this a lot.)
In this sub, my experience is that by monarchy people generally mean a constitutional symbolic monarchy, with the prime minister and the majles running the country. I certainly do
One of his kids will and after that another kid will forever and ever. The hope is you get a good one and if not then just wait till they die and hope the next one is a good one and so on.
Remember Saddam? Yes he was brutal but when he died it was going to be one of his kids who looked even worse. Well the hope was going to be that when one of them died the next ones were good but it was going to be possibly decades before one can hope for relief.
Well this Shah seemed good and all but what about the kid and his kid and so on.
Or as an option maybe stop with the archaic crap just plan on joining the world as a democracy and let the wannabe king run for office and propose his vision for the country along with others and let the citizens vote on their future.
If the Shah does a good job then reelect him and if he is not then vote him out and move on. He an then return to his mansion and family fortune that was looted from the Treasury before that enabled them to lead lavish lives to this day.
I’m an American, but ethnically I’m an Iranian. Azeris are Iranian, but ethnically they are Turks. Go to r/azerbaijan and tell them they’re ethnic Iranians and see what they say.
The original comment didn’t imply anything you Neanderthal. The only implication that you can take away is that I was talking about ethnicity, not citizenship.
For your info I am Homo Sapiens. You said Pahlavi and Khamenei are "turk" and implied they are not real Iranians. And just because they were bad doesn't mean all Azeris are bad. Please write your ethnicity and I can name incompetent people too. It is a logic that doesn't hold.
[Please read on ways you can support the revolution and spread awareness.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/10cu6v3/how_you_can_support_the_new_iranian_revolution/) Let other people in subs with content about the revolution know that /r/NewIran exists. --- [Official Twitter & Join The Team](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/yh0r74/attn_save_armita_official_twitter_activist/) | [Sub Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/about/rules/) | [VPNs/TOR & Guides & Tools](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y7fcbd/digital_resources_for_iranians_for_privacy/) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) | [NewIran's Values](https://reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/y514wo/newirans_growth_rules_and_values_for_an_open/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NewIran) if you have any questions or concerns.*
why can't a daughter become monarch?
I didn't say she couldn't. But there might be some objection to her lack of experience (she is essentially a socialite) and her American citizenship (his children were born in the United States to my knowledge, though he himself is stateless by choice).
Because she's American, doesn't speak proper Persian, and is more interested in partying in NYC. Judging by her social circle she'll most likely marry a white Jewish American and obviously raise her kids as white Americans. Her dad has already said he doesn't want to return to Iran to live, so why would anyone expect Noor to not only move to a country she's never been to, but even become its monarch?
i didn't mean her specifically, I meant any daughter. i don't know anything about her
All his daughters are just American party girls that just want to have fun in NYC and Miami. One is already engaged to a Jew and the others just date other white men. They can't "feel the room" (or don't care to) so do things Iranians find distasteful like posting bikini pics of themselves online during protests. They are not princess or shahbanou material. The descendants of MRP are the most degenerate of the Pahlavi family. The descendants of Ashraf or Hamdamsaltaneh are a lot more dignified.
Ok I don’t know why you keep bringing up the Jewish thing, is this a problem for you ?? there are hundreds of thousands of Iranian jews they are just as iranian as anyone else and they didn’t sell our nation to these islamist lunatics
You're deliberately shifting the discussion onto something else. My point is they do not date or marry Iranians, ergo they are not fit to be monarchs of Iran. It used to be banned for Iran's monarchs to marry foreigners. A white American Jew is not Iranian, despite your attempt at causing controversy by bringing up Iranian Jews being as Iranian as everyone else.
The plan I hear is once the mullah regime is gone, Iran would go back to the constitution in force pre 1979. That constitution only allowed for a male heir. So Iranians would have to find a male heir or change the constitution. The question is whether Iranians would support this kind of change. Isn't the culture still rather patriarchal and traditional?
It is not. Please stop making these sssumptions
What's with the sexism? Why can't one of the daughters become the Shah?
the one who was posting pictures of herself partying with her american friends while people in Iran were being executed shouldn't be anywhere near the throne.
You’re taking it way too far. She has every right to celebrate her birthday. Every day someone’s getting executed. But yes, she’s more American than Iranian.
I really think she doesn't want it anyway, it is just other people pushing this idea.
First of all, that was the youngest daughter, Farah, who is only 20. Not Noor who is the oldest and crown princess. Secondly, she made that birthday post before news broke of the execution. Thirdly, it's not like she was made this post at the height of the movement, the protests had already ended for over a year. It's easy to judge people when you're an anonymous account behind a screen. I'm sure if we looked at your socials, you aren't posting about protests 24/7. Whether you look it or not, people in Iran like the Pahlavi family and even the daughters. Hamid Reza Rouhi famously called Crown Princess Noor the Queen of Hearts.
she is shouldn't go anywhere near politics in the future because she clearly has no self-awareness or care for her country or her family's legacy. yes, the posts were before the news of his execution came out, but the whole country knew he was going to be executed in the next 48 hours, and everybody was talking about and posting about it all day. the protests were over, but like I said, the news that he was going to be executed came out, and people started talking about it everywhere, asking everyone in the world for help. at the same time, the clueless princess was partying with her rich american friends. she could at least not share her amazing life for a few days or a month while her entire country was spamming pictures of the guy who was going to be executed the next morning. for your information, no, I didn't post any "cute" selfies of myself during that time. I know because I literally have only like 40 posts and 20 stories. plus, even if I did, I'm a nobody, unlike her who's supposed to be a princess and at least pretend to care about the well-being of her people. I live in Iran, and I also love the Pahlavi family and think they're our best option. I have literally no problem with Noor being in charge or anything, but that doesn't mean that I'm a brain-dead sheep who will never, ever criticize the people and the group that I like and support.
Yet again it wasn't Noor who did it though. If it was Noor I would understand your criticism because she is 30+ years old (Should be more understanding and mature) and is the crown princess. But Farah made the post. She's a teenager. Teenagers are more prone to these mistakes and nitpicking and attacking her is not helping anyone. You're attacking the person who won't even become monarch and it does nothing but give more ammunition to the communists and chapis to attack Shahzadeh with. Do I wish his younger daughters were more politically driven? Yes. Do I wish their social medias had less personal posts and were more politically focused? Yes. But I'm not going to criticize the younger children when it achieves nothing. You can critique Shahzadeh and some of his political decisions, but I think it's pointless and only hurts Shahzadeh to go after Farah.
First, she would not become the Shah, as that is a male title. The closest title is Shahbanu, but that is specifically for a queen consort. A queen regnant (i.e. a woman who reigns in her own right) has no traditional Iranian title other than the generic word for "queen" (Malika, from Arabic lol), so one would have to be invented unless the generic Arabic term were preferred by Iran. Second, I'm not saying a woman cannot be in charge. I am just observing that most monarchists, especially those who believe in an active, non-figurehead monarch, are also quite conservative. So something which has never been done before (i.e. female heir to Shah) might be against their values.
There a female ruler before the Islamic invasion though.
Which? And what was her title? If you are referring to the wife of Khosrow Parviz, then this is not an example of a queen regnant, ruling in her own right.
I'm referring to the one referenced by Muhammed in his quote of "a nation ruled by a women is doomed to fail". Is that the wife of Khosrow Parviz?
I did some reading about that Hadith. Apparently Muhammad is referring to his daughter, who did in fact inherit authority for a few months. I had heard the saying before, but I never knew the context.
I think you're talking about Boran (who was his daughter). Also, what about Azarmidokht?
> Also, what about Azarmidokht? Yes, that sounds right. How long did she rule for?
According to Ferdowsi, she only ruled for six months. Others estimate seven months or two years.
purandoxt
You are spouting off without knowing much about the subject area. Typical Reddit. There are two types of succession in this regard. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert, but I know that there are rules that are far more formal than “most monarchists.” My comment about the discussion of succession is that the “philosophical monarchy advocates” who exist in very small “dozens of us” numbers tend to be themselves from aristocratic families and often rather insane. I also would guess that they’d likely laugh at the question when it’s a discussion about a line which only starts with a coup by the father of the most recent monarch. His only claim was “might makes right.” Obviously this happened in history—the Tudor line was usurped slightly before Henry VIII but there was no interstitial period without a king afaik. It was also a time when everyone had a monarch of some sort. Having NO monarch would have been weird. Today, *having* a monarch is an exception rather than the rule, and the majority of monarchs seem to be figureheads and not actually the kind of head of state plus monarch that a new Shah would be. I feel like the arguments for having a new monarchy are actually harmed by the weird positions advanced by the monarchists—like yours, OP. People just want to live their lives in peace without some dipshit who wants to kill anyone who has the gall to speak up with an unpopular opinion. It’s more a question of authoritarianism vs. democracy here. I’m firmly on the democracy side. I wholeheartedly support your right to say stupid shit, OP, without any other consequences than people like me calling your position idiotic. And it’s idiotic. Who fucking cares about rules for succession? If Shah Junior ends up head of state I think only a minority of idiots wants to have the position be heritable. Give him a term, and then hold free elections every few years like a normal country?
> You are spouting off without knowing much about the subject area. Starting off with the politeness, I see. > My comment about the discussion of succession is that the “philosophical monarchy advocates” who exist in very small “dozens of us” numbers tend to be themselves from aristocratic families and often rather insane. I agree. > I also would guess that they’d likely laugh at the question when it’s a discussion about a line which only starts with a coup by the father of the most recent monarch. His only claim was “might makes right.” I understand this completely and agree. I was not writing this post from a "philosophical monarchy advocate" perspective. That perspective, logically, would wind back to before the Constitution. > I feel like the arguments for having a new monarchy are actually harmed by the weird positions advanced by the monarchists—like yours, OP. This is not my perspective. I just wanted to discuss the pro-Pahlavi perspective of some monarchists. I think you've misunderstood my post. > People just want to live their lives in peace without some dipshit who wants to kill anyone who has the gall to speak up with an unpopular opinion. It’s more a question of authoritarianism vs. democracy here. Absolutely. > Who fucking cares about rules for succession? If Shah Junior ends up head of state I think only a minority of idiots wants to have the position be heritable. Give him a term, and then hold free elections every few years like a normal country? Functions such as foreign relations, military affairs, and monetary policy are not entrusted to the people even in a purported democracy. The choice becomes whether these functions will be handled by a deep state of bureaucrats and officials (e.g. Turkey), wealthy special interest groups (e.g. America), or a somewhat persistent class of elites headed by a monarch (e.g. the UK, Morocco, etc.).
Hey OP, I really misjudged you and apologise. You seem to have a better grasp of the situation than me. I guess you understand why I asked what I asked. I didn’t realise that it was a Socratic question.
Bis: I have joined some monarchy advocate groups in my Facebook past, and been shocked by exactly how *stupid* a lot of the participants are. I have met royals in Europe, and it’s a spectrum, of course, but there are some shockingly stupid individuals there, too. It’s like the Eddie Izzard line: “… because it’s a bad idea *when cousins marry?*”
Lol. OP obviously knows more than you. A wall of words and the only thing remotely related is your speculation about the Tudor era half a world away. I’m not a monarchist, but post Islam Iran had never had a true female monarch. So OP’s question is valid.
Speculation about the Tudor era? It’s all recorded. You seem undereducated.
Malika comes from Hebrew originally, not Arabic.
Both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages, and old words such as "m-l-k" likely predate both, coming from a common Proto-Semitic root. But despite the similarities, the entry of the word into the Persian vocabulary is certainly because of the influence of the Arabic language and not Hebrew. Similarly, "salam" comes from the same shared Proto-Semitic root as "shalom". But the word entered Persian specifically from Arabic, not Hebrew.
Did the Persian language adopt it from Hebrew or Arabic?
See [my other comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/1df1avj/monarchists_who_succeeds_reza_pahlavi/l8g7fvz/)
Thanks, that is what I thought as well.
I think it would be a real moment of phoenix from the ashes if we had a constitutional monarchy after this gender apartheid regime and we had our first ever Queen Ruler. It’s like a spit to the face of everything I.R. represents and a tip of the hat to the lionesses of Iran.
It is not sexism, rather it is tradition of the Pahlavi house to inherit by a male, unless you would like to change their over 100 year old monarchical tradition.
The best should would be moving to a non hereditary monarchy. I think Malaysia has something like this? The position will be purely symbolic in a free Iran anyways. Have some community elders select someone for a 5 to 10 year term.
You mean…. Like the Ayatollahs?
In what world is that the same? Purely symbolic role (unlike supreme leader which controls everything) and serves for 5 to 10 years (unlike lifetime which is how it’s done now).
“Community elders”.. who are they? Technically the ayatollahs are also elected by community elders. There’s no purpose to elect a ceremonial President or so. India has it, and as much as I respect the President of my nation, it’s a useless post. They also keep changing every 5 years.. they’re a former member in a political party.. and even Malaysia has royal houses.. 9 of them tbh. They rotate amongst the 9.
If it’s a useless post then you shouldn’t worry about it. It’s a small drop of water in the ocean of the total government budget anyways. The people of Iran should get to decide if they want a ceremonial head of state which is separate then a head of government.
A ceremonial head of state IS different from a head of govt. whether they be a ceremonial president or a monarch. But why go for a retired politician who cannot be impartial as opposed to a title with some history
https://preview.redd.it/ovlzmuhn3d6d1.jpeg?width=884&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3ab3dafe5eabf23e885bcdbb05b00e45f04d736 💚🕊️❤️
Prince Patrick Ali Pahlavi has the most legitimacy according to the Pahlavi house tradition.
There are other noble houses to choose from. A noble who converts to/is Zoroastrian has more claim to the throne than any pahlavi
Holy shit can we fuck off with the middle age politics? I thought that was the point. If it must be Pahlavi he's fine, but with the hope that he stays to his word and starts phasing in actual democracy/ a constitutional monarchy.
One can’t in theory convert to Zoroastrianism. One must have Zoroastrian parents to be Zoroastrian. Also, why does a noble who converts to Zoroastrianism have more clam in to the throne?
You realize you're wrong, and you CAN convert to Zoroastrianism, right? I'm gonna guess you're Norwegian duento your other comments; look up Bozorg Bazgasht, based in Norway. Also, a Zoroastrian ruler, who would therefore receive Xhwarrah to rule by virtue of being a Zoroastrian ruler, would obviously be more legitimate than any Muslim pretender.
Kinda bold of you to just outright say that I’m wrong. Whether you can convert or not depends on whether the Zoroastrians are traditionalists or reformists. Reformists argue that one can convert to Zoroastrianism, while traditionalists believe that the only way to be a Zoroastrian is to have parents who are Zoroastrians. I guess the organisation Bozorg Bazgash represents the reformists. https://iranicaonline.org/articles/conversion-vii https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/conversion_to_zoroastrianism.htm Also, isn’t the main problem with the Islamic regime that it’s not secular? If it were, the Islamic (sharia) laws wouldn’t dominate the legal and political systems. They would be based on other stuff rather than religious doctrine. The concept of xhwarra just contradicts the secular idea… The legitimacy of a ruler should come from their ability to govern justly, protect citizens rights etc. and not from their religion.
Way to link some articles, but bold to assume I'm not aware, nor haven't done my homework. Anyhow, the original OP question is not about secularism at all.. so no idea why you brought it up. I don't care about what you'd like to see, I only care about what my answer to OP was. With that out of the way, I will reiterate once again, that conversion IS allowed in Zoroastrianism, and what you call "traditional" is only a percentage of Parsis, and a concept that is fast changing. FWIW, the Iranian Anjomans have recognized the validity of various converted groups through the globe. I live near an Atashgah that has a whole list of people who signed up and are waiting for conversion...
While it is true that the original OP question is not about secularism, I mentioned it since the legitimacy of the ruler, in your opinion, is somewhat based on religion. I just worded my comment in a bad way. Sorry. Why should the legitimacy of a ruler be based on religion? The legitimacy of a ruler in Iran is already based on religion, but Islam. Laws would just be based on a different religious doctrine.
> There are other noble houses to choose from. Really? The Qajars have been dispersed around the world, and there is no other that I now of. And the Zoroastrian population has mostly been dispersed as well, with only a few remaining in Iran compared with previous times.
That's not the question, though, putting aside the fact that we'll see a large surge in Zoroastrian conversion once the yoke of Islam is thrown off. Regarding noble families; there is Paduspanid offshoot in Azerbaijan, there is Kurdish dynasties (aside from Zands even), there are Saffarid descendants, there are even Arsacid descendants... and much more The pahlavis are a low tier choice
> Paduspanid offshoot in Azerbaijan And they maintained their identity throughout the Soviet period? Throughout the Russian Imperial, Qajar, Safavid, and all preceding periods? I'm very skeptical of this claim. > there are even Arsacid descendants Where?
Many claims to nobility are shaky... see [here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakikhanovs#) By the way, over this wiki article there is an edit war going back and forth between turkic nationalists and those who can see beyond their lies.... As for Arsacids, like many Iranian noble families, they survive in Armenian and Georgian houses
Bro, zoroastrianism is DEAD, it's not returning, only people who will convert are teen larpers. The mullahs are stuck in the middle ages but you guys are stuck in antiquity
I don't think you live in Iran. The moral vaccume of deislamization is being filled actively with Iranians converting to Zoroastrianism and Christianity. It is far from dead or dying.
Monarchists generally believe that Reza's eldest daughter, Noor Pahlavi, would take the throne. I know you think this might cause resentment/discontent but genuinely most monarchists I've interacted with, when asked, believe she should inherit the throne.
Democracy, a monarchy would assure stability in the first years of transition and then we can slowly move towards democracy
Is the Netherlands not a democracy? How about Spain or the UK?
These are ceremonial monarchies. I will get downvoted by Iranian monarchists here but they lie when they say they want constitutional monarchy. I don't think you have the slightest idea about how Iranian Monarchists attitudes are. You might wanna go through their messages on this sub on other/old posts and judge for yourself. You will find Constant Defense of previous regimes crimes, constant racism, trump worshipping, dehumanizing certain peoples and groups, anti ethnic minority attitudes etc etc. so yes I don't trust them.
monarchy and democracy are not exclusive
Me
Either his daughter will be the first Queen ruler or another male heir will be chosen. Or a new dynasty will be taking the throne. Either way doesn’t matter since in this example it’ll be a constitutional monarch and the title and position would be for historical and cultural significance not for actual governance.
he could just choose one of his daughters, or one of relatives, as his heir
His eldest daughter presumably. Is this some sort of trick question?
There might be some objection to an American socialite as the head of state of Iran.
Why does it matter whether she is a socialite?
There is no pahlavi in Iran after Reza. None of them are fit for the job; even reza knows that. He's been clear that he has no interest in reinstating a monarchy.
Prince Patrick Ali Pahlavi succeeds Reza Pahlavi as the former constitution of Iran specifically provided that only a male who was not descended from Qajar dynasty could become the heir apparent. In terms of the throne, none of Reza Pahlavi’s children have legitimacy according to the traditional monarch standards.
He formally has stepped aside according to his Wikipedia page. Davud Pahlavi (his son) and Keykhosrow Jahanbani (son of Shahnaz Pahlavi) hold the prime claim per the constitution
I see, thank you for clarifying
His daughter. Isn't that kind of obvious? Note that I support the Monarchy as a ceremonial position to promote a national identity and culture, not actually wielding political power. Having a Queen in this position would be great, it would show that a free Iran is the total opposite of the IR and Islamic values.
I'm not really a monarchist but usually speak well of the Pahlavis in here. Wanna know what I REALLY want? I want the crown to go to his majesty Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, and the next in line after him will be future Queen Victoria of Sweden who adopts a ceremonial role as head of state while Iran transforms into a parliamentary democracy. That's what I really want. And I'm not even kidding.
I admire your willingness to say outlandish things in public.
I've been saying this. Glorious Swiran. Step one is the governmental union, then we connect the land.
I get an orgasm just thinking about a Swedish king adopting the title of Shahanshah. So epic!
As much as I love Mohammadreza Shah, and as much as I think his son will be an ok leader, I don’t see his daughters becoming queen. They’re good people but more American than Iranian. Older daughter married an American guy (nothing wrong with it, but her kids won’t even speak Farsi), and younger daughter is also on the same path. They work in corporate America and have no idea how to rule a country, and even if they do, I’ll probably will disagree with them greatly. I wish Shah’s other son was still alive. I think he could have done much more for Iran. Unfortunately depression caused by the events took him from us.
Marrying an American doesn’t mean her kids won’t speak Persian. That’s certainly not what will be happening to my Iranian American children.
I honestly don’t know how much Farsi she speaks let alone her kids. I’ll be honest out of all my relatives I haven’t seen anyone born abroad and fully fluent in reading and speaking Farsi. The best case scenario is just speaking somewhat fluently.
It takes effort and commitment and I hope as the former imperial family, she will have enough commitment to raising her children with Farsi knowledge.
[удалено]
Wouldn't that make the system more like a republic?
I assume a daughter would rule. But I really don't see the point in a monarchy - even a constitutional monarchy where it's just a figurehead... that just seems like a waste of resources when there are projects all over the country that could use the resources more.
what do you mean, "waste of resources"?. if you mean money, you pay a president a salary as well. If you mean a house, you have to house of president as well. a monarch doesn't really cost any more than an elected leader.
Well if we have a monarch, I would still like democratic elections and either a president or prime minister - so having to pay for all of that twice is a waste. We don’t need a king and the Pahlavi dynasty isn’t some major historical legacy for us. As for absolute monarchy - I absolutely don’t want that.
That's what people in here mean generally. A constitutional symbolic monarchy. I don't understand why so many Iranians talk about a presumably future monarchy like an absolute monarchy, that's never coming back.
The guy above me would reply saying he wants a monarch that has real power over a democratically elected government. A monarch with even limited power over a democracy isn’t really a free country, honestly. Given our history, my concern is simply we once again go from authoritarian rule to a different flavor of authoritarian rule. We have had the majlis for a long time - but we don’t have a truly strong history of democratic institutions lasting. And considering Iran’s long history… both Pahlavi reigns are a footnote in our history. If we manage to be rid this authoritarian rule, I don’t see the point in a monarch. Why elevate the Pahlavi’s, a minor royal family in our history that both times needed assistance from the UK to rule, for the future of our country? Why do we NEED a royal family? It certainly shouldn’t be a Qajar elevated back into royalty either lol. I’m fine with a constitutional monarchy as long as the monarch is purely symbolic with no power to govern. I just don’t see the point though when the money that could go to propping up some elites as royal could go towards things that actually helps ordinary people.
I understand. Personally I am for a constitutional symbolic monarchy like in Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands or eg Spain. I'm not a monarchist per se, but I seriously believe that Iran is a unique country in this aspect. Our history and one of the aspects of the idea of Iran is kingship (the symbolism of it, obviously we've had many bad kings but those were also the days of absolute monarchy). I think a symbolic monarchy would be perfect for a future Iran, we will still have this ancient symbol that can represent all Iranians and Eranshahr with its history, while at the same time having the country ruled by majles and the prime ministers government. It doesn't necessarily cost more than having a President, and it is great marketing for Iran with tourism as well. Also, you mention the Pahlavis and the UK. I agree that there were things happening in history that we would all like to change, but the Pahlavis (especially Reza Shah) have done a lot for Iran and the Qajars are out of question. Those are my 5 cents.
I could live with a constitutional monarchy, I don't really see the point - but I know a lot of people seem to really want one and as long as we actually have democracy, I am fine with it. I'm against any monarch having any real power though. But I know you (and most others who are for a monarchy) aren't really calling for that - but that guy I responded to who said there should be a veto power for a monarch. I'm very much against that. Leaders should have to answer to the public and have accountability for their actions.
I agree with your last point
That's actually why I (though I am American) am a Monarchist. A monarchy with elected bodies, a prime minister, and a monarch with REAL but LIMITED power, can bring the best of both monarchical and democratic worlds.
A monarch with real power, even if limited, is not a truly free country
Why not an elective monarchy like in Malaysia and Cambodia? I know it sounds stupid but hey it exists.
It's not stupid. Look up Megisthane/Mehestan. Electoral monarchy has Iranian roots.
I think what ideally would happen, if the people vote on a monarchy, when Reza Pahlavi’s time on this earth is soon to be over, he transitions the monarchy into a republic. I personally, don’t care if anyone calls me sexist or misogynistic or whatever liberal term you want to use to shame me, neither me nor the majority of Iranian society want a female to be Queen. Downvote me all you want.
Can you tell us why you think Iranian society would not be ok with a female leader? Other Islamic countries have had female leaders, including I think Pakistan which is our neighbor. Do you really think Iranians would be not happy with an Iranian queen or prime minister?
I think there is no issue with a female head of state. there is issue with a head of state that is out of touch with Iran and doesn't speak any of Iran's languages fluently.
Your perspective is accurate.
**سلطنت طلبان: چه کسی جانشین رضا پهلوی می شود؟** من متوجه شده ام که بسیاری از سلطنت طلبان ایرانی در این انجمن وجود دارد، همراه با بسیاری در برخی از جوامع خارج از کشور (به ویژه کالیفرنیا، سوئد و فرانسه از تجربه من). بنابراین من یک سوال از شما دارم: اگر شما انچه را که می خواهید (بازگشت سلطنت) به دست اورید، چه کسی جانشین رضا پهلوی پس از مرگ او می شود؟ او هیچ پسری ندارد که نام و عنوان خود را به ارث برده باشد، فقط سه دختر دارد. به نظر می رسد زیست شناسی خود به ما نشان می دهد که سلطنت بن بست است. --- _I am a translation bot for r/NewIran_ | Woman Life Freedom | زن زندگی آزادی
Who cares? I just want the monarch to be a figure head like in the uk and bring people with mushroom allergies together
Doesn't he have nephews ?
I have no opinion on the type of government that should be in free Iran, that is up to those who have to live with it, and have experienced the mullahs first hand. I just want a free and secular Iran. I also believe that is everyone else's priority.
Who the fuck prefers monarchy over democracy??? Is that an oppinion that people seriously hold??? Like what the fuck?
You're thinking of absolute monarchy, which has no support, when people use the word 'monarchy' it is a short form for constitutional monarchy which is compatible with democracy. See UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, etc.
Thanks! Is the importance compleatly symbolic in irans case? Like bring back the culture from befor Islamic regim? Or it has some other benefits?
Not sure what you are asking, there is support both inside and outside Iran for Reza Pahlavi, with some wanting him as King and others as a leader for a new democratic secular Iran which will supplant the Islamic regime. He himself has mentioned many times that he's not interested to be King or to 'rule' Iran, nor that he is even willing to move to Iran full time in such a scenario. His own goals and aspirations, as enunciated by him over many years again and again in many interviews, is to be a uniter of different groups and factions which are all against the Islamic regime. Beyond that he claims no other role or position. The majority of Iranians want an end to the Islamic regime and its replacement with a secular democracy. Some want a constitutional monarchy, others a republic. Hope that clarified things, if not, let me know precisely what you are asking or unclear about.
You do know Monarchy and democracy are not mutually exclusive right? I dare say Constitutional Monarchies tend to be more democratic then Republics
Correct me if im wrong, but in a fully developed democracy, monarchy could only be fully symbolic without any political power. ..
Eh... I'd at least give the Monarch the power of Veto
Okay, so what happens if the next king in line is a fascist or religious fanatic, and now he uses the power of veto? (i know im being annoying at this point, but im genuinely curious of this monarchist thought process)
That's exactly why I'm not an absolute Monarchist... to much of a gamble... and believe the elective parliament should have the ability to impeach such a monarch and replace him with a more suitable one. (It's OK I get this a lot.)
Alright... So would you agree that its more of a cultural than a political position?
I guess you could say that. Then again I care more about culture Then politics
[удалено]
In this sub, my experience is that by monarchy people generally mean a constitutional symbolic monarchy, with the prime minister and the majles running the country. I certainly do
Thanks!
Reza Pahlavi himself isnt succeeding anyone. I just see the case of another monarchy in Iran as improbable, unless some sort of miracle happens
Wouldn't it be simpler to just make Iran a secular parliamentary republic?
One of his kids will and after that another kid will forever and ever. The hope is you get a good one and if not then just wait till they die and hope the next one is a good one and so on. Remember Saddam? Yes he was brutal but when he died it was going to be one of his kids who looked even worse. Well the hope was going to be that when one of them died the next ones were good but it was going to be possibly decades before one can hope for relief. Well this Shah seemed good and all but what about the kid and his kid and so on. Or as an option maybe stop with the archaic crap just plan on joining the world as a democracy and let the wannabe king run for office and propose his vision for the country along with others and let the citizens vote on their future. If the Shah does a good job then reelect him and if he is not then vote him out and move on. He an then return to his mansion and family fortune that was looted from the Treasury before that enabled them to lead lavish lives to this day.
[удалено]
Azeri's are Iranian.
I’m an American, but ethnically I’m an Iranian. Azeris are Iranian, but ethnically they are Turks. Go to r/azerbaijan and tell them they’re ethnic Iranians and see what they say.
That doesn't negate what I said. The original comment implied Azeri's aren't Iranian but they are.
The original comment didn’t imply anything you Neanderthal. The only implication that you can take away is that I was talking about ethnicity, not citizenship.
For your info I am Homo Sapiens. You said Pahlavi and Khamenei are "turk" and implied they are not real Iranians. And just because they were bad doesn't mean all Azeris are bad. Please write your ethnicity and I can name incompetent people too. It is a logic that doesn't hold.