At age 90, His Majesty, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] has died after a few weeks in hospital for a lung ailment. Shortly after, it was announced Prince Salman, his half brother (aged 79) is the new King. A new Crown Prince (the equivalent of the Prince of Wales to the British sovereign, the "heir apparent") was also named: the late king's other half brother, Prince Muqrin. (I am assuming Prince Salman was Crown Prince before Abdullah's death last night?)

Abdullah was responsible for a royal edict allowing women to vote in local council elections; likely going over the heads of conservative religious leaders like a lead balloon. That begs the question: will King Salman backslide, and revoke that edict? One hopes not.

Let's also hope the same thing that happened to the Soviet Union (as I said, the Crown passed from a 90 year old to a 79 year old) does not happen to Saudi Arabia (the Soviet Secretariat passing between three old geezers within a very short span of time, before they wised up and named Gorbachev, in his early 50s, General Secretary). In a country requiring a strong ruler to keep the state from falling apart, a long reign is beneficial.

The BBC story can be accessed here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30945324 However, the story will likely be updated and added to quite frequently, so the "front page" of the BBC at http://www.bbc.com would likely be more informative, as there are several linked articles.

The exact dates of his reign are 1 August 2005 - 23 January 2015 (about 9 1/2 years), but his "rule" has been longer than his "reign", because, when holding the position of Crown Prince, the full powers of the monarchy devolved upon him following King Fahd's devastating stroke. Though quasi brain-dead, King Fahd died in 2005, giving Abdullah the title along with the power he already had.

A royal Council will choose kings and crown princes from now on, as per Abdullah's edict of 2006. Likely it will consist of royals of the "Abdul Aziz Line"--those princes descendant from Ibn Saud's first wife exclusively--who are the only princes permitted to become king/crown prince. Apparently this is not a country which embraces some sort of automatic "primogeniture", as does the British Crown, so that is likely the reason for the edict establishing the Council.

But if you do not wish to believe me, believe the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

All in all it's been an interesting week: Brady's deflated [American] football scandal, the resignation of the entire government of Yemen, and now this. Good luck to you, Sir, you've got a lot on your plate and it's only your first day on the job.

some trivia: Saudi Arabia is the only country named after a family ...

What about the Cook Islands ? Granted, they're named after an individual rather than a family per se, but then so is Saudi Arabia really.

Sassenach wrote:What about the Cook Islands ? Granted, they're named after an individual rather than a family per se, but then so is Saudi Arabia really.

I meant to say named after a ruling family. In other words, there was no such place until Ibn Saud took over the territory in 1932 From Wikipedia:

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded in 1932 by Ibn Saud. He united the four regions into a single state through a series of conquests beginning in 1902 with the capture of Riyadh, the ancestral home of his family, the House of Saud. The country has since been an absolute monarchy governed along Islamic lines, namely under the influence of Wahhabism.

They could have just named it "Arabia".

Ray Jay wrote:

Sassenach wrote:What about the Cook Islands ? Granted, they're named after an individual rather than a family per se, but then so is Saudi Arabia really.

I meant to say named after a ruling family.

The Cook Islands are a dependency, not a real country, but there are loads of placed named after individuals. My favourite eponymous nation is Kiribati, which is named after a sea captain, John Gilbert. The locals retain their own language and that is how they rendered 'Gilbert'. He and John Marshall are the only Brits to have countries named after them that exist to this day (Rhodesia, of course, is another but was split into two and became Zambia and Zimbabwe). The rest are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ter_people

However the tiny country of Lichtenstein is also named after the ruling family. They originally came from Austria, and had land in various places in the Holy Roman Empire. But they were not of the status to allow them to have a place in the HRE's Imperial Diet. In order to do so they had to have land that was not under another feudal lord, and in 1699 they bought Schellenberg, adding neighbouring Vaduz in 1712. In 1719, the Holy Roman Emperor proclaimed the two holdings united and a principality, in the name of Lichtenstein.

In other words, there was no such place until Ibn Saud took over the territory in 1932 From Wikipedia:

The Saudis had ruled pretty much the same land before (indeed, including what are now the Qatar UAE) in the early 19th century as the Emirate of Diriyah (which is a town now in Riyadh). After the Ottomans and Egyptians invaded, this "First Saudi State" was dissolved, with Hejaz restored to the Ottomans.

However, in the mid 19th Century it revived as the Emirate of Nejd, occupying about a half of the territory (basically central Arabia to the Gulf). That fell into disunion and they were defeated by the Al Rashid tribe in 1890, putting the Saudi family into exile.

Ibn Saud and his brothers first reconquered Riyadh in 1902 and then much of their former lands in the rest of the Nejd, before conquering the short-lived Kingdom of Hejaz to form what became Saudi Arabia

So they didn't quite pop out of nowhere in 1932.

Of course, the initial Saudi state was founded after an alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Prince Muhammad ibn Saud - the founder of Wahhabism and and the founder of the Saudi dynasty. Just as Ibn Saud's descendents are the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Wahhab's (now called the Al ash-Sheikh, after him as "the Sheikh") were the main religious family and second in prominence only to the Saudis.

Good job getting the story correct. But hopefully we can focus on Saudi Arabia, and not be tempted to engage in a digression about the Cook Islands or the Principality of Liechtenstein.

One wonders if he will be in the position of political security to enforce his predecessor's reforms. Or if he will be interested in doing so, personally. Women have seen a tiny trickle of freedoms come from Abdullah's reforms, despite fierce opposition from conservative clerics. Unemployment among the males is as high as 25% and 80% of the work force is foreign (and usually very mistreated). Though the Saudi State insists it's at 10.5%. (Maybe they hired the Cuban Government to count the unemployed?) Again from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

As some of you [I believe] correctly entreated, the Saudi states are the result of an 18th century alliance between the Ibn Saud and Ibn Wahhab. You (ibn Wahhab) will use your fanatic followers to help me conquer a state out of the Nejd; I (ibn Sa'ud), once in control of these lands, will enforce/spread your reactionary religious agenda.

Ibn Saud was Sultan of the Nejd, and styled King of the Hejaz and the Nejd after conquering the former in the 1920s (if I am not mistaken). Similar to the union between England and Scotland, the crown was the same but the two kingdoms (Nejd, Hejaz) were not politically unified under a single, Saudi government until 1932. The Treaty of Jeddah 1927 with the UK acknowledged Ibn Saud as the legit ruler of Saudi Arabia, so long as he didn't take a fancy to any other Arabian sheikdoms [which were under British protection]. If that's too anecdotal for anybody's tastes, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Jeddah_%281927%29

The Hejaz was a Hashimite Kingdom, like Iraq and Transjordan (now "Jordan") ruled by Ali, son of Emir Hussein, who lost his crown when Ibn Saud took a fancy to the place and moved in.

hacker

Unemployment among the males is as high as 25% and 80% of the work force is foreign (and usually very mistreated). Though the Saudi State insists it's at 10.5%.

Where do you source your "information"/.

Unemployment Rate in Saudi Arabia decreased to 5.50 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013 from 5.60 percent in the third quarter of 2013. Unemployment Rate in Saudi Arabia averaged 5.44 Percent from 1999 until 2013, reaching an all time high of 6.30 Percent in the fourth quarter of 2006 and a record low of 4.35 Percent in the fourth quarter of 1999. Unemployment Rate in Saudi Arabia is reported by the Central Department of Statistics and Informatio

n

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/saudi-a ... yment-rate

JimHackerMP wrote:Good job getting the story correct. But hopefully we can focus on Saudi Arabia, and not be tempted to engage in a digression about the Cook Islands or the Principality of Liechtenstein.

Just setting the facts straight. In reality, the Saudis are named after Ibn Saud, whose father was Saud Al Migrin. So they are really named after the dad of the guy who in 1744 kicked off the whole empire-building-for-Wahhabism thing.

One wonders if he will be in the position of political security to enforce his predecessor's reforms. Or if he will be interested in doing so, personally. Women have seen a tiny trickle of freedoms come from Abdullah's reforms, despite fierce opposition from conservative clerics. Unemployment among the males is as high as 25% and 80% of the work force is foreign (and usually very mistreated). Though the Saudi State insists it's at 10.5%. (Maybe they hired the Cuban Government to count the unemployed?) Again from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

They may only count citizens or claimants rather than the actual number of people out of work.

Who knows what the latest Saud brother will do. It seems he is pretty similar to his predecessor, and is a mediator among the squabbling Saudi princes, so probably has security. However, he may not last that long, and apparently has dementia.

The Hejaz was a Hashimite Kingdom, like Iraq and Transjordan (now "Jordan") ruled by Ali, son of Emir Hussein, who lost his crown when Ibn Saud took a fancy to the place and moved in.

For most of the Ottoman period, Hejaz was ruled from Jeddah or Egypt, and only after 1866 did it separate.The Hashemites got control of Hejaz int total in 1916 when they joined the rebellion against the Ottomans. Before that, they were the main family in Mecca in religious terms and the perennial Sharifs of Mecca. One of them tried to set up a Kingdom of Syria, which was crushed by the French in their Mandate, with the defeated King later given the throne in Iraq, and his brother the Emirate of Transjordan (both by the British). This happened over 1918-21, and so only shortly before the conquest of Hejaz by the Saudis.

hacker

One wonders if he will be in the position of political security to enforce his predecessor's reforms. Or if he will be interested in doing so, personally

Since the current King was the Crown Prince, and the effective ruler the past few years due to the elder's poor health ... the answer is that the reforms were in large part his and he is in total control.
Although I have to ask , "What reforms are you speaking about?" Nothing significant has really occurred. Mostly they just put money into civil servants salaries and boosted state benefits. Nothing occurred that significantly liberalized society.
There is one one of the original kings sons in succession, now the Crown Prince. It won't be till he dies off and the first of the grand children rises to the throne (The new Deputy Crown Prince) that there will be any chance for significant changes. IBN had 22 wives (no more than 4 at a time) and dozens of children, so he's had a lot of legitimate heirs in line...)
The Grand Children have had western educations and have experienced the world outside Saudi Arabia first hand. They may be interested in modernizing the Kingdom some as a result. But not at the expense of the security of their families position. And they certainly aren't willing to let notions of democracy creep too much closer to the KSA. Witness the interventions in Bahrain when KSA tanks rolled across the bridge to assist the Bahraini Royals in stomping out the "Arab Spring" there...

By the way, in the UK, flags were flown at half mast on Buckingham Palace and government buildings to mark the death of the King of Saudi Arabia.

Dunno about Sass, but sometimes I despair at our monarchial protocols.

rickyp

Where do you source your "information"/.

Sorry. I found the 25% comment in your source...
I will note that employment rates of Saudi men is all that matters. Keeping them happy, is, at a minimum what the family needs to keep any notions of liberal reforms from fermenting.

danivon

Dunno about Sass, but sometimes I despair at our monarchial protocols

On the other hand, who else would have the audacity to treat the Crown Prince in the following manner?

“After lunch, the Queen had asked her royal guest whether he would like a tour of the estate,” wrote Cowper-Coles, who is said to have heard the tale from both Elizabeth and Abdullah themselves. “Prompted by his foreign minister the urbane Prince Saud, an initially hesitant Abdullah had agreed. The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, his interpreter in the seat behind.”
Little did Abdullah know, however, that his driver for the day would be none other than Elizabeth herself.
“To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off,” Cowper-Coles wrote. “Women are not -- yet -- allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen.”
Not to mention a queen who can drive like the wind. According to Cowper-Coles, Elizabeth didn’t just drive the SUV, but rapidly whizzed along the estate’s roads as she chatted, prompting Abdullah to become increasingly anxious.
“Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead,” the diplomat said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/2 ... 2381734374

Where do you source your "information"/.

Um...it's called the CIA World Factbook, it is typically reliable, and IF you read the above CAREFULLY you will see that I did, in fact, cite it. But just in case that's not satisfying enough then here it is again:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html

King Salman, I understand, had officially been Crown Prince according to the same source, I now understand. Below is the a link to their three main unclassified publications, including the Factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications

P.S.: the aforementioned link allows access to the Factbook, an Atlas, and a publication of the members of the governments covered within (heads of state, heads of government, members of the various official "cabinets"/"councils of ministers", etc.) Pretty good reference tools for declassified information. (Making it rather odd that Firefox is showing me a green padlock icon next to the web address, hmmm...) But then again most of you probably have seen that already? Just in case.

Unemployment: Ricky: it's a lot higher than your source is reporting. I was told by a Saudi on campus---and you'll forgive the anecdotal nature of this---that "we are a nation of managers". Why worry about your people working when they have such an extensive (and overly-generous) welfare state, at least as far as unemployment, when it can be supplied endlessly by oil revenue from the world's biggest single underground oil lake [field, whatever] in the world? The economy can plod along fine with twice as much unemployment as long as there's enough petrodollars to cover any deficit you care to incur in a given fiscal year? But ignore me despite the fact that this comes from actual Saudi citizens I have met: it's anecdotal. But you cannot ignore the CIA World Factbook, which contains economic statistics as well as government. I do not have any other sources of raw data about unemployment in the KSA at my fingertips right now, so if you do not like the Factbook, you'll have to find it yourself. (Oh, and I'm sure you will )

There was another BBC article I am trying to find which referenced the "Allegiance Council" or whatever the Factbook called it, though the latter does reference and explain the Council, if not actually detail it. From now on, kings and crown princes will be chosen by this Council, composed of "inner" (regally eligible) Saudi princes. This is necessary because the Magic Kingdom has no "constitution" of primogeniture, as do most royals, particularly constitutional monarchs, across the globe, to whom I alluded above, if I am not mistaken. In addition, unlike European monarchies, women are not permitted to act even as regent for an underage king. I am not sure if that is typical of Middle Eastern monarchs, or not.

Another consideration: in order for "reforms" to be carried out, the leader must have a decent grip on power to be able to do it, and must have that grip for an extended period of time. In a democracy, things are more collective, and we balk at presidents or prime ministers (and their governments) clinging to power for too long. But in the Magic Kingdom, an absolute monarchy, this is a little bit different. If H.M. King Salman wishes to continue the reforms of his predecessor, King Abdullah, he'd better 1) consolidate his power....quickly; and 2) wear the Crown long enough to actually be able to do it. It is likely he has been doing No. 1, but we cannot predict No. 2 as it is in the hands of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. (Qur'an, [intro to every Surah]).

ROFL THAT's frigging awesome of the Queen , God Bless Her. I understand she does have rather a good sense of humor.

Sorry I hit "submit" right after you posted a couple of times. My apologies for my somewhat lengthy response sounding slightly sarcastic.

But I also wonder, what this is going to do to the effects of the "Arab Spring" aftermath in the KSA?

I will note that employment rates of Saudi men is all that matters.

Well yes and no. Women are now allowed to be bank tellers. They are also allowed to sell womens' underthings. Hitherto, they were sold by Lebanese men. (Sorry I do not have a source for that).

That is why I was wondering of potential "backsliding" if King Salman either cannot consolidate his rule, or he just doesn't feel like it (it is his personal choice to undo everything King Abdullah did).