[David,]

I see the first world war as the bloody culmination of the nationalist process of imperialism begun in the 1400s by the various states of Eurpoe, to divvy up and colonize the entire globe. Once the whole planet was staked out, the various nations involved had to duke it out to see who was really destined to rule, and the "fittest" "nation" (or tribe or ethnicity) would "logically" dominate the rest, by force of arms.

The goal of Royalty had been to unite the world under the domination of a single family or "house," and I think this had perished slowly over time from 1776 onward. The fact that two multiethnic parties such as Russia and the U.S. eventually became superpowers after the rest bled themselves white shows the illogic of the whole nationalist premise. World War One didn't happen in the 1700s or 1800s only because the whole of Africa and Asia had not yet been staked out...which I think had little to do with royalism.

In a strange sense (i.e. the preoccupation with the bloodline), royalty is "nationalism" in a microcosm...so the two are linked, though indirectly.

[Steve R.]