10 rulers who returned from exile and 10 who would have been better off not returning

Charles II spent several years abroad following his father’s execution and the collapse of the monarchy. By the time he returned in 1660, England had grown weary of experiments, sermons, and military rule. His restoration did not solve everything, but it brought a sense of relief to the country, and Charles had enough charm to restore a human touch to the crown.

Henry Tudor returned from exile with a tenuous claim to the throne, a keen political instinct, and just enough support to stake everything on the Battle of Bosworth. He defeated Richard III and turned a fragile victory into a dynasty. His reign was by no means lavish, but it was stable, and after the War of the Roses, stability counted for a great deal.

Haile Selassie fled Ethiopia after the Italian invasion, but he did not disappear from the international stage. His return in 1941 had profound symbolic significance, not only for Ethiopia but also for the anti-colonial resistance movement as a whole. Whatever one’s opinion of the rest of his reign may be, this return embodied the strength of a nation refusing to be erased.

The French forced Sultan Mohammed V into exile, but this decision only served to enhance his stature in the eyes of Moroccan nationalists. When he returned in 1955, he was no longer merely a monarch. He had become a symbol of independence, and his presence helped give Morocco’s transition a clearly defined national focal point.

After Napoleon’s fall, Louis XVIII returned with the daunting task of keeping the monarchy functioning in a country that had already executed a king and crowned an emperor. He was not a charismatic figure, which may have been part of the plan. France needed someone cautious enough to understand that the old world could not simply be restored to the way it was.

It was virtually impossible to clearly summarize Norodom Sihanouk’s political career, which speaks volumes about the 20th century in Cambodia. He lost power, lived abroad, returned home, and eventually became king again in the 1990s. His journey was complex, but his return allowed many Cambodians to reconnect with a familiar figure after years of trauma and upheaval.

Constantine II never regained power, but his subsequent returns to Greece were of a more low-key nature. After years spent abroad following the collapse of the monarchy, his presence was no longer so much aimed at restoring the old regime as at accepting that history had turned the page. Not all returns necessarily lead to the throne; sometimes, they merely help heal a long-standing collective wound.

Simeon II left Bulgaria while he was still a child king and returned decades later as a mature man engaged in democratic politics. His return was unique, rare, and unusually modern: a former monarch assuming the office of prime minister following an election. While this did not restore the former crown, it demonstrated that exile does not always confine a person to the role they once held.

Juan Carlos spent much of his youth outside Spain, at a time when Franco controlled the country’s future. When he finally became king, he surprised many by helping to lead Spain toward democracy, rather than prolonging the dictatorship through more moderate means. His reputation subsequently became more complex, but his return to the center of national life played an important role.

Afonso V’s return after a period of political withdrawal and self-imposed exile was not the most glorious return in royal history. It nevertheless demonstrated how power often worked in the Middle Ages: absence could weaken a sovereign, but it did not always spell the end of his reign. In his case, the crown still carried enough weight to draw him back into the life he had tried to leave behind.

But not all comebacks are worth celebrating. Here are 10 figures who would have been better off staying in the shadows.

Napoleon’s return from Elba was marked by drama, haste, and a kind of terrible splendor. It also led directly to the Hundred Days, Waterloo, and a new wave of deaths for people who had already suffered enough from the war. As a return, it was unforgettable, but unforgettable does not necessarily mean wise.

Ferdinand VII returned to Spain, where he was welcomed with relief by the people and met with a genuine willingness to compromise on the part of the country. Instead, he undid the constitutional gains made during his absence, restored the absolutist regime, and cracked down on the liberals who had hoped he would be a king rather than an executioner. His return resembled not so much a restoration as revenge disguised as a royal ceremony.

Khomeini returned from exile in 1979, welcomed by a huge crowd and raising enormous expectations. Many Iranians longed to be free from the Shah, but what followed was a new regime with its own severe restrictions, purges, and controls. His return shook the region, but for many, it merely replaced one form of fear with another.

Lenin returned to Russia in 1917, just as the country was exhausted, angry, and largely receptive to radical promises. He brought a clear vision, discipline, and an uncompromising certainty that left little room for compromise or gradual reconstruction. The old regime was already crumbling, but his return helped push Russia toward a revolution that quickly became far more ruthless than many of its early supporters had imagined.

Juan Perón’s return to Argentina was seen by his supporters as the missing piece of a national puzzle. But by that time, the movement surrounding him had already split into factions ready to clash. His return did not bring peace to the country; it brought to the surface all the anger that had been simmering beneath the surface.

Sulla’s return to Rome was not so much a homecoming as an armed warning. He returned, seized power, and used proscriptions to eliminate his enemies with formidable efficiency. Rome had already experienced violence, but Sulla helped turn political vengeance into a true instrument of power.

Manuel II spent his exile hoping, at least at times, that the monarchy might return to Portugal. The problem was not that he was particularly bad; it was that the old system had already lost all legitimacy. Some causes lose their nobility the more they refuse to admit that their time has passed.

James II fled after the Glorious Revolution, then attempted to regain his throne with the help of foreign powers and the support of the Irish. His attempt to return seemed logical from his perspective, but it exacerbated the conflict rather than easing it. A ruler who has already lost the trust of the people rarely manages to regain it by landing with an army.

King Zog spent years trying to organize his return after leaving Albania during the Italian invasion. It was not hard to understand why he wanted to return: exile sometimes has a way of making the reconquest of a lost throne seem more achievable than it actually is. But Albania had endured occupation, war, and a new political order, and the country he hoped to reclaim was no longer waiting for him.

Farouk never returned to power after his exile, and it was probably for the best. By the time he left Egypt, his reign had come to be associated with excess, corruption, and a kind of royal detachment that seemed insulting in a country facing real tensions.