Talk:Monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] distinguishing characteristic

I don't think it's so clear that "The distinguishing characteristic of a monarchy is that the position of monarch involves inheritance in some form." There probably is no one single distinguishing characteristic of a monarchy: some monarchies were elective rather than inherited. I think the fact that there is no term of office (i.e., the monarch serves until death or abdication) is more distinctive: "Presidents for Life" are monarchs in all but name. -- Someone else 22:49 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree. A monarch is an hereditary ruler. The examples you give could be better described as republics or dictatorships.
And yet their rulers were kings. go figure. -- Someone else 05:57 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The ruler of, for example, the Holy Roman Empire, was not hereditary; it was elective. The ruler was, however, unquestionably a monarch. Similarly, the rulers of Poland-Lithuania were elective, not hereditary sovereigns.Monarchs? History certainly classes them so. Well then; maybe monarchs are crowned or anointed. But was King Juan Carlos I of Spain crowned? No. If we go to the etymology of the name: monos = one, or singular; archos = ruler. ThePresident of the USA is a single ruler. A monarch? Well, he was claimed as one, yes. In fact, it was seriously considered at one time that the President should be addressed as 'His Majesty the President'. I'm not saying I know the answer. I'm just suggesting the answer is not as simple as the article may make out.--Gazzster (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember, tho, that the elected rulers back then (ie HRE. and Poland) were all from influential hereditary royal/noble families, often crowned or annointed by the Pope. Same for the Electors themselves.

(Kaelin von Gross). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.106.67 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

Is there anyone who can add the economic theories of a monarchy and all the factors that go along with them. This article does not go very indepth at all into the economic theories of a monarchy. (Demon Slayer 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

All I can add on this subject is the fact that every current monarchy in Europe is doing quite nicely economically, thankyou; In fact, Norway and Liechtenstein trump even Switzerland.! The same may be said in Asia, with exceptions made for Cambodia and Bhutan.----(Kaelin von Gross)

[edit] communist states

I remove this paragraph:

It has been noted that a disproportionate number of communist states have existed within former monarchies. One possible explanation for this is that the overthrown monarchy frequently creates a national consciousness, a government bureaucracy, and an intelligensia that ultimately bring about the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a communist state. On the other hand, a disproportionate number of non-communist republics also have monarchical pasts. And another possible explanation is, that many of them were caught up in the same sets of post 1918 and post 1945 events; what appears to be too many cases to be explained by coincidence is simply one collection of cases falling under the same sweeping coincidence.

Mostly because it's confusing (but I'd also note that the contents are at best tangentially related to "monarchy".) Perhaps it's just my understanding that's flawed, but to me the paragraph just says most states, communist and non-communist, were formerly monarchies. Why does this require an explanation? And what "denominator" would one use to decide what "proportionate" would be? -- Someone else 05:57 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] primogeniture

I have deleted the following: "The order of succession in most European monarchical states of the 21st century is by primogeniture: the royal line passes through the eldest surviving male and then the eldest female if no males survive."

First of all, because it uses an incorrect definition of primogeniture, which apparently originates from a mistake in the Alt.talk.royalty FAQ. 'Primogeniture' is simply used for every succession type that prefers a first born to a junior. The systems used in Sweden, Britain and Liechtenstein are all different forms of primogeniture.
Secondly, even _if_ this definition were correct, the statement that it is used by most European monarchical states of the 21st century is incorrect:

  • only 4 out of 11 European monarchies use primogeniture with preference for males: the UK, Denmark, Monaco and Spain
  • 4 monarchies use full cognatic primogeniture: Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway and Belgium
  • 1 monarchy is semi-salic: Luxembourg
  • 1 monarchy still uses Salic law: Liechtenstein
  • 1 monarchy is elective: the Papacy Erwin 13:56, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] alternate use

The term monarchy is also used to refer to the people and institutions that make up the royal establishment

Not in English it isn't. I hesitate to correct an entry that seems to have so much baggage...
User:Wetman

If you are sure, you shouldn't hesitate. A problem is however to know if one really has reason to be sure. Too many of us with other mother-tongues than English believe too much in our expertice. Sadly.
--Ruhrjung 04:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] republic

Wikipedia makes it quite explicit in its statement defining a republic: "A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state." This is the generally accepted view of what a republic is. A monarchy cannot be a republic. A republic cannot be a monarchy.Dogface 16:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


How do explain the historical King of Scots and Abroath and other related documents? And, of course, the Papacy?

[edit] Renaissance Popes

I removed the line about Renaissance Popes passing the papal throne to their illegitimate children. I have two or three books on the popes and could not find any evidence of this at all. Certainly there were a few popes who had illegitimate children, but the nepotism most associate with the Renaissance papacy was always a pope favoring a nephew, and even then they usually did not succeed them immediately. Uncle would make nephew a cardinal, then one or two reigns later they could be elected pope. If someone can cite evidence of this being a regular occurance at any time, I will stand corrected. NguyenHue 09:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue

[edit] Improvement drive

The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.--Fenice 09:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] this is terrible

there are only two paragraphs about the history of monarchy. that is feeble at best. please, if you know the history, write about it :) Kingturtle 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

History of the establishment of a monarchy? A few theories on this are out there, depending on where your coming from. Some date back to tribal chieftans. Usually the head of a tribe, or head of a Kin or Kinship, was the ruler (hence "King"). This is believed by some to evole into monarchy. Personally, I like Willie Hamilton's analysis, which relates the establishment of moanrchies to modern day mafiaso. Somebody came in, threatened to beat you up if you didn't give them protection money, and hence the monarchy was established. The monarch gave you protection as long as you were enslaved, and protected you (themselves really) from other mafiaso who were trying to horn in on their territory. Actually makes sense. Kevin Q.

The tribal chieftain theory is a better one. The latter notion better describes the evolution of the “noble” families the cluster about, support and eventually supplant developing monarchies. For the origins of monarchy you’re better of looking at theocracy. The evolution to a secular monarchy from a hereditary priesthood is something that can be seen time and again throughout history, even within contemporary tribal societies. --OzoneO 02:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake entry in Current Monarchies

I deleted the entry on the fake country of Gemnoviag, listing the Prince of Gemnoviag, Jaden Rosencrans. Googling the country had no result, and only one real result on the name in an obituary.--Dalar 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weird glitch

I'm not sure why, but most of the text disappeared from being visible in this revision, though if you go to edit the article, the text is still there.--Vercalos 08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your revision included "29 extant monarchies". Until the deposition of the King of Nepal is ratified by the new lawful Nepalese congress, I will stick with 45 sovereign monarchies.----(Kaelin von Gross)

[edit] Small changes

I removed a line of vandalism that had been added to the second paragraph, as it was completely unrelated to the article and probably a practical joke. I'd also dispute the description of Tonga as a "constitutional monarchy". Technically, Tonga has a legislative assembly that limits the King's power, but as a majority of its members are appointed by the King, it isn't really effective as a check on constitutional power. See the article on Tonga for more details. Walton monarchist89 13:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Hey sup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.228.24 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Vandalism

I removed gibberish vandalism "fsadfdsaj;fdsalkjfsdlak;fsl'da;" from the "Unusual Examples" section of the page, and then had to edit my addition to the discussion because I forgot to sign it. Sorry, it's my first time leaving a comment. Acrylica 04:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I added Image:Form of gov 2005.PNG as a map. Probably it would however be better to create a new map that would correspond to the list of countries further below in the article. --Donar Reiskoffer 08:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the map is somewhat inaccurate, as Canada's high arctic islands do not appear in blue. Last time i checked, all of Canada had a monarch.Legars 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Juan Carlos

Also King of the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla...

The Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla are legally part of Spain.--Menah the Great 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I would really like an area of the page wich yould contain criticism of the monoarchy. Thank you.

A good place to start may be Absolute Monarchies, like Saudi Arabia.----(Kaelin von Gross)

[edit] monarchy = discrimination

there should be an area where it is pointed out that the system of monarchy effectively equates discrimination.

After all, in a monarchy, all people except the 'heir' and the 'monarch' are excluded from any theoretical chance of becoming head of state based solely on birth. It is a ludicrous thing to consider any hereditary title as something special. Hereditary titles by definition are worthless because no one is better than another based on who your parents happen to be.

Excluding people from the chance of becoming head of state on grounds of birth is discrimination and elite snobism. Down with all monarchies!

Yes, the Bush family certainly proves that the ruling position should not be hereditary. Good thing it doesnt happen here in the US eh? Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet who can rule in a typical republic or even your typical communist state is generally also decided on birth, family connection, money, place in society, etc. Basically exactly the same system as a monarchy, only it's not explicitly stated. What truly distinguishes monarchy as a political system is tradition and the intrinsic symbolism attached to the reigning position. Down with simplistic pejorative assertions. --OzoneO 02:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This is fast becoming a general discussion about the topic of monarchy, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (Although if anyone's interested, I agree strongly with OzoneO). Walton monarchist89 10:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Monarchy gives one a ruler selected by 'the hand of fate', - like winning the Birth Lottery. Can't get much more 'fair' than that, The complaintant above had a one in 6 billion chance, and lost. Those that complain about it are in one of two categories, they wish to have the 'power & prestige' and do not because they didn't win, OR the wish to have 'privacy, and choices' and do not because they did.

I take it that whoever wrote here first does not believe in reincarnation and also believes that someone born to a hereditary position must enjoy wealth and abuse power. Theoretically if you believe in a certain variation of reincarnation, being born to a hereditary title means that you lived your former life as a "good being" (not necessary a human or even a living being). If you abuse your power in this "life", you can end up as a "tormented (or challenged) being" (again, not necessary a human). The allure of abusing power (and living your next life as a "tormented") is greater when you are rich and powerful. It's not "good to be a king" but "higher you are, harder you fall". You could adopt this knowledge (I wouldn't say "wisdom" because perhaps the world is otherway around and "it's good to be evil") and live peacefully or not be peaceful. --Revth 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is fast becoming a general discussion about the topic of monarchy. Remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for political debate. Please can all of these contributors try to restrict their contributions to matters relating to the article content. (Although if anyone's interested, I agree with OzoneO). Walton monarchist89 10:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry accidentally repeated my comment due to conflicting edits. But strangely enough, it's still relevant. Walton monarchist89 10:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If a monarchy = discrimination what does a democracy (USA)=????? I see a great deal of views that are anti-monarchy! Why is bias allowed against traditional forms of government, that have functioned for eons? The article needs a section that gives examples of the positive aspects of a monarchy. Why is it that some articles have a bias (esp. the USA article) infavor for (USA) american ideals? If this monarchy article was writen like the USA article, I could only imagen the comments. In the Marie Antoinette talk, someone said the article seemned as if it was writen by her. It seems bias on wiki is well, you know.--Margrave1206 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samoa

I know,this topic has been discused already,but seeing as Malietoa Tanumafili II is on the "longest reinging monarch category" I have to ask-IS he a monarch?If one could qualify him as a tribal monarch,I believe it to be possible.New Babylon

Seems obvious to me He inherited his position, so I would say he's clearly a monarch, regardless of the crazy local term you use for it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Should we remove Samoa from the list now? The O le Ao o le Malo has died and his replacement will be elected by the Samoan Legislative assembly for a term of five years. Surely that means that Samoa is now a republic? FrinkMan 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, don't remove it since a chief could be elected & thus still remain a monarchy. Only do so once it's been verified, not beforehand. That-Vela-Fella 10:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't require that the head of state must be a chief, all Samoans can be elected. Therefore, I think that Samoa should be considered a republic even if some sort of chief gets elected. http://www.samoa.co.uk/constitution-of-samoa.html FrinkMan 12:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, until it's new leader is picked, it's still to early to call it a republic right now. IF they decide to get one of royal lineage again, then by all accounts no change is needed. So unless one is not & confirmed, then & only then should it be worded as a republic. That-Vela-Fella 09:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to wait and see what happens. But if the constitution states that all Samoans, not just royals, can become O le Ao o le Malo, then shouldn't Samoa properly be regarded as a republic? FrinkMan 11:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then it should rather be up for discussion over here [1] & even here [2] That-Vela-Fella 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Samoa now still considered as monarchy? The current O le Ao o le Malo is not from royal family. So, I think Samoa should be removed from the list of monarchies. 11:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not from a royal family? Umm, best you double check that over here at Tupua Tamasese & Tupua Tamasese Tupuola Tufuga Efi That-Vela-Fella 09:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with VelaFela. The current elected monarch, His Highness the Oleao-Olemalo of Samoa, was elected for 5 years; this is similar to the Malaysia example with its system of rotating Sultans. Due to the fact that this "Noble Chief" apparently must be selected from one of the 4 Samoan heritary noble ruling families, to me fits the description of a sovereign (elective) monarchy. If however, after 5 years, the Fono then selects someone from outside the aforementioned families, say from the Matai ranks, then I woud call Samoa a simple parliamentary state. The present government and the Oleao-Olemalo himself seem quite ambivalent regarding monarchy, and in fact presently deny it.----(Kaelin von Gross)

[edit] Odd linguistic structures

Is it just me or does the following sentence fragment read very strangely and seem to imply the exact opposite of the truth:

In an absolute monarchy, the Monarch has no power whatsoever over every aspect of the state 71.230.110.121 03:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The page history proves that was not just bad grammar but blatant vandalism; fixed (but vandals often reoffend, so don't hesitate to revert again) Fastifex 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map is wrong.

Last time I checked Ellesmere island was part of Canada and thus should be blue. Zazaban 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I came here to bring it up but Zazaban beat me to it. Loomis 21:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one. I suspect it has something to do with american claims over the high arctic.Legars 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal

The link from royal redirects here. In addition to the conventional meaning of the word royal, shouldn't we also add something about the French Presidential candidate Ségolène Royal?

I'm also strongly in favour of dabbing for Ségolène Royal. I'll do it. —Nightstallion (?) 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan

Recently removed this country from the Current Monarchy list. Afghanistan hasn't been a monarchy since 1973. GoodDay 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argumentative positions towards monarchy

This section isn't written from a neutral point of view. There is far too many pro-arguments. Sources must also be added for the arguments, without sources they are just the opinions of one user. And do we really need an argument-section in this article, wouldn't it be enough with just the facts? FrinkMan 22:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason of the imbalance between arguments pro and contra monarchy emanate from fact that monarchy seems to have indeed much more advantages than disadvantages. If you know further contra arguments, add them but please do not delete the list again. Louis88 12:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why have it listed if it's already said so to another link at the bottom of the section under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy#Demise_of_monarchies ? That-Vela-Fella 06:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the article Republicanism in the United Kingdom? - Louis88 10:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the redirect & quite obviously stated, even though it's not just for the UK only. Also has some sources within it! That-Vela-Fella 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely the extensive reasoning for and against monarchies on the article Republicanism in the United Kingdom deserves to be either a) reproduced or linked to in this page or b) moved over to this page and linked to in the other page? Break 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you need an example of how messed up a republic can be (ie.vs. monarchy), you need to look no further than the good old USA with Herr Bush as Commander-in Chief. (please forgive me for this political statement, you may erase it, etc.)-----(Kaelin von Gross)

[edit] The O le Ao o le Malo is a ceremonial president

 The references in this article may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.
Please help by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable sources. Further discussion may be found on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since July 2007.

I wrote to the Samoan government's website at and the response was that it was a ceremonial presidency.


from therequiembellishere@gmail.com
to contact@govt.ws
date Jul 15, 2007 2:12 AM
subject O le Ao o le Malo
mailed-by gmail.com
To whomever this letter concerns,
I write to you as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as an amateur contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Within the community, there is a question as to whether your Head of State should be seen as an elective monarch or as a ceremonial president, which would simultaneously answer as to whether the Independent State of Samoa should be considered a parliamentary monarchy or a parliamentary democracy.
I would graciously appreciate if this could be answered quickly, as I will by cut off from internet access in two weeks and would like to resolve the conflict within the Wikipedia Community as soon as possible.
Many Thanks,
Benjamin (last name omitted)


Response:


from presssecretariat@samoa.ws
to therequiembellishere@gmail.com
date Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM
subject Re: O le Ao o le Malo
Talofa Benjamin,
Thank you for your enquiry. The Independent State of Samoa is a representative government. Our Head of State is a ceremonial president. Being free from politics, any law will not become law unless assented to by the Head of State.
Regards,
Deborah Mauinatu
Office of the Government Press Secretariat

I take this to mean that it was never a monarchy, however, the validity of that is not clear. Also, the map now needs to be updated. Therequiembellishere 05:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-British edits

G2bambino - please explain why it is wrong to say that the British monarch is head of state of the other Commonwealth realms, given the following citation from a 2006 speech by the Rt Hon Don McKinnon, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, which flatly contradicts your narrowly nationalist and blatantly anti-British POV concerning the nature of the monarchy [3]:

"We now have only 16 countries that retain the British monarch as their Head of State." [my bold] TharkunColl 14:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Talk:Passport, but let me reiterate for the benefit of those who might not already be aware of this:
You're taking one statement - which may or may not be correct - and giving it a blanket application that overrides decades of constitutional evolution throughout countries across the globe, as though it somehow trumps reams of legal documents, scholarly writings, judicial rulings, Commonwealth conference findings, etc., etc. Giving both the Commonwealth Secretary-General and his words such prominence takes the quote out of context and uses it in a disingenuous manner.
There is nothing wrong at all with recognizing equality where it exists. Trying to construct an imaginary hierarchy, on the other hand, is not mutually respectful. --G2bambino 15:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
But all we have are your assertions that this is the case. Please provide actual evidence. TharkunColl 15:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is in front of you already. Read Commonwealth Realm#Historical development, Balfour Declaration of 1926, Statute of Westminster 1931, British monarchy#Modern status (and the similar sections at Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia, etc.), including all the associated referenced documents. Those articles weren't built by me alone, but are the product of the contribution of a number of editors who have previously, collectively refuted claims similar to yours. The equality of the Realms is not some maniacal scheme of my own creation; it was the maniacs in various Commonwealth governments over a number of decades who did it all for us.
If you'd like to link to EIIR in this article where it speaks of the personal union amongst the Realms, I have no issue with that. But to say countries besides the UK are under the British monarchy is patently false. --G2bambino 16:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep your differances to the 'discussion page' until you've reached a resolution. Remember guys, it takes 'two' to tangle. GoodDay 18:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this is quite true. The Statute of Westminster (1931, I think) established that all nations within the Commonwealth accept the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as their head of state, while conversely asserting equality with respect to the nation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 74.13.23.45 (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and ended the ability of the Westminster parliament to legislate for the other realms. As the legislation for each realm then stemmed solely from its own parliament, which includes the monarch as one of its three constituent parts, the sovereign thus became a separate monarch for each country. In essence, the SoW ended overlap in jurisdictions and set up distinct kingdoms in personal union. --G2bambino (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andorra

I was just wondering what your thoughts are on whether we can consider Andorra to be a monarchy in the true sense, as its coprinces are non-hereditary. Jordi22 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the Co-Princes are monarchs, Andorra is a monarchy. PS- monarchies can be elective. GoodDay 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The present constitution of the Principality of Andorra of 1993 spells it out: Andorra will have ONE monarch, defined as "the co-principality". Apparently, in Andorra, 2 equals 1.!! It sounds crazy, but apparently the present monarch is the French President combined with the Bishop of Urgell (who is also Prince-Bishop of Andorra). The Bishop is appointed for life, subject to removal for incapacity or resignation. Another weird fact: both the Prince Bishop and the French presidents are double "Excellencies", as both princes of Andorra and of course their positions in church and state respectively. The present situation in Andorra is a result of the Pareage Agreement of 1278, and the rights of the French President, for example, devolved from the Counts of Foix, Kings of Navarre, and Kings of France, to the present Republic presidency. No, the wife of the French President is NOT a princess.!----(Kaelin von Gross) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.106.67 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom usage

We should avoid using the term kingdom in this article's content; not all monarchies are kingdoms. There are principalities, grand duchies, empires, the holy see, etc. GoodDay 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It seems that when the monarch and monarchy articles were created, it was to create a gender-neutral euphemism for King and kingdom, both of which still(!) redirect to those articles, while Grand Duke, grand duchy, Prince, principality etc. all have their own articles. This is absurd, of course: it implies that King is somehow the natural title for a monarch and that the others are exceptions. My sentiment is that any use of "monarch" and "monarchy" in this sense should be wiped out as inexact. That goes for things such as Monarch of Sweden, too – the title is King of Sweden and the fact that the King might be a Queen doesn't change that (we do have an article about Earl Mountbatten of Burma and nobody complains). Of course, Swedish monarchy (being about the institution itself, just like British monarchy) would also be fine. List of Swedish monarchs would be better off mentioning the actual title – List of Kings of Sweden (with a capital K, just like in List of Earls, where once again nobody thinks it strange that the Countess M. of B. is included) – but at least the present title has a lowercase m and is factually correct: it is a list of Swedish monarchs. -- Jao 10:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but the particular paragraph in question makes no reference to any grand duchy, principality, or other form of monarchy besides kingdoms. It was removed by Thark because he feels a country with a non-resident king or queen is somehow not a kingdom; he's tried to make this argument before, and was unsuccessful.
As for articles on dukes, princes, etc., being separate from this one, and thus causing the implications it does, I can understand the issue. --G2bambino 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The term "kingdom" was rejected in favour of "dominion". You may not like that fact, but it is true nevertheless. TharkunColl 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Would you like to come into the 21st century so you can work with the rest of us? --G2bambino 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize that GoodDay's comment was referring to a specific passage in the text. While all my arguments still stand, they are irrelevant to that; there's no reason not to be exact and say that these monarchies are kingdoms, just because others aren't. Sorry for any confusion. -- Jao 15:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No worries. You do raise valid points. --G2bambino 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The articles Canada & Australia (for example) aren't described as Kingdoms - we had these arguments before. GoodDay 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If that's so, then a change is needed for the 1st item mentioned at the For other uses, see Kingdom (disambiguation). Also, there is no harm to use the word as it's specific & more descriptive (unless a title change is to occur?) on it since “Kingdom” redirects here anyways. Plus as much as I would like to use the word 'dominion', that word has fallen out of disuse. That-Vela-Fella 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend using realm, in place of 'kingdom' for the Commonwealth monarchies. GoodDay 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Why? It's not a term used in this article. --G2bambino 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Then use 'monarchies' (this article is called Monarchy, not Kingdom). GoodDay
Kingdom redirects here. I don't understand why we have to censor the word "kingdom" when it's perfectly applicable in this situation. --G2bambino 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Because kindgom is a sore spot with myself & others, it's only gonna cause 'edit wars' (and who need that?). So let's settle with 'monarchies' or 'realms'. GoodDay 22:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't cause edit wars if someone could come up with a valid reason why the word isn't applicable. It seems emotions are overriding logic in this instance. --G2bambino 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
For starters? Canada - Kingdom or not (we've had that dispute before, so let's not re-open it). Please, avoid the hassle & use the acceptable 'monarchies' or 'realms'. GoodDay 22:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And it was decided Canada is, by definition, a kingdom. There's even sources for it now. So, what, again, is the dispute? --G2bambino 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of arguing about it; (though I stil disagree with you) have it your way, maybe it won't be 'reverted'. GoodDay 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'll tell you: there's no valid argument to be made that Canada is not a kingdom. All the stuff about the name of the country and dominion, etc., etc., was merely a distraction from the main and irrefutable point. The same situation applies in all the Commonwealth Realms. --G2bambino 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've opened (or re-opened) a discussion at Canada (for clarification sake), concerning this issue Kingdom of Canada. Whatever is clarified there, can be applied to 'all' Commonwealth realms (minus the UK). GoodDay 23:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no "Kingdom of Canada." But Canada is a kingdom, and the Commonwealth Realms can be described as such without issue, especially at this article. --G2bambino 23:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the 'republican' in me, but I'm not convinced. However, I'm not gonna revert (I'm not gonna 'edit war' over it). GoodDay 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with realm then, since it is within the context of it & best describes what they are & also strengthens the ending statement. That-Vela-Fella 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why one word has to be tossed out because some people believe it to be inaccurate but without any supporting reason to think so. But, okay; are readers going to be very familiar with the term "realm"? --G2bambino 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Okay, n/m; I see now the word has been linked to the appropriate article. But now it seems the word "realm" is repeated three times in three consecutive sentences. --G2bambino 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The word is just said twice within the said paragraph, the 3rd one you must be referring to is of the group (Commonweath realms) itself. It's ok if said again since the 1st one is referring to the empire's & the 2nd to the independent ones. That-Vela-Fella 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer realm aswell; it's less contested. GoodDay 21:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I oppose neither kingdom nor realm in that context. -- Jao 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead is too long

I believe the current lead is way too long and I intend to reduce it drastically by removing content in it to following sections unless there are rational objections. Alice.S 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The eastern monarchs is discriminated, I think.

Why some is in the current monarchies while others not? Is it because they do not qualify as current or that someone just forgets or only favourites is selected? Also, several aspects of monarchy aren't mentioned- the royal colour, practiced in China and spreads to Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei; the superpowers of the Malayan sultans and the 'tulah'; the uniquely Malaysian rotating monarchy is only one sentences long. --Azar2804 14:30, 27 Dicember 2007 (UTC)

With a few good sources, you can add more to it. Be bold! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

I think most of the problems discussed above would not have arisen had the article been properly sourced. There is not one footnote. The article needs serious reappraisal.--Gazzster (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchies of the World

Great table, many thanks. Would it be possible to include a column giving the religious connotations. For example Elizabeth II was anointed and crowned as a gift from god, and she is head of the Church of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reg nim (talk • contribs) 00:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry Reg nim (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Would be difficult to have only another column made since it may apply to the odd one or two, but could be noted & sourced on there instead. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No back ups or footnotes!!

This article has absolutely no footnotes! It has nothing to back up its authenticity. I would seriously advise someone to put some footnotes in. Then we would get some know-how on if the facts in this article are even correct!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euge246 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has the potential to be interesting and informative, but yes, it suffers from a lack of professionalism. You aren't the first to notice that. It needs a rewrite, starting with a good definition of what a monarchy is. As it stands it seems to show a very narrow understanding of what a monarchy might be.--Gazzster (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with "Gazzter" above. In many cases, if you read the constitution of the country/monarchy in question, it solves a lot of speculation. For example, the constitution of The Netherlands states that Netherlands, Aruba, and the NL-Antilles together form ONE realm: The Kingdom of the Netherlands, and each of the 3 parts are autonomous integral units of this realm, the head of which is Queen Beatrix. The Queen has only ONE royal title, that being: Queen of the Netherlands.! NOT "Queen of Aruba", NOT Queen of "The Kingdom of NL", etc. Much the same goes for the similar situation of Denmark.----(Kaelin von Gross)

[edit] Arguments for and against monarchy

This a very strange section. The tags on it have been ignored. One could be forgiven for assuming that it is editorial comment. Take this statement, for example: A hereditary monarch is likely to be a more competent head-of-state than is an elected president, because the former may have been prepared, from childhood, to serve as such.

  • A strange argument. One could equally argue that any politician likely to be elected president has had years of political training and experience. And it might happen that a monarch succeeds unexpectedly and unprepared, as in the case of George VI of the UK succeeding Edward VIII.

A monarchy may be less costly to maintain than a republic because it spares the state the expense of holding presidential elections, and because the royal family's private fortune may be enough for its own support, compared to the public expenditures the accommodations, pensions and other maintenance of a republic's presidential incumbent and former presidents.

  • Another strange argument. Maintaining a royal court isn't expensive? Maintaining a royal family isn't expensive? Holding a coronation isn't expensive?

The competition and criticism to which republican presidents typically are exposed, as elected officials and especially during the election campaigns themselves, damages the reputation and dignity of the head of state.

  • And the spectacle of a royal scandal, sexual, financial or political, doesn't? Competition is part and parcel of the democratic process, like it or lump it.

The arguments against monarchy seem on safer ground, but they do still smack of opinion. I'm going to delete the section. If you want to revert, it might be a good idea to open a discussion here, as this section (and the whole article IMO) is in serious question.--Gazzster (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. Those statements were clearly 'pro-monarchist'. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutan

Bhutan is listed as an absolute monarchy, however in the last month or so it has transitioned to a constiutional monarchy. Apart form that I think an interesting thing that could be added to this article in the case of Bhutan is that it is one of the few times, if not the first, that the monarch has given up his power without being threatened or a majority of the population wanting it.

I'm not really sure how to add that6 in, that is I'm not sure where exactly to add it, so I'll leave it upt to those who have contributed more to this article.

IkonicDeath —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, from what I've read, Bhutan shoud be listed as a constitutional monarchy in transition.----(Kaelin von Gross)

[edit] second paragraph of article

I may be a humble newbie, but the second paragraph of this article seems 1) off topic - and even if it was, unrepresentative of a world view - for an introduction and 2) poorly written. The introduction could more or less function without it. If there are no objections, I'd like to delete it. ~sooc2nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sooc2nd (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case (actually, it is the case), but your most recent addition, namely: Monarchies have been formed through conquest, popular sovereignty, greed, tradition, political necessity and an opportunity to exploit certain situations, did not improve the situation in any way; it was negatively slanted, unsourced, and far too vague. Perhaps we could hash out something here first? --G2bambino (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, but, for the record, I didn't write that sentence that goes on and on about greed and exploitation. I shall edit try to edit that to sound a little more neutral. Sooc2nd. 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I apologise then. However, if you're going to use someone else's words you have to attribute them to that person with a source. In general, though, the entire article needs a major overhaul. I'm just tied up elsewhere, atm. --G2bambino (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nepal

On may 28th, 2008 Nepal officially became a republic. And so the world map should be updated on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.225.194.254 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I reckon it's kind of a moot point now, but do we even know if the deposition of the king has been legally ratified yet, and/or shoudn't we at least wait until the king vacates the palace.??

Please forgive my sarcasm, but I believe the Nepalese people will eventually see this as a communist ploy, and completely unnecessary politically. And before they celebrate too hard (the ending of the monarchy) I woud sincerely hope the republic (communists) work extremely hard to improve the economy.!----(Kaelin von Gross) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.106.67 (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)