Talk:Monarchy

Perhaps North Korean should also be listed within this article hundred the heading of communist monarchy.^[1]:

"I'm a sociologist, by discipline. Or indiscipline, do I hear you sneer? True, my subject has its share of what one eminent sociologist, Garry Runciman, has called attitude and platitude. Plenty of obfuscating jargon, too. Nor is it half as trendy as when I first got hooked, back in 1968 - when I mixed it up with Marxism. These days, subjects like psychology, history and even economics (despite our present discontents) are more highly regarded than sociology.

But my trade has its uses too, as I shall now try to demonstrate. Take Kim Jong-eun, newly crowned dauphin of North Korea. A communist monarchy: that's a strange beast indeed, and a contradiction in terms. But sociology, I contend, may shed some light here. What is going on? How on earth did it come to this? And can such a peculiar system survive?

...

Communist monarchy Communist monarchy: what a grotesque paradox. Yet there is a double logic to this. First, at the end of the day who can you trust? Especially in a culture that prizes filial piety, your own family looks the best bet. Kim Jong-il certainly thinks so, promoting not only his son but his sister - Kim Kyong-hui also becomes a full Politburo member - and of course her husband Jang Song-taek, now an alternate Politburo member as well as a vice-chair of the National Defense Commission (NDC), the highest executive body of state outranking the Cabinet.

Second: In a state barely 60 years old, but preceded by centuries of Confucian monarchy and (more immediately) four decades of emperor-worship under Japanese occupation (1905-45), keeping it in the Kim family presses powerful buttons. Or to put it more sociologically, this mode of essentially patriarchal legitimation of rulers is familiar, indeed deeply ingrained.

On October 8 Yang Hyong-sop, a veteran Politburo member aged 85, told Associated Press Television News (APTN): Our people take pride in the fact that they are blessed with great leaders from generation to generation... Our people are honored to serve the great president Kim Il-sung and the great general Kim Jong-il. Now we also have the honor of serving young general Kim Jong-eun.

He sounded deeply traditional: a loyal courtier to his kings. But North Korea's communist origins mean it can't admit it has become a monarchy, so this isn't quite enough. Both the ruler, and even more his successor, have to justify their rule in some other way. This is the third factor, and it takes two forms - or more precisely, stages.

The first is a cult of personality: originated by Stalin, extended by Mao, and pushed to its extremes by Kim Il-sung. Hey, if a guy claims absolute right to rule, he'd better be special. This is what the German sociologist Max Weber called charisma: a term which has entered the language in a looser sense. Or if he's not so special, you make up stories to pretend he is. These may be ludicrous, but woe betide anyone rash enough to giggle or cast aspersions.

Yet as Weber saw, as a mode of rule charisma has problems. Unlike traditional authority - a monarchy proper, for instance - charisma is vested in just one exceptional individual. What happens when they die? The challenge, in Weber's rather ugly term, is to routinize charisma."Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC) and 2012

Regardless of whether the position of leader of North Korea has effectively been passed down from father to son (although neither Kim Jong-Il nor Kim Jong-Un have ever been formally Head of State of North Korea; (at any rate, a monarchy doesn't have to be hereditary, it can also be elective.) he constitution states that the people are sovereign (and thus the country is a republic), rather than the sovereignty being vested in the Head of State (which would make it a monarchy). That, and the fact it's called the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is absurd to call a failed republic a monarchy or even a "quasi" monarchy. This is clearly wrong. --89.204.138.237 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Interestingly enough in Footnote 2 it has been stated that North Korea is *not* a monarchy. --89.204.138.237 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done some CE on the "current monarchies" section, but I'm wondering where the justification is for this particular subdivision. In particular I would question the division into two sets of constitutional monarchies. Do we have a WP:RS authority for this division, or is it just something one of us made up? Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On the current map New Caledonia and Vanuatu shown as constitutional monarchies instead of Tuvalu and Tonga (I think, that Tonga remains an absolute monarchy). Please somebody exchange the map. CrazyRepublican (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Polish wiki has an article on pl:Monarchia stanowa, defined as "a type of monarchy common to the late middle ages period, characterized by the formation of distinct social classes. In particular, the classes of nobility, priesthood and to a lesser extent, townsfolk, would gain some representation in the government, and limit the rulers powers." The direct translation of "monarchia stanowa" would be "class monarchy" (stan -> (social) class in Polish), but I am not seeing anything like this in the English sources on Google Books. Any ideas? PS. On a related note, en wiki is also missing an article on the patrimonial monarchy (pl:Monarchia patrymonialna, I redirect it to patrimonialism for the time being). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

From the first few paragraphs of this, there appears to be no difference beetween monarchy and dictatorship. Then come charachteristics of monarchy, none of which seem to distinguish it from other governments. Dictatorship usually has a republican government behind, but what about modern constitutional monarchy. This blurs the line beetween monarchy and dictatorship. --Questions99 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Some now-existing monarchies are most certainly not dictatorships.

Queen Elizabeth II of England is a monarch, and she is a figurehead in the secular realm of power. She appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he in turn is the head of the Anglican Catholic Church. As monarch, she is a constitutional officer of the British state, but has no secular power, and is in fact mainly a religious leader for the recognized denomination (the UK is an officially Christian state).

King Juan Carlos (or King John Charles, if you wish to translate the name he assumed in office) of Spain, unlike Elizabeth II who at least has a religious investiture power, is a true figurehead. Spain is also an officially Christian state, but a Roman Catholic one rather than Anglican Catholic. The Pope assigns all other Bishops to their Dioceses ever since the Investiture Controversy back in the 1100s, and is himself elected, not appointed. This leaves the modern Monarch of Spain with no power, secular or religious, except for his symbolic significance.

So, Queen Elizabeth II and King Juan Carlos are by no means dictators, yet they are monarchs. I hope that answers your question. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

most monarchies throughout the ages essentially were absolutist dictatorships. Franco's rule in Spain was essentially a kingdom without a monarchy. Mussolini in Italy was prime minister under a monarch. Even the modern day constitutional monarchies are still essentially discriminatory as in that everyone from other families is barred from being head of state because that right is exclusively reserved for one family which is inherently discriminatory.

Just a few points:

• The British Queen does indeed have some (not much) political power, i.e. residual powers as part of the royal prevogative. Also it's the Church of England, not the 'Anglican Catholic Church' she is head of. (Although the Church of England is indeed an anglican church.)
• Spain is not officially Catholic.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual (the monarch).[1]

Forms of monarchy differ widely based on the level of legal autonomy the monarch holds in governance, the method of selection of the monarch, and any predetermined limits on the length of their tenure."

By this broad definition, you could argue that all heads of state are monarchs if by another name, especially with the part about "any predetermined limits on the length of their tenure," or in other words, term limits. Even without that part, though, there are many dictators in office for life who are not traditionally considered monarchs (historical examples range from Adolf Hitler to Joseph Mobutu, and currently Robert Mugabe and others; and at the time this category would have included Emperor Augustus, despite his being often thought of today as a monarch).

With the term limits part, the definition is even more problematic. For example, the President is not referred to as a monarch, and yet he is the Head of State of the USA, and he is inarguably the very personification of Article II in the country's Constitution.

So, how do we tweak the definition of a monarch so that we don't end up including these men as monarchs: Barrack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Filipe Calderon, and others; and formerly Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Joseph Mobutu, Momar Al Kadaffi, Idi Amin, Milton Obote, Manuel Noriega, and others? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the defining characteristic of the monarch is that they inherit the office, as opposed to acquiring it through purely political means. That doesn't mean that pure primogeniture determines who the monarch will be, but it does mean that a) the monarch can only come from a select number of individuals whose ancestry and birth has placed them within the small ruling class of the country or society in question. Even for elective monarchies (such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) the monarch was elected by the ruling class and elected from the ruling class, and access to the ruling class was determined by heredity: You could only be elected King of Poland if you were born to the right people. In contrast, dictators aquired power solely through conquest and/or political processes; it has nothing to do with accident of birth. --Jayron32 14:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't we amend the Article definition to say that a monarch must be partially hereditary if not directly so?

Also, this makes Vatican City a non-monarchical dictatorship, on the grounds that there are no birth circumstance or social class qualifications to be Pope. On the contrary, any male Roman Catholic (in theory any male Christian) can be legally and validly elected Pope, although once elected he must be consecrated as a Bishop in order to serve. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that the title of the 1562-1791 Polish Commonwealth's Head of State was 'King', the sovereignty of it was considered to be vested in the szlachta, the Polish nobility (who claimed to represent the Polish nation as a whole) and not the King; whose power they severely circumscribed. For those reasons, it can be considered a republic rather than an elective monarchy.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I edited the starting definition to reflect the explicit lifetime tenure as defining element. I am aware that many autocrats rule until their death, but only monarchs and thus monarchies have this "until death" (or abdication) rule written into law. Inheritance is only an option for succession. Nsae Comp (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Their are two historical inaccuracies about Bhutan in the article. Firstly Bhutan is mentioned as a kingdom which had never been under European subjugation. This is false as Bhutan remained a protectorate of the British Indian Empire until 1947 and secondly Bhutan is mentioned as being a Theravada Buddhist nation whereas it is actually Vajrayana Buddhist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.63.112 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Which Monarchy or Kingdom is the richest in the world? and which is the poorest? Any tally of wealth by Kingdom? CaribDigita (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

rule throne king/queen candidate, there are two options:

• only male child from the sequence; or
• the sequence child and gender sex (from above to below)

if the children and grandchildren from the king/queen dies/divorce then sister-in-law/brother-in-law can't be a member of the royal family. Akuindo (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The particulars of succession varies in each monarchy depending on which laws of succession are in place there. Anyway I am not quite sure which part of this article it is that you suggest improving, you will have to be a bit more specific. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

???????????????????????

The opening sentence states that a monarch reigns until death or abdication. However, the Malaysian monarchy has a term length of five years. Thunderstone99 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

North Korea is a republic; what does that have to do with anything? JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You could argue that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia is no monarch but a simple head of state, but is still elected from the federated monarchies of Malaysia, making Malaysia an odd construct of being a republic made out of monarchies, making it a monarchy afterall? Nsae Comp (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Parse the worth, into it's components, especially if you have a mind above ...

Monarchy, does NOT create My Enemy, it creates, "My Arch, and?"

Do orphans have an issue that a family man places his umbral over that what he(she) has created, maintained themselves? (Beaurocrats and social anarchist mafia do, but do you?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.122.242 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The map of European monarchies has two identical categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This language here in the introduction is vague as to the meaning of "sovereignty, or its altogether outside of the use of the word "sovereignty" in the natural English language (i.e. not the state language of a particular government). It needs to be improved. Its in reference to the powers of the monarch. In the United States we have developed the convention of saying that a national leader excercises "executive authority," and that seems to be a natural term to use. -Inowen (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

While it may be illegal to criticize the monarchy in certain places like Britain and Canada, its necessary that the topic have a criticism section, which will also naturally spill over into an article. In fact there appears to be a criticism of monarchy article, and so thus this article should have a section which addresses the topic and links the article. -Inowen (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note It is not illegal to criticize the British/Canadian monarch in the United Kingdom nor in Canada. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Dude, its never been illegal to criticize the monarchy in any of the Commonwealth Realms. Australia has a referendum on it, after all

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Richard Löwenhez, Salbung zum König.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The article fails to mention even any of the argument that the concept of monarchy is in itself discriminatory as it differentiates between families based on birth, asserting that members of one particular family are "higher", "nobler" or simply "better" than all others.

How is it not discriminatory to deny millions of people the equal right and chance to be the head of state of their country because one family was at some stage hundreds of years ago awarded the exclusive privilege usually based on centuries of oppression and tyranny (which is how "royal" families usually gained their wealth, or rather stole it).

Good idea. I think this would fit well somewhere in the last two paragraphs of the History section when many countries turned away from monarchism; it would make sense to include these kinds of critiques from an Enlightenment perspective of human rights. Note, also, however, that anything added would have to include citations referencing reliable secondary sources.--MattMauler (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Nsae Comp, I recently made a relatively minor edit, removing this material from the lead because I believe that it is unnecessary and repetitive (diff here). The monarch can go by various titles, and little extra information or clarity is added if we include that their authority can be "proclaimed" and "recognized" by inhabiting various seats. It's a more complex way of saying the same thing, so both sentences were not needed. The other sentence I removed stated that monarchs can be bound by and rule over territories or people groups, just as can almost any ruler, so it did not seem significant. Additionally, the example title given "King of the Belgians" is functionally no different from most other monarchs. All of this, besides the over-linking of words, adds unnecessary complexity to the lead.
I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, as we seem to be the most frequent and consistent editors on the page recently. However, it seems as though we have very different standards for the type of information that should be in the lead. Perhaps a third opinion would help?--MattMauler (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the elaborate explanation. I think your arguments are fine, even if I clearly have a different approach. A third opinion is allways good, but I have no problem with your edit thanks to your elaboration. All the best. Nsae Comp (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the other edit of you, moving the remark about "dynastic periode", this was at the end of the sentance because also elective monarchies can build dynastic periodes. But of course it is mostly in the context of hereditary monarchies. Nsae Comp (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Last but not least, maybe there is a spot in the article where the taken out senances can be of use? Obviously I find it important to note somewhere what the senances say about the nuances of legitimation of monarchs through insignia, seats or connection to territory or people. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps somewhere under the "role of the monarch"? The territory vs. people could go there, maybe. The problem with the "insignia" or seats information is that it's often unclear whether these insignia or seats have an important impact on the role of the monarch. Again, if it goes in, it should be clear to the reader how the different "seats" are functionally different rather than mostly being different terminology (and it would also have to be supported by sources, of course).--MattMauler (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Different versions of the lead: "A monarchy is a political system in which supreme authority is vested in a monarch who functions as head of state and who normally ascedes to the position by heredity. The system's political legitimacy and legal authority exercised by the monarch may differ from varying levels of constitutionally constrained (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy). However, common across monarchical systems are the monarch as the legal fount of executive, legislative and judicial power."

"A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The legitimation and governing power of the monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to restricted (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), combining executive, legislative and judicial power."

I argue for the latter because: "Political system" is broader than "form of government", a monarchy can be within a larger political system and does not need to be supreme or hereditary, good example here is Malaysia. Further mention of heredity is later in next paragraph and wording is longer. The last aspects are also not common, only historically, because legaly in the today common form, a constitutional monarchy, these powers are given by the constitution contracting subjects. I think the lead needs to consider the many contemporary and historic monarchies that are subnational and mostly symbolic, since they outnumber the top layer monarchies of nations and independent states. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: I disagree with your edit here, which I had removed because it seemed unsourced and even if it was sourced it is truly disputed.

My edit here shows Sudanic people already had kings way before that. There is Clovis culture which is way older than these examples and shows clear evidence of monarchy before these examples. Other than these examples, you will see Cretan civilization , who is just as old as Egyptian but the script hasn't been deciphered.

I can go on with these examples but I believe this is enough to remove that disputed part again. Thanks ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I think this article should not be a competition between who was the first, better to mention a few cultures who were undoubtedly part of the beginnings. The Sumerian culture is one the generally accepted ones, and yes I checked, the only verifiable king is the one mentioned, however the Sumerian King list goes back much further, indeed backed by written evidence. So the first pharagraph of the history sections should not be removed, they have verified entities. The rest of your edits you may put back. I Wish You A Happy New Year!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

Hi I had this recently reintroduced after being taken out without proper explaination. Now it got again taken out for reasons of "unneeded" and "wordy". Well I want to defend the content of it (not the wording). So I want to put this up for discussion. I argue for thos two sentences because they are in my opinion quite crucial to understand the concept. The first one and a half sentences are about the special nature of monarchies compared to the modern nation state since monarchies can come into being not only as an unitarian or nation state, but also as a network of polities best illustrated by a personal union, but more frequently in history as a federation or system of vassalage. If people want to understand monarchies throughout history, and thats when they were big, then they need to understand this dimension. The second excerpt is underlining the crucial shift and conceptual difference that defines our modern world of nation states, which chose mostly the concept of republic.

"Monarchies form polities under monarchs as either unitary states, in personal union, federation or vassalage. Monarchs can carry various and, particularly in personal union, multiple titles of monarchies,"

"Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, when the republic became the dominant and opposit (see republicanism) form of government."

Nsae Comp (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

PS: Previously the first part was even longer, elaborting in more detail the first issue with following sentences. These sentences had been cut because they were touched upon particularly by the now taken out sentences. The older sentences are for illustration and need not be reintroduces if not deemed useful. "Its authorities are proclaimed and recognized through the different seats, insignia and titles that a monarch can occupy and be invested with." & [Monarcies] "can be bound to territories (e.g., the King of Norway) and peoples (e.g., the King of the Belgians)." Nsae Comp (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Can we make this work? Nsae Comp (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

1) How is the first bit more relevant to monarchies than to other forms of government? Republics can also come into being as unitary states or as more complicated agglomerations. 2) the bit about historical commonality is already in the article. What does the sentence about republics add to this? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

ad 1) well I can see what you mean, but its just a problem of focus. To address this we could write something like "A monarchy has the capacity to form polities through personal relations to the monarch. Beside the common organization of states as unitarian or federated states, monarchies can also and particularly become polities through personal union and vassalege."

ad 2) the sentence about republic(-anism) puts monarchies in political context, importantly since most people live in republics and they are products and even named to signal non-monarchic. Besides its half a sentence. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not remove the text this time, but I agree with Khajidha's critiques. I also do not see exactly how your comment here addresses them. The fact that monarchies can exist in these different forms does not seem essential for the lead and makes it more confusing. Most readers are not going to know what it means by "polities" being "formed" "through personal relations to the monarch." It's not untrue, it's just that the language is very technical and it's still kind of vague. I understand how the republic ideas could be lead-relevant, although I am not sure what you mean in your comment immediately above. The part I am hesitant to add would be that republic is "opposite" of monarchy, as if it is a binary choice or a spectrum, where in fact there are many more varieties of government that aren't plotted on that bi-polar model, right? If there are sources that use the exact word "opposite," then I could be convinced.--MattMauler (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

ad 1) Ill try another wording that is less convaluted and more focused on the special dimension of monarchies (e.g. Personenverbandsstaat):"The focus of monarchies on the monarch, particularly its relations, has allowed monarchies to become complex systems of personal union, federation or vassalage."

ad 2) Well I know the whole thing with the history of the concept of republic is contradicting, but republic is used by many states to denote the "absence"^[1] of a monarchy. But how about this:"Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, when republics were established to abolish monarchies (see republicanism), replacing them as the dominant form of government." Nsae Comp (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would insert this, if no more objections? Nsae Comp (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Republics can also be complex systems. 2) Your proposed sentence implies that republics did not exist until the 20th century. So, no, do not insert this. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

1) that statement does not refer remotely to republics. But ok, lets reword:"Monarchies can claim realms through personal association of lands and peoples to the monarch, allowing personal association as personal union, federation or vassalage."

as 2) addressing the raised issue:"Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, when new republics were established with the purpose of abolishing monarchies (see republicanism), replacing them as the dominant form of government." ... if you have a better wording, please share it, thx. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

1) All this is saying is that the monarch (as the representative of the state) determines how the state relates to other states. Is that really necessary to spell out? 2) "Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, at which time republics had become more common." But the only part that is really relevant to this article is that "Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but you seem to not get what I am saying. 1) the sentence does not say anything about foreign policy/other states, it talkes about how the state is constituted/assembled, which is as crucial as it is for democracies to be constituted through the identification of a populace/voting citizens. Please anyone? My english cant be that bad.

ad 2) no my whole argument is that it is important to draw a connection to the contemporarily dominant form of government, especially because it is used as the concept to abolish monarchies, put in place instead of monarchy. I am contextualizing, not just mentioning historic conditions as in the previous dominance of monarchies. Nsae Comp (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The further down mentioned Commonwealth is the best example why both points are important: the Commonwealth is an association of realms under a crown/monarch, exactly what I try to state in 1) ... and calls in the Commonwealth realms for a republic are the common proposal against the monarchy (see the reference that states that in the beginning of its own argument). Nsae Comp (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

1) A republic could conceivably have the same head of state as another republic, just as the same person could be monarch of two separate realms (personal union). And a republic could have another republic that is subservient to it (vassalage). The territories of the United States might approach that situation. Or perhaps the relationship between Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands and the United States. Even if neither of those quite fit, something equivalent to vassalage is possible with republics as well as with monarchies. The only difference with a monarchy is that the "state" is a person. 2) Then I propose that you use the wording: "Monarchies were the most common form of government until the 20th century, by which time republics had replaced many monarchies." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

2) thanks & added; ad 1) if you argue like this then allmost no element of monarchies or republics are relevant because they are present in both, hell even communism can have monarchic elements like in NKorea, though the elements are differently crucial for the different systems and thats my argument. Yes republics can have puppet states or colonies (not precicely vassals though, or especially fiefs) but it is not about comparing monarchies with republics (the sentence about republics further below has nothing to do with this). Monarchies have historically formed special polities that republics mostly havnt, republics havnt formed states out of alliegence to a person, such as in states out of personal union; best example Spain. Just because Andorra has the french president as protector doesnt invalidate that monarchies had this kind of association as one of its main modus operandi, republics do this only through colonization etc. and dont associate states through sharing a president, yet again as evident with Andorra, Andorra is not a part of the French republic, its more a statement about the monarchic elements of Andorra. But enough of the missplaced comparison with republics. As I said the main point is to elaborate that monarchies do often form states through personal association, constituted either as federations, through personal union or vassalage. Maybe it helps, to connect it with feudalism, a very monarchic system. But I have favoured just listing vassalage, because feudalism is a rather European system and vassalage is more generally applicable. I hope I could flash out what I mean and find a text that works for everyone. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok how about this, turning it around, making it not a statement about federations etc, making it clear that federations etc are not a speciality of monarchies, but rather how they come to be:"Monarchies can form federations, personal unions and realms with vassals through personal association with the monarch." Nsae Comp (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

See, now that makes sense. I still feel it isn't strictly necessary to state, because we have already established that the monarch embodies the state in his/her person, but will not object to making it explicit. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am glad we found something that works for both. I integrated it now and I hope that how I (re-) integrated it in the remained text is okay and not sabutaging what you saw that works for you? I originally intended the titles not as a list, but to show why monarchs have different titles and why monarchies can be a weird conglomerate of territories, particularly in Europe and therefore the colonial world. As I said this is all a hint to the complexity of mostly (and importantly the contemporary) the British/Commonwealth Crown, and how its relations can be understood, e.g. historically the best example is how Queen Victoria could also be Empress. So its mostly about feudalism and other political constructs like personal union. I am open for more discussion, but otherwise this is closed for me. Thank you for the constructive work. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afletc23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: PJ8421, RadicalPizza.

— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone add a description of the monarchy in Lesotho. I believe it is the only sovereign country with a monarchy not mentioned in the text. Dzamandzar (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)