Talk:Crowned republic

2007
The Roman Empire in the East (Byzantium) was definetly not considering itself as a Republic - some coins at the time show the Emperor's head with the inscription "King over Kings, Ruling over Rulers".Tourskin 06:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does North Korea fit the definition of a Crowned Republic? - Okinawa Matt 15:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It could be - is he (the leader, is his name Kim Jong or somethin?) or does he posses absolute power? The thing is Venice was a crowned republic because it had a King or a noble in charge - same with Rome, where by an Emperor and a King are effectively the same thing. I'm not sure what title Kim Jong has. Party secretary perhaps but u should check out the North Korea page.Tourskin 03:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rome was no crowned republic
It was called the prinipate by the romans or empire. YankeeRoman(65.222.151.74 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC))
 * It weren't build in a day, either. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, and your point? It was not a crowned republic. There was a sole ruler as emperor. Rome was an aristocracy anyway during the republic period.(YankeeRoman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.115.202 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

YankeeRoman has a point but I would clarify: The Principate phase of the Roman Empire was still constitutionally a republic but it certainly was not a crowned republic as defined here.--Utinomen (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good cleanup, G2
--Gazzster (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it def. applies to Canada...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha. Im on to it. Try googling 'Canada'; and 'Crowned republic'.--Gazzster (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, an H.G. Wells source comes up. Interesting read. --G2bambino (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I liked war of the worlds but I didnt think much of that! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool book. Not a bad movie.--Gazzster (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Historical sense still useful?
Does not North Korea meet the definition of a crowned republic in the historical sense?

2008-10-02 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I have found a present-day term for the same concept: family dictatorship.

2009-01-19 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

"effectively making this the only hereditary succession in the remnants of the Communist Bloc." If we are going to include North Korea, then surely we should include Cuba, where Fidel Castro is succeeded by his brother; every bit as hereditary as James II succeeding Charles II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.161.61 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was NOT a crowned republic in the sense that it was officially supposed to be a republic, but de facto it assumed qualities of a monarchy.

Quite the OPPOSITE: it was officially SUPPOSED to be a MONARCHY, but de facto it assumed qualities of a republic, with its king being elected, the representative (for its time) General Parliament ('Sejm walny') running things, decentralisation and subsidiarity were rather the norm and certain rights became sacred for the politically active (szlachta). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? This is the status of all crowned republics described in this article. john k (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The definition that this article has for what a "crown republic" is has changed considerably since I made that remark. I do wholehartedly agree that the current definition would describe quite accurately the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, so it should be mentioned in the article ! Omulurimaru (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Venetian Republic
The Republic of Venice was not a crowned republic, in that even though the aristocracy invariably became elected doge, it was by no means hereditary. If you look on a list of all the Doges of Venice, there are some last names that are repeated throughout the history, but none of them are father to son, only brother to brother, and most of the time, even these were highly contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhangmyzen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Republic of Venice has been referred to as a crowned republic, but I suppose the absence of a citation is enough to remove it from the list. Most of the other examples are uncited too. 'Crowned republic' is not, of course, an official designation, not even a particularly useful way of describing certain countries. In this article is seemed to be used as a catch-all name for republics with authoritarian, hereditary governments or, conversely, constitutional nations with weak monarchies. Rather confusing, really. Especially when you consider that a great number of nations will fit into that category. After all, most monarchies are constitutional democracies and many republics have hereditary dictators or strong monarch- like executives (The US, US and the Russian Federation, for example). The article should only treat of the term 'Crowned Republic' in the context in which it has been used. We should not try and assign countries to the term. This is original research. I believe the phrase has been attached to the UK, Australia, and, as I've guessed, probably the Republic of the Venice. As for the others? Well - references!Gazzster (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the Dutch republic, where the position of Stadtholder was first de facto and then de jure hereditary in the Princes of Orange-Nassau ?161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Protectorate
I have just done a search of Google Books and Google Scholar, not one source was returned described the Protectorate as a "Crowned republic". Unless a reliable source can be found that Crowned republic is an excepted description of the the Protectorate it should be removed from the list. -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think the Commonwealth was the opposite - and uncrowned monarchy. john k (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OR
If "In political science, a crowned republic is an informal term with two distinct meanings." then it will be easy to find a source that backs up the statement. If no reliable sources are presented to explain what a crown republic is this article should be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The other possibility is to delete the current content and replace it with a short article based on this source Choosing the Republic by Glenn Patmore p. 105 that describes the use of the term by the Australian Republican Advisory Committee created in 1993 by Paul Keating, when he was Prime Minister of Australia, to describe Australia. -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said two paragraphs or so above, 'crowned republic' should only be cited and defined in the context in which they were used. In other words, only the nations to which the term is specifically assigned should be in the article. I think its certain that it has been applied to the United Kingdom, though the references could be better (Bagehot used the phrase I believe). Also it has been used to describe Australia, and that too, can be readily referenced.So we probably don't need to delete, but shorten the article, so that only those nations which have been notably referred to as crowned republics be included. There is far too much speculation and original research at the moment.Gazzster (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been Googling:


 * Choosing the Republic by Glenn Patmore p. 105 that describes the use of the term by the Australian Republican Advisory Committee created in 1993 by Paul Keating, when he was Prime Minister of Australia, to describe Australia. -- PBS (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The cane toad republic by David Flint p. 60 while surveying the Commonwealth arrangements says "American Professor Daniel Lazar has compared the 'crowned republic' of Great Britain with the system of the United States."
 * Our Social Heritage by Graham Wallas 224 "The constitutional [British] monarchy has become a 'crowned republic' or rather a crowned parliamentary majority".


 * The term was use during World War I by H. G. Wells (see Short Works of Herbert George Wells p. 68) "It is the fashion for the apologists of the monarchy in the British Empire to speak of the British system as crowned republic." Wells also used the term in  A Short History of the World so it seems that the older Wells was what the younger Wells described as an apologist.


 * Modern democracies, Volume 2, Viscount James Bryce Bryce p. 535 "By Monarchy I understand the think not the Name i.e. not any State the head of which is called King or Emperor, but one in which the personal will of the monarch is constantly effective, and in the last resort predominant, factor of government. Thus, while such a monarchy as that of Norway is really a Crowned Republic, and indeed a democratic republic, monarchy was in Russia before 1917, and in Turkey before 1905, and to a less degree in Germany and the Austro-Hungariam Morarchy till 1918, an appreciable force in the conduct of affairs".


 * George Canning, used the term in a number of speeches in which he used it to describe the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom in the first decades of the 19th century. He first argued this way in 1812 where he said that it was not true that the House of Commons was all important, and the the English lived under a limited monarchy not a crowned republic. (The habit of authority: paternalism in British history, by Archibald Paton Thornton, Allen & Unwin, 1966. p. 185) He justified opposing fundamental electoral reform on the grounds that universal representation would alter the constitution, changing the House of Commons from an overseer of the government by the Crown to governing the country and would be saying the Crown should be elective, and as England had flourished under the present constitution it should not be altered. (Cobbett's Political Register VOL.XXI From January to June,1812, by Cobbett's Political Register VOL.XXI From January to June,1812 p. 621,622

It seems clear to me that the term is used in reliable sources, but it is primarily restricted to the use as described in the very last paragraph of the current article. For example currently the article says "Greece was declared a Crowned republic, according to the 1864 Constitution established by the Second National Assembly", But that is not what the article Greek Constitution of 1864 calls it. Rather the constitutional arrangements described in the article would be a good example of a "crowned republic" if a reliable source has described it as such!

So I propose that the article is rearranged so that the first paragraph is moved to the top and expanded, while all the rest of the article is scrapped unless sources can be found to directly the text's inclusion. -- PBS (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. I agree. Gazzster (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made the first cut (and it was a very big one!). -- PBS (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If "A crowned republic is a form of constitutional monarchy" is a there need for a separate article, why not instead just merge this with the constitutional monarchy article? Can anyone show that a 'crowned republic' is significantly different from a 'constitutional monarchy'? If not this seems to a neologism for states generally known as consititutional monarchy: WP:NOTNEO. --Utinomen (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a neologism as the term has been around for at least 200 years. I think you mean synonym. I am not sure that it is as it seems to be a very specific form of constitutional monarchy. For example George III was a constitutional monarch, but George Canning did not consider that George III was head of a crowned republic. Instead he attached that term to what another writer James Bryce Bryce refers to as "Thus, while such a monarchy as that of Norway is really a Crowned Republic, and indeed a democratic republic, monarchy".


 * For the UK Google returns ["crowned republic" site:uk] returns 312 results while in comparison ["constitutional monarchy" site:uk] about 10,600 results and on such a return it clearly is not a common phrase in the UK, but a search of ["crowned republic" site:au] returns about 173,000 results which shows that in an Australia it is clearly a common phrase particularly if one compare that with ["constitutional monarchy" site:au] which returns about 67,500.


 * On that evidence I think that this article can be justified under national varieties of English, as it is clearly a major topic of interest in Australia and is a phrase used amongst those interested in the Australian constitutional arrangements (Background Paper 11 1997-98: The Recent Republic Debate-A Chronology: 1989-1998 published 1996 and Chapter 4: Arguments against a plebiscite on an Australian republic published 2009). -- PBS (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have informed the Australian Wikipedians' notice board perhaps some Australian editors can indicate whether they think this is or is not a notable enough topic to have its own article. -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * curiosity from PBS's notification(first time I had heard the term), I read the article and followed two sources that calls Australia as a "crowned republic" first one is attributed to Peter Reith but is behind a pay per view wall. Interestingly the in second source the only reference to a crowned republic is an icon which hot links to another site, that in self makes the use of this as a source extremely dubious. The linked to site Crowned Republic says On this site we distinguish between the two major forms of republics. One group are “crowned republics” ( also known as constitutional monarchies). At the centre of these is an institution above politics, the Crown. The other category consists of  “politicians’ republics”.  In these there is no similar institution which provides leadership beyond politics. I see nothing more clearer than this definition that the two terms are whole synonomous with each other. As Constitutional Monarch is the more commonly used term, I doubt anything more than a redirect of this page is really necessary. Gnangarra 04:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that the total Google numbers returned are accurate (see how many pages are returned in the search). But leaving that aside Michael Kirby seems to have been a prominent exponent of the term "crowned republic" in Australia (do a Google seach on his name and crowned republic).  Gascoigne (2002) p. 59 argues it was a common term in Victorian Britain  and that it was applied to the debate about what sort of constitution Australia should have back then. Here is a different definition from the one Gnangarra found  "Parenthetically, a state such as the modern United Kingdom or the Kingdom of Denmark, where the monarch reigns but does not rule, is best described, not as a monarchy, but as a 'crowned republic'." (Coakley (1999),p. 313) -- PBS (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, that does not make it anything but a synonom of constitutional monarchy, as it seems Kirby is only pressing for a namechange of the phenonemon rather than an actual redifinition of it. A redirect, and perhaps a section in constitutional monarchy explaining this usage, seems sufficient to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thailand
It would be illegal to discuss this subject in the Thai kingdom of Rama IX. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Crowned republic is monarchy
Crowned republic is constitutional monarchy. This playing around with words isn't going to help the article. Crowned means with crown and that means king, and there is no compatibility between "crown" and "republic." These are opposite terms. Crowned republics are constitutional monarchy. Crowned republics are not republics, because the head of state is the monarch. 64.134.146.210 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the current article has any issues with that. Abstractematics (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Crowned Democracy is the correct term
Crowned Democracy is the correct term! Crowned Republic there is not! Also, Presidential Republic is the correct.176.92.169.35 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See The Greeks get a new constitution; limits King The Dispatch - 11 July 1968 "Athens (UPI) -- Premier George Papadopoulos announced today a new constitution that calls Greece a 'crowned parliamentary democracy' and curtails the powes of self-exiled King Constantine".


 * You will need to produce some reliable sources that state that a "crowned parliamentary democracy" is a synonym a "crowned republic" (otherwise the association is a SYN). -- PBS (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Crowned Democracy (in full we add the term parliamentary) there is in the parliament of Greece (english version). Also, in the same way it is written in the Greek Educational Encyclopedia, Athens Publishing House, which is the best Greek encyclopaedia.

Then I quote the link with the documentation, where each reader can easily separate the periods of Greek constitutional history. a) Absolute Monarchy, b) Constitutional Monarchy, c) Crowned Democracy.

www.hellenicparliament.gr/en/Vouli-ton-Ellinon/To-Politevma/Syntagmatiki-Istoria

The right term is Crowned Democracy. Republic is the no-reigning democracy, that is the Presidential Republic.

We can not use the term "Republic" both forms of democracy. There should be distinct differences.46.103.182.177 (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In Greek there is no distinction between the word republic and democracy - how do you know that the intended term was Democracy and not Republic? The form of government is described in English by the Hellenic Parliament as a "crowned democracy", but Greece is not a democracy; Greece is a republic. Also, this article is generally about crowned republics, not about Greece. --Michail (blah) 13:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you say that "republic is the no-reigning democracy" - that is not true. A democracy and a republic are distinct forms of government. In a democracy everyone (dēmos) participates. In a republic the people elect representatives. The term "republic" does not refer to whether there is a king or not. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was called a republic (rzeczpospolita) and it had a king. --Michail (blah) 13:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

-- Republic are called all states without King or Queen, that is, Parliamentary Republic or Presidential Republic.

In English by the Hellenic Parliament as a "crowned democracy" described the regime, in which Greece had Parliamentary Democracy with head of state the king (and not president). Contrary, Greece had Republic from 1924 until 1935 and from 1974 until today. Please, read the link better.

We want to have a clear distinction. Therefore, we can not call the kingdom as "Republic", because all the world's countries without king or queen are called as "Republics". Officially and informally. Consequently, we will say: Presidential Republic and Crowned Democracy.46.103.182.177 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you need to read up on political science. A few things:
 * I know the history of Greece very well, you don't need to lecture me on it. I basically wrote the article on the Second Hellenic Republic.
 * We are not going to base this article on the Hellenic Parliament's description of the form of government in Greece. This is a general article about crowned republics. There is a section on Greece, which I added myself.
 * There is no distinction in Greek between δημοκρατία (republic) and δημοκρατία (democracy). Βασιλευομένη Δημοκρατία can mean Crowned Republic and Crowned Democracy. Greece's official name in English is Hellenic Republic (Ελληνική Δημοκρατία), and not Hellenic Democracy.
 * Per WP:COMMON, Wikipedia uses the name that is most common. If you google "crowned republic" you get 16 million hits. "Crowned democracy" gives you 12 million.
 * A republic is not necessarily non-monarchial. Britannica defines the term Republic as a "form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body".
 * There is even an Oxford Dictionaries entry on Crowned Republic. There isn't one on crowned democracy.
 * Many existing kingdoms, such as Australia, Norway, or the United Kingdom, have been called Crowned Republics. Take for example This reference to a Crowned Republic in 1901, this New York Times article from 1922, or H. G. Wells's 1922 A Short History of the World, in which he talks of the following Crowned Republics: Britain, Australia, Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa. The fact that Australia is a Crowned Republic was an argument used by the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy campaign in the Australian republic referendum, 1999, and has since been used even on an official level in Australia. Republica Coronada is also a thing in Spanish. It also appears here in relation to Greece, and Greece was also described as a Crowned Republic by Churchill.
 * Do you have any sources that support your claim, apart from the one source which is the Hellenic Parliament website? --Michail (blah) 20:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

You're offensive! You speak very bad .... You are monotonous .... There are several sources and links that use the term "crowned democracy", as the follow 2 links....

The Conundrum of Crowned Democracies, By Pedro Schwartz

Crowned Democracy: An Update on the State of Academic Research on Monarchy

In Australia and not only..., the royalist organizations, use the term "no, Republic" !!!

The period of 1924-1935 was not the "second Greek Republic", but the "first Greek Republic". The period of Ioannis Kapodistrias was transient... Kapodistrias, although (he) was a good governor, ruled with dictatorial powers, without a parliament and without a Constitution. Thank you!46.103.182.177 (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you think that my comments are offensive. They were not intended to be so. Royalist organisations in Australia, do use the term 'Crowned Republic'. It's even used by the Museum of Australian Democracy at the Old Parliament House. The entire premise of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy campaign was that Australia is already a republic: a crowned republic. Not only that, but the term was used officially by Australian Prime Minister Keating in 1993. With regards to the Second Hellenic Republic, this is the accepted historiographical term. It not only includes the reign of Kapodistrias, but also the governments of Mavrocordatos and others from 1822 onwards. The term was also used by the Hellenic Parliament website. Please note that Wikipedia does not allow original research and claims need to be verified with multiple reliable sources. --Michail (blah) 23:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC).

Indeed, the term "crowned republic" used more in Australia, even by some royal organizations, but not because it is accepted by Australian royalists, but precisely because they want to use a way of argument against their republican opponents. "The Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy" do not accept the term "republic" at all. If you enter in the page of this organization, at the top left, it is marked "no, Republic". https://norepublic.com.au/ "The Australian Monarchist League", has said, it does not accept the term "crowned republic". On the contrary, they do not reject the term "crowned democracy". I spoke with them for this subject.

When we study some sources for the state models, it does not mean that we should automatically adopt always these, because with this way we would stay static. The springs are good, but always we look forward to create something better... Sources are only for reading and stunding. Life go ahead… In each case…. The terms "Presidential Republic " and "Crowned Democracy" are 2 terms, that create an aesthetic distinction, and these helps people better, in order understanding the definition and the meaning of terms, precisely because these offers a difference in words. Thank you!46.103.171.221 (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)