Talk:List of monarchs who lost their thrones in the 20th century

[Untitled]
A couple of errors corrected:


 * The deposition of Queen Elizabeth II in 1960 in South Africa had nothing to do with SA's status in the Commonweath. She was deposed as ''Queen of South Africa". A Commonweath state's membership of the Commonweath automatically lapses on the declaration of a republic. It chose not to apply. Had it done so, because of apartheid it would not have been admitted.


 * Ireland did not achieve independence in 1949. It achieved independence (depending on how one reads Irish history) in 1919 (with the Irish Republic), 1921 (with the Anglo-Irish Treaty), 1922 (with the Irish Free State), 1927 (with the legal creation of the 'Kingdom of Ireland') or 1931 (with the Statute of Westminster). It was long independent by 1949; it simply became the Republic of Ireland then.


 * George VI was not deposed in India in 1947. He ceased to be Emperor then, but became king, with a governor-general. He ceased to be king with the declaration of the republic in 1949. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:47 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Is there a tidy way to summarize the difference between a monarch who finds himself replaced by another monarch (the standard before the 20th century) and a monarch who finds himself replaced by a republic? -- Someone else 00:49 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Monarchical change is always a nightmare in terms of terminology. For example deposed monarchs who have not abdicated are correctly referred to by their monarchical title, not ex-King/Queen {name} whereas an abdicated monarch is an ex-king. So you have ex-King Michael of Romania, King Constantine II of Greece, as the former (under communist pressure) abdicated, the latter didn't but was deposed by the republic.

Re the exact terminology, deposition usually means a monarch who loses his or her throne, irrespective of whether it is to someone else or to a republic. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:05 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's a shame there isn't a nice one-word distinction. We'll have to make due without  one :( -- Someone else 01:09 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Re the question of Nicolas II's brother; if my memory serves me correctly, from reading Nicholas II's abdication instrument, he named Mikhail as his heir and Mikhail initially agreed then within a short space of time (VERY short) said no, was told 'but you have already accepted. You can't unaccept, Your Majesty!' so unaccepted and abdicated simultaneously to keep everyone happy. I think the best thing to do is that where a monarch abdicated in favour of someone else to say it, even while saying 'they never took up the throne' or whatever. That's why I mentioned that King Farouk abdicated in favour of Faud II - without saying Faud II was the last de facto King of Egypt - whatever about de jure. Similarly a nineteenth century page would mention how Charles X of France abdicated in favour of 'Henry V' but he was immediately deposed by Louis-Philippe. That way you avoid someone coming along and saying - wooa! what about Faud II, Henry V, Mikhail II, etc and changing the page. So the de facto and de jure situations are covered. STÓD/ÉÍRE 01:20 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * The deposition of Queen Elizabeth II in 1960 in South Africa had nothing to do with SA's status in the Commonweath.
 * Well, yes it did in the sense that when S.A. left the Commonwealth rather than face expulsion over apartheid, it decided to become a republic at the same time. It would be an error to suggest that the changes were legally associated, but they do seem to have been politically associated. See Union of South Africa. - Montr&eacute;alais

Am I the only one on whose browser (Netscape) the pictures cover the text? Does someone reading this know how to format them? Michael Hardy 00:31 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
 * Looks fine on Mozilla (Mac), and I don't know how to fix them. Could someone also clarify whether Farouk of Egypt abdicated or was deposed? Tuf-Kat

What the frig is Netscape doing now!!! Why is it that Netscape and I Explorer between them seem to make a habit of screwing up pictures? How come the biggest browsers seem to be so monumentally crap??? (I've given up on IE and Netscape and moved to safari. Much much better! They are fine on Opera, Camino, Safari and Mozilla. Re Farouk, yes he abdicated and hoped a regency could be set up for Faud II, but Faud and the throne were immediately swept away. ÉÍREman 01:40 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

I checked on Netscape and they seemed fine. (OK. Netscape as usual wasn't. It decided to have me in edit mode on every page I entered, instead of simply viewing things. I forgot I much I hate netscape.) But no text is overlapping, and in should not be. It isn't using the table commands with pictures that regularly screws them up, but the commands Brion suggested that exactly locates the picture and tells the text to keep away. It even uses the width command to stop them 'moving', as they regularly do when it is left out. So I don't know what the problem is. (I did notice that problem has cropped up once or twice on wiki. It seemed to be a browser problem that was 'gone' when I checked back later. And it was on netscape.) If you can download a different browser Michael, do it. Netscape and IE drove me mad. When I binned them and got different ones, they were far far better. If I can, I hope never to use those damned browsers again. ÉÍREman 01:57 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Should Edward VIII be on this list? SimonP 19:32 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I was going to say "no", because "deposed" suggests removal against one's will (or at least beyond one's will), but Edward VIII went of his own accord. But looking at the article, I see several other monarchs who abdicated, so I guess he should be there too. I think the page could do with a note explaining exactly what is meant by "deposed" (right now, it seems to be meaning "anything other than dying", which as I say, isn't what it suggests to me). I expect User:Jtdirl knows what to do. --Camembert

I have already been thinking about this issue. I am going to rename the article to List of monarchs who lost their thrones in the 20th century. The current article's name has been bugging me for a while because it is clearly misleading. Deposition implies forced removal, whether by coup or by the abolition of the throne. Retirement or quitting is not technically deposition. FearÉIREANN 21:40 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Two minor requests for someone who knows more about this:
 * Baden is a disambiguation page, and I don't know which one is meant. Can someone fix this?
 * The following is very bad English, and I can't grok the meaning: The German and Austrian established Kingdom of Poland, which never had a King, although Archduke Karl Stefan of Austria was for a time King-elect, ceased to exist after the armistice in 1918.

Tuf-Kat 02:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that should do it. -- Someone else 02:41, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Tuf-Kat
 * Happy to be of service. It was fairly un-grok-able... -- Someone else 02:49, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Faisal II?
Why is Faisal II on here? He reigned as king until his death. He ought to be removed, I think. john k 06:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed the pictures
I removed all of the pictures from the article. I did this mainly because the pictures made the page look very disorganized. Plus, the pictures all also appear on the separate pages for each monarch that the pictures belonged to, so it was pointless. The page looks much nicer without them. --Woohookitty 01:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have few questions 1.how do you tipe "=="? 2.Well,wont you include Henry V.?(not here,on other pages) 3.Could somebody PLEASE do some work on theLMonarchs deposed before the 17th century"? 4.I also wanted to say that i am the person who started the previosly mentioned article,but i have a diferent username,becaus ei used to go to an internet cafe,so i want the people to knwo this 5.Could somebody include queen Aloisia of Uvea(1953-1958)?She abdicated. 6.Is there some sort of head of the wikipedia,or a group of editors,who control the regularity of the text and are responcible for its contents? Lobolover

Michael Mitchell of Akwesasne
I'm pretty sure Mike shouldn't be on this list as he the cheifdom that he was leader of is an elected body. The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne (MCA) and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT) are the elected governments at Akwesasne. Mike was Grand Chief of MCA until at least 4 years ago when he resigned from office. The cuurent Grand Chief, Angela Barns, was elected last year 2004 Now he's been elected a District Chief for Kawenoke district of Akwesasne (Cornwall Island, Ontario). The Grand Cheif position is similar to a Chairman or even President. There is no position that is similar to a monarch in all of the Mohawk Nation, as far as I was taught.

St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, New York Akwesasne I went ahead and delete this entry. --Rain Mateo 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

That long name
Can we find a shorter name for "Kehalarat Deelat Nyang Meuha Meulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Berdaulat Zilulahil Filalam Alaudin Muhammad Daud Shah"? Colipon+(T) 05:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we really should condense that name. I propose condensing a lot of those esoteric, long named kings to something like "Indonesian States" or something, as that's where all seem to be from. User:Nog64

Reason of move
If one "abdicates",one loses his throne,as if he were deposed. New Babylon 13:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit article title
Should look at adding in also "and 21st" to include the very few so far in this century. No point at this time to make a separate article yet, so having a called "List of monarchs who lost their thrones in the 20th and 21st century" would be the best option now. If no reasonable objections are said before this month's end, then it should be done & those few added within afterwards. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI
Shouldn't he be included because he abdicated in the 21st century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killuminator (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it a deposing?
A few questions - 1. At least till 1950s, India, Ceylon, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the likes are not independent. You may call them colonies, provinces, highly autonomous provinces or whatever but they are not independent. In that sense, how does these entries make justice to the article? In the same vein, take the case of loss of Irish crown to the British Monarch. Does shrunken domains of a king define him to be the ruler who lost the crown of the separated lands? 2. Ethiopia and Albania are annexed to Italian Crown as provinces. No separate king of Ethiopia or Albania existed during the Italian Occupation. Renouncing rights over them is simply the same as losing control of one province which wishes to secede. 3. If Finland and Albania are represented as Principalities, what of those innumerable German and Indian kingdoms? Same goes for not so numerous Indonesian and Malaysian Princes. 4. Though the North Koreans feel terribly outraged by this, can I call the current ruler an emperor? A third generation wielding power without any gap in succession should surely be viewed as monarchy. In that case, any country which is ruled by more than one generation of the family and if the last is deposed(like Thomas Cromwell, I am not able to think of anyone in this century) should also be considered. Will the Oil Sheiks fit into this description?