Talk:Monarchy/Archive 1

Canada
well this means The map is inaccurate,j Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy.99.240.183.9 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All the Commonwealth monarchies are, by definition, Constitutional Monarchies. However, there is a point in noting that the Commonwealth is being given undue prominence. [ roux  ] [ x ] 21:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll amend the image tonight. [ roux  ] [ x ] 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)spanin frenche spanish ans canadad

distinguishing characteristic
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) -the yang-di-pertuan-agong of malaysia is elected for a fixed term of office but is still unquestionably a monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?


 * The way the terms republic and monarchy are used nowadays they mixes together forms of government that have nothing in common and seperates those that are almost similar. This is the case with e.g. socalled "constitutional monarchies" which are in fact ruled by a parliamentary form of government, meaning that they are in reality parliamentary republics. A socalled "parliamentary monarchy" like Norway have more in common with a parliamentary republic like Germany than the latter have in common with a presidential system like the USA. The forms of government of the first two are parlimentary, while the latter is presidential, while all three are democratic. --Oddeivind (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddevind is right. It is difficult to distinguish a republic from a monarchy in practise. A res publica is a polity in which the people participate. So yes, according to this definition, the UK is a republic. There are very few, if any, true monarchies, ie., those which are ruled personally by one person. The Vatican might be one. Bhutan might be another. In practise monarchy and republic are defined by titles and cultural understandings.Gazzster (talk) 20:58, 17

November 2010 (UTC)
 * And maybe North Korea is one, although formally it is a republic. In practice, however, I would say it is a hereditary absolute monarchy! --Oddeivind (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

-what about Poland until 1795? Officially called a 'republic'; it nonetheless had a King as it's head of state.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If you want a map of the monarchies in the world, including The Kingdom of Tibet's religious monarchy: HH the Dali Lama I have one. Also, The Kingdom of Bhutan has a semi-constitutional monarchy (monarch that exicutes power). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irland is a constitutional monarchy of its own, it is not 'in personal union' with one but many countries are in 'personal union' with it such as Canada, Bahamas, New Zealand and others, so it should be green, not light green. The map is easy to read and would be great for this page. The map is File:Monarchies of the world.png which can be accessed from Wikipedia and much easier from the commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free the kingdom of tibet (talk • contribs) 23:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FTKOT, your assertions about the UK vis-a-vis the other Commonwealth realms are incorrect; if the UK shares its monarch - and it does - then it is in what would be described as a personal union - and it has. This was discussed at length at the map's commons talk page, where it was decided that the Commonwealth realms should all be the same colour. I cannot, however, comment on Tibet's status, as I unfortunately don't know much about the subject. Would it qualify as a subnational monarchy? Or, is it a monarcy in exile? --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 & even here  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)

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)

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)

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. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The O le Ao o le Malo is a ceremonial president
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)

Despite the reply from the Samoan spokesman (Ms.Mauinatu), I would not hasten to change the map just yet. Please see my footnote above under SAMOA: The present OleAo-OleMalo carries the title His Highness (HH), being a hereditary high chief of one of the 4 ruling noble families; his predecessor was the Samoan Monarch for decades, and was highly respected both in Samoa and from the world-at-large. It has already been shown by the example of Malaysia, that elective monarchy is not unusual. Again I will hold, that Samoa is an elective de-facto constitutional monarchy.!(Kaelin von Gross)

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 :

"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, Balfour Declaration of 1926, Statute of Westminster 1931, British monarchy (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)

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)

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)

No, by definition; Canada is not a kingdom. The official desriptive adjective for the state is 'dominion' so that's what it is. Just because a state is headed by a king or queen doesn't neccesarily make it a 'kingdom', but obviously, it is a monarchy, as it has the queen as it's head of state. But then; look at the nomenclature employed by all the other commonwealth realms: Papua New Guinea is an 'independent state',saint kitts and nevis is a 'federation' Australia and the Bahamas are 'commonwealths', barbados, grenada, new zealand, tuvalu, the solomon islands, belize, jamaica, (but new zealand was a 'dominion' until 1946.) had no adjective describing them; and of the former commonwealth realms, nigeria was a 'federation', pakistan, india and fiji were 'dominions', ireland was a 'free state', malta was a 'state', and sierra leone, ceylon, mauritius, the gambia, uganda, kenya, guyana, malawi, trinidad and tobago,uganda, and tanganyika had no adjective describing them. But nonetheless, all the above were monarchies, but not kingdoms, even if headed by a king or queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.48 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As someone who actually lives in a Commonwealth Realm, I assure you that the Realm of New Zealand is a Kingdom and its head of State is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand (and also of the UK and other commonwealth realms). People are getting confused and misapplying terms. Just because a country has a federal system like Australia, Canada or Nigeria doesn't mean they aren't (or in Nigeria's case, weren't) Kingdoms. The comments above are largely beside the point. HansNZL (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * -Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith


 * ''-Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Nigeria and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

''
 * -Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth


 * -Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith


 * Queen is the default title. Where the realm in question is (or was) not technically a Kingdom, the title Queen will be further modified within that realm, i.e. Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Empress of India, etc.


 * Link HansNZL (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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. 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.
 * 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.
 * Another strange argument. Maintaining a royal court isn't expensive? Maintaining a royal family isn't expensive? Holding a coronation isn't expensive?
 * 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)
 * Wandered over here for another reason, but... can't find the cites right now (I'm lazy and it's 4am) but there has been a significant amount of investigation into 'cost of monarchy' vs. 'cost of republic' and the former is uniformly cheaper, actually. Prince of Canadat 08:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I think Bhutan should be marked with green on the map, because after reading the parts of the Constitution of Bhutan, it's relevant that the king, as Article 2, part 1 states "... is the Head of State and the symbol of unity of the Kingdom and of the people of Bhutan." has only ceremonial duties now (apart from the fact that he remains the supreme commander of the armed forces. Further inspection of the constition may required but I think, after reading Article 1 and 2, we can agree on that Bhutan is a constitutional monarchy.   10:43, 19 August 2010 (CET)

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)

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)

Deleted material
I deleted some material more suited for a list article. Anything useful and not already integrated I'm putting here. Neutralitytalk 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Specific monarchies

 * Cokossian Monarchy
 * Datus of the Philippines
 * Danish monarchy
 * Indonesian Monarchies
 * King of Ireland
 * Kotokolian Monarchy
 * List of Nigerian traditional states
 * Monarchies of Ethiopia
 * Monarchy of Australia
 * Monarchies of Burma
 * Monarchy of Barbados
 * Monarchy of Belize
 * Monarchy of Canada
 * Monarchy of Jamaica
 * Monarchy of New Zealand
 * Monarchy of the Solomon Islands
 * Monarchy of the United Kingdom
 * Nepalese monarchy
 * Norwegian monarchy
 * Tenkodogo Monarchy
 * Wogodogo Monarchy

Map Revision
The current map needs to be revised as Nepal is now officiall a Federal Republic and Bhutan officially a Constitutional Monarchy, both having had elections in the last year on the matter and for their respective legislatures and, in the case of Nepal Executive.
 * User:IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

From October, 7th, 2008 subnational monarchy Mustang inside Nepal was abolished, what needs to exchange the map CrazyRepublican (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Zambia
Is Barotseland still a regional monarchy? That's what it says in the Monarchies in Africa article. kwami (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. РОССИЙСКАЯ ОБЩИНА ОАЭ (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to wonder if it's a good idea to mark local monarchies. Where's the line between a king and a chief? Do we color all of North and South America pink because of local chiefs?


 * I guess those should be coloured that are recognised as monarchies by the governments of respective independent states. РОССИЙСКАЯ ОБЩИНА ОАЭ (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not, because not all chiefs (at least in North America) fit the definition of monarch; many are elected to limited terms, for example. Prince of Canadat 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, as pointed out at this page before, is that the definition of monarch is quite broad. Some monarchs were/are elected (Holy Roman Emperor, King of Poland, the Pope, Head of State of Malaysia) and for limited terms . Perhaps the article should be renamed 'kingship'.--Gazzster (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Election was merely the first thing that came to mind. Chiefs of most First Nations/aboriginal tribes in North America function more like the Chair of the Board than as a monarch. Prince of Canadat 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But then so does Her Britannic Majesty Elizabeth II of Windsor nee Saxe-Coburg Gotha By the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom, etc. But she is described as a monarch without a qualm.It seems that 'monarch' has a pretty broad definition. Which is why I think 'kingship' might work better.--Gazzster (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this is nearly a year after the last comment but Elizabeth II is not "nee Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" as she was born nearly 10 years after the Royal House changed its name

Map inaccuracy
The map illustrating the world's monarchies displayed the United Kingdom as though it is not in a personal union, and thus somehow different to the other Commonwealth realms. While there are certainly elements that make the non-British realms unique in comparison to the UK, they are not of any particular relevance to the information the map is intended to show. In order to avoid confusing readers with any contradictory messages, I've removed the map temporarily (commenting it out didn't work), until the matter of colouring the UK is resolved. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the UK should be coloured light green (and light green should only be for Commonwealth realms) or all of the Commonwealth realms should be coloured dark green as they are all constitutional monarchies. --Knowzilla 10:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the Vatican really a monarchy?
Is the Vatican really a monarchy? The pope's primary purpose is to be a religious leader and cleric. He only holds sovereignty over a very tiny area and the area's citizens are only religious clerics, it has a miniscule population. And prior to Mussolini's Concordat with the Roman Catholic Church the Vatican was not a sovereign state. So I don't really think it's accurate to call the Vatican a monarchy. Plus even though there are some elective monarchies even elective monarchies usually have a strong hereditary element, e.g., the kingdom of Poland and the Holy Roman Empire, both of which were elective monarchies, always elected monarchs who came from aristocratic bloodlines and the electors themselves also came from noble families, whereas the Vatican does not have any hereditary elements in its elections of the pope at all. I tried removing the reference to the Vatican as a monarchy in this article before but someone changed it back and said it actually is one. I won't remove it again unless there's a consensus that I'm right on this one. Is there anyone else here who agrees with me that its incorrect to call the Vatican a monarchy? --FDR (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it IS an absolute monarchy. РОССИЙСКАЯ ОБЩИНА ОАЭ (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the Vatican's own website, the state is "governed as an absolute monarchy." --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A pretty good rule of thumb is that monarchs only tend to use first names (though not necessarily the ones they were given at birth), and to put numbers after them. ðarkun coll 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This cannot be a decisive characteristics. Many monarchs in the World do not use it or use it very rearly. On the other hand, many dignitaries or even common people, who are not monarchs, do use this same system. РОССИЙСКАЯ ОБЩИНА ОАЭ (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is, as it has a lot of the same trappings of one. I'd even go as far as it being in the same realm of Andorra. Otherwise, what would it be categorized as, certainly not a republic! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Andorra:
 * In no way! First of all, Andorra is headed not only by the Archbishop of Urgel, but also by the President of France, who is in no way a vassal of the Pope.
 * Secondly, the Archbishop of Urgel is a sovereign of Andorra in his own right, not being subjected to the Pope in THIS capacity. In other words, the Pope (and Vatican) is not a suzeren of Andorra. РОССИЙСКАЯ ОБЩИНА ОАЭ (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously I was wrong as Miesianiacal pointed out, the Vatican itself refers to its government as a monarchy, so it is at least nominally a monarchy. I wasn't aware of that before that user pointed it out to me, that's why I thought it wasn't a monarchy. Even though the Vatican is not really similar to other monarchies it is one nominally so that is what wikipedia should call it. So I admit I was wrong. --FDR (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Britain is a constitutional monarchy?
Hello there. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know Britain does not have a constitution. There exists a series of bills-e.g Magan Charta from 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689- however, there is no such thing as "a" constitution. Therefore, I would suggest to change the status of GB to parliamentary monarchy. Here, the power lies with parliament an the monarch has a mainly representative function. The German- speaking Wiki-site makes this distinction. I know, might not be a popular examlpe, but anyway, it seems legitimate to me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.54.21 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The UK does not have a WRITTEN constitution, but it does have an unwritten constitution, so it is a constitutional monarchy. РОССИЙСКАЯ ОБЩИНА ОАЭ (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * HI, go read up on unwritten constitution & Constitution of the United Kingdom. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some may not recognize an unwritten constitution as legitimate. Most constitutional manarchies do in fact, have a written constitution.--Questions99 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Head of Commonwealth
In response to user:Knowzilla's changes to my edits, in which I stated that 16 nations recognize the British monarch as their head, as opposed to merely Elizabeth II personally, Knowzilla was partially right. If my most recent edit and evidence therein is incorrect, please change. However the follwing information from Head of the Commonwealth may be useful:
 * The title is not vested in the Crown as shared amongst the Commonwealth realms, and the Commonwealth's members might not agree that the next monarch should automatically succeed as Head of the Commonwealth upon accession to the Throne. However, the assumption is that the title itself would become extinct were it not held by the shared monarch, and no new suggestions have ever been put forward by any of the Commonwealth member-countries as to who, if anyone, should take on the role currently exercised by Queen Elizabeth II. In all probability, therefore, her successor as monarch will also succeed to the role of the Head of the Commonwealth. The position of Head of the Commonwealth was discussed at the 1997 Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The consensus was that the title should remain annexed to the Sovereign.[citation needed] This meeting was attended by Elizabeth II.
 * and
 * The London Declaration of 1949, devised by Canadian Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, stated that the monarch would be a symbol of the free association of independent countries, and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. These words meant that kingdoms that were not Commonwealth Realms, as well as republics, could remain members - they could recognise the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth without accepting the person as the country's head of state.

--达伟 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who is Head of the Commonwealth (currently Queen Elizabeth II) heads the Commonwealth of Nations. A global organization of 53 member states which cooperate with each other on various issues, etc, etc. The Commonwealth however has NO influence whatsoever on the governments of it's member states. The Queen is Monarch of the 16 Commonwealth realms independently of being Head of the Commonwealth, and independently monarch of each of them. No Commonwealth realm expect the United Kingdom has the monarch of the United Kingdom as head of state legally. Sure enough the same person who is the British monarch is also the Canadian monarch, for example, currently, but since they are positions held independently of each other, it is not correct to say the British monarch is the head of state of Canada, etc. These countries all share Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, but not the British monarch. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  05:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for that reference, the Secretary-General was probably speaking in a very casual way. Once passing sentence from the then Secretary-General of the Commonwealth does not replace countless acts and laws, and constitutional evolution and independence of the realms which enforce the view I have given. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  05:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, Knowzilla. I concede. However, since the first "head of state accepted by 16 states" (I know the number was different originally) was George VII, and later Elizabeth, it's somewhat more than a coincidence that the British monarch is that same as the Canadian monarch, Australian monarch etc.: in other words, a general consensus or convention even if not legally required. I wish there were a way to indicate this in the article, to be a little more precise than making it seem like a totally random aggregation of countries that happen to revere Elizabeth II in her personal capacity (which it is not). By the way, if we could add a cite to the sentence supporting what you said above--which, again, I agree with--that would be best. Thanks for everything --达伟 (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Which part(s) of what I stated would you like to see explained with a cite linked from the sentence? And, thanks for your understanding, I thought if readers really wanted details on how that is so, they could click on the link to the Commonwealth realm article. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  06:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I know it's probably approaching the point of splitting hairs, but if readers see "16 counties that have Elizabeth II as their head of state," it would kind of make sense again, to point out that by tradition/convention this is the british monarch, and this status will probably be borne by her successors, not merely devotion to her as an individual (e.g. personal union).--达伟 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet More Vandalism Removal
Just removed some dodgy edits to the first line. This seems to be happening frequently; do we want a lock of some sort on the page? Jonoerik (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Order of Malta
Is the SMOM some type of monarchy? Alinor (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See also here. Alinor (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this part about equal primogeniture is wrong
"In 1980, Sweden became the first European monarchy to declare equal (full cognatic) primogeniture, meaning that the eldest child of the monarch, whether female or male, ascends to the throne.[5] Other kingdoms (such as the Netherlands in 1983, Norway in 1990, and Belgium in 1991) have since followed suit. Sometimes religion is affected; under the Act of Settlement 1701 all Roman Catholics and all persons who have married Roman Catholics are ineligible to be the British monarch and are skipped in the order of succession."

In the Netherlands, there was a queen in world war II, which is before 1983. I'm not entirely sure what equal full cognatic primogeniture means, but if it refers to male/female accession to the throne, then this must be wrong. It should be explained better, if this is not what it means. or else it should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoincidentalBystander (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Current Ruler of the United Kingdom is a Queen also, but only because she had no Brothers. Thats how it would have worked at the time in the Netherlands.(188.28.115.97 (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

More on the history?
The current page is a bit of a random mess and needs structuring. I'm not the one to do that... but I'd suggest as a start a history section, including perhaps this which I just wrote ;) - Government by itineration - a way in the Middle Ages for a monarch to govern. I'll be fleshing it out soon. Malick78 (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular in the Middle Ages.
The line at the end of the opening about Monarchies being popular in the Middle ages reads a svery tacked on and I feel is slightly loaded as it sugests that Monarchy is and was rare in all other time frames. Yet emidiately after the Middle ages, most of the World was devided into Empires, which were Monarchies. aside from that it just doesn't read well and for that reason I'm going to remove it.(188.28.115.97 (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was somewhat uncomfortable with it too but not for the reasons you suggest. Monarchy wasn't so much 'common' during the Middle Ages as the standard form of government, naturally as it did from the concept of the leader priest/warrior. Communual or oligarchic governments were rare. In Europe at least I can think of only three: Venice, Switzerland and Novgorod.Gazzster (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No disagreement on the specific line, but most northern Italian cities had communal government in the 12th-13th centuries; and what about Florence, Siena, Genoa, Pisa, which remained republics into the 15th century or later? These were all at least technically part of the Holy Roman Empire, but so was Switzerland.  There's also the German free cities, especially the Hanseatic towns.  john k (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

When I went back and deleted it I noticed it also claimed it was popular in the Ancient world which is even less true as the Ancient world had a large number of non Monarchy states, dependant on when you choose to be the Ancient world. I very much felt it read as an attack on Monarchy in the Present day which, as the happy subject of a Queen I found offensive.(92.40.224.152 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

"popular" is probably not the right word :) Saying that something is "popular" to express that it was widespread or thriving has an inherent democratic, or indeed anti-aristocratic bias. Kingship was indeed ubiquitous since the establishemnt of farming in the Neolithic. But it needs to be emphasized that kingship is in essence a religious notion. It doesn't matter if a monarchy is absolute, parliamentary or constitutional, it is considered a monarchy as long as it is seen as a divine institution. On the other hand, even absolute rulers are "presidents", not kings, if and only if they are secular and their right to rule is seen as purely political, not religious. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the distinction between monarch and president can be a very fine one indeed. One could call Elizabeth II a sort of president of the UK, and conversely, Barac Obama might be an elected monarch of the USA.Perhaps the distinction rests not in the leaders but in their states. The USA is definitely a res publica, but the UK is still basically regarded as the domain of one woman. Gazzster (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is wrong from the first sentence.
Quote: A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is passed down to an individual (usually hereditary) known as a monarch ("single ruler"), or king (male), queen (female).

This sentence is just plain wrong. Just because Kings and Queens are monarchs doesn't mean that a monarch = King or Queen. A King is just one subset of several monarchical titles. A more accurate generic general term would be "Prince" not King, Since Dukes, Emperors, Kings, etc. are all Princes. But labelling monarchs with any single title is going to cause trouble, and calling them Kings is Anglocentric if not completely naive. HansNZL (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you touch on the problem often brought up on this talk page. The definition of monarch is very shaky. Let;s break it down:

A monarchy is a form of government -yes

In which all political power - not necessarily. IN the UK for example, supreme power belongs to Parliament, of which the Sovereign is an integral part.

is passed down to an individual (usually hereditary) -although in Andorra two co-princes succeed by virtue of appointment processes of foreign powers.

known as a monarch - unless there be co-monarchs

or king or queen - though not, as you say, if they are an Emperor/empress, Sovereign Prince/Princess, Grand Duke or Head of State (in Malaysia)

It's a tricky thing to define. Why do we exclude presidents from the definition? Needs some tweaking. Any suggestions?Gazzster (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Divine Sanction" in the definition.
How is the President of France perceived to be Co-Prince of Andorra by some kind of divine sanction? I don't think this is a good definition. -- 95.252.60.26 (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I composed the new definition in the hopes of improving the previous one. The Presidents of France were of course preceded as co-princes by the Kings of France and before them by the Kings of Navarre. So I suppose the 'divine sanction' can be seen in that context. Then again, maybe there are so many exceptions to whatever definition you might propose that a hard and fast definition is impossible.Gazzster (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indonesia and the British Commonwealth
I noticed Indonesia isn't marked, but there are a variety of monarchies, sultanates, principalities, etc. throughout the country. There's actually a Wikipedia article which goes over a variety of past and present sub-national monarchies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indonesian_monarchies

Might take a bit of research, but I suspect that there are a variety of countries with traditional sub-national monarchies.

Also, it's mentioned below that Canada (and by consequence, other Commonwealth countries) should be listed as constitutional monarchies. By definition, while Canada shares Queen Elizabeth with other Commonwealth countries, (as far as I know) according to Canadian law, Canada is a constitutional monarchy and Elizabeth is the Queen of Canada. I think the map is fine as it is in regards to Canada and presumably other Commonwealth countries, but it might be useful to distinguish Commonwealth constitutional monarchies from others.

While we're on the topic, don't some aboriginal peoples in the commonwealth realms, such as the Maori, have recognized subnational monarchies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljosi (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes there are, as mentioned in their respective continents that have articles already made under the Template:Monarchies. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)