Jump to content

Talk:Monarch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

I think brazilian monarchs descendents still use the title "Príncipe(prince) of Brazil", even tho nobody considers them princes.187.20.222.160 (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovergnine Baron

[edit]

The entry concerning monarchial titles used by non-monarchs contains awkward and vauge refrences to the Sovergin Baron of Holstine. I suggest that it be cleaned up.

The world's only (semi-) sovereign Baron may be the current Seigneur of Sark, John Beaumont (who may be more accurately defined as "Lord-of-the-Manor"); heriditary by primogeniture. He,is subservient to the Bailiff of Guernsey, who in turn is subservient to the Duke of Normandy (Channel Islands), QE II; a nice little modern feudal arrangement.!----(Kaelin von Gross). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.232.109 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchical power

[edit]

There are about a dozen modern monarchs with substantial or even absolute power. These include prominent world leaders such as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Therefore I've edited the article to make note that powerful modern monarchs are not, in fact, rarer than hens' teeth. Previously, the article had simply stated that modern monarchs are typically figureheads with little power. This could give the wrong impression, since the powerful monarchs are by no means extinct. If anyone has a problem with my edit, please let me know.--Mavisss 65.31.99.19 15:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

[edit]

I thought we no longer used that 'czar' spelling for Tsar. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:19 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

American English seems to favor 'czar', especially in such expressions as 'drug czar'. Salsa Shark 05:23 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
We should probably be using British English in this article, given that the USA doesn't have any monarchs. See wikipedia:manual of style
I agree. Tsar is generally used internationally to refer to the former Russian emperors. Czar is largely used by the US and a small number of others. STÓD/ÉÍRE 12:41 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
What do the Russians use?
царь, apparently.

First, people use Czar instead of Tsar for historic reasons. Czar comes from [[Caesar] and it's easier to see that with Czar. In someway it legitimized Russian monarchy in the West and reasserted it's claim to be the successor of the Eastern Roman Empire and the Third Rome.

Second, who said "We should probably be using British English in this article, given that the USA doesn't have any monarchs?" That may be the single most idiotic thing I have ever heard. It doesn't matter which we use but what does government style have to do with it? If this was about BRITAIN then maybe I could see you having somewhat of a point

Pace 80.6.82.237, I feel it's more useful for the list in this article to be of physical people, not legal capacities. Psmith 03:14, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Kingdoms in Oceania

[edit]

Please note, that only real, sovereign kingdom in Oceania is Tonga. Nauru is republic. Wallis and Futuna got three kings, but they have limited power, because this territory is part of France, governed by governor. This is only France teritory which keep kings.

Mrs. --Gerard von Hebel 04:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-agreed, the chief of Samoa is a monarch and I have added him to the list, though interestingly upon his death the position of Chief of State will be chosen by the parliament for 5 year terms, like a presidency. Nudge 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a king, but only head of state for life. --Tauʻolunga 19:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a king, but only head of state for life. --Tauʻolunga 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope?

[edit]

The Pope isn't a monarch, he's elected by the Church. Chris 02:51, Sep 5, 2004

Being elected doesn't make him a non-monarch. Whatever the deciding factor is as to who is a monarch or not, it is not formal inheritance. -- Jao 23:55, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
But he is still not a monarch, as I see it. A monarch needn't be a hereditary ruler, but he/she is a wordly leader, while the pope is a spiritual leader. The pope is head of state of the Vatican City state because he is the leader of the catholic church. John Anderson 23:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That makes him a worldly leader (he's also "wordly" sometimes, too). One of his many formal titles is "Sovereign of the Vatican City State". Not all residents of Vatican City are necessarily Catholics, and for the non-Catholics, the Pope is merely their head of state, not their spiritual leader. JackofOz 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but does this make him a monarch? I think not. John Anderson 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is one of definition. There is an extremely hazy definition of monarch, so it's just not cut and dried who's in and who's out. The pope has for centuries been accorded a status higher than emperors - he even got to decide who the next Holy Roman Emperor would be. In the sense that he is a ruler who is the final authority over his "subjects", he has always been considered a monarch. JackofOz 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the electors of the Holy Roman Empire elected the emperor. The pope crowned him, but that's not the same as deciding who will become emperor. He was and is a sovereign and a head of state but that does not mean that he should be considered a monarch, just as the president of the United States or the Dalai Lama are not monarchs either. John Anderson 05:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popes have always been regarded as elective monarchs. And no, the pope is not head of state of the Vatican because he is the leader of the Catholic Church. Vatican City is legally a state. It decides who its head of state is. Under its laws the person who is pope is its head of state. The role of "Sovereign" (ie, monarch) of Vatican City and pope are held by the same person, so whomever is pope is a legal head of state. That is why he appoints ambassadors and receives ambassadors. He could not do that if he was not a head of state. That is also why as a head of state he pays courtesy calls on the local head of state in every country he visits. As to your comparison with the President of the United States, that is just preposterous. The pope is always regarded as an elective monarch of a state. In theory the Vatican could separate both roles and have someone other than pope as its head of state. But it is unlikely to do so. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the hypothetical female equivalent of pope be "mope" or "mome", since it comes from the same root as "patriarch/matriarch", "paternity/maternity" etc? 82.24.189.88 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or Holy Mother, but regardless; I should point out that the terms currently listed in the article (French La Papessa, German Papstin, etc.) as such are derogatory informal terms for women who influence the Pope, and unduly so in the opinion of the person using that word, in whichever language the conversation happens to be. Since they are terms of undue influence in the speaker's opinion, not hypothetical female terms for the Pope (For the record, we already have a Holy Mother, the Virgin Mary), I move that the following paragraph be rewritten to reflect what I just explained about (allegedly undue) influence from a woman to the Pope.
"The pope is the Bishop of Rome (a celibate office always forbidden to women), in English however, reports of female popes such as (Pope Joan) refer to them as pope and Popess is used, among other things, for the second trump in the Tarot deck; some European languages also have a feminine form of the word pope, such as the Italian papessa, the French papesse, and the German Päpstin."
For the record, this article [1] will clarify the matter further when its editors find outside sources. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops can not be monarchs

[edit]

Frankly, the idea of the Pope as a monarch is strange considering that Bishops can't be monarchs. Priests including Bishops are currently not allowed to hold political offices, monarchistic or otherwise. The Bishop of Rome is not a political official. Yes, he is the head of state of Vatican City, but Vatican City is a country that only exists at the whim of the Church (which negotiated its secession from Fascist Italy, the realm of Benito Mussilini), and its citizenry is actually 100% Roman Catholic. The only employer within it is the Church, and the only people apart from the Cardinals and their Secretaries who are actually granted citizenship are: 1. Members of the Swiss Guard 2. Underage sons of members of the Swiss Guard 3. Unmarried daughters of members of the Swiss Guard. Since membership in the Guard requires a person to be Roman Catholic, I highly doubt that there are non-Roman Catholic citizens of Vatican City as someone suggested earlier in arguing that the Pope was a monarch. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Kaelin von Gross cites below (A'problem of definitions' from the Constitution of Andorra) the Bishop of Urgel is, with the President of France, monarch of Andorra. Generally, canon law forbids political office to the Catholic clergy, though there are exemptions. The Bishop of Urgel is obviously one. The Pope himself is another. However the Vatican City State came into existence it is still a sovereign state. Historically, there were sovereign bishops, particularly in the Holy Roman Empire (eg., the Prince-bishops of Trier, Cologne, Mainz, Salzburg, etc) and the Orthodox Prince-bishops of Montenegro in the Balkans.It all depends upon how we wish to define a monarch. Monarch means 'single ruler'. So a monarch could be a president, king, emperor or any sovereign ruler, including a bishop. If however, a monarch is a crowned sovereign ruler, bishops would not be monarchs. Even here, on the other hand, the Popes were crowned as late as 1963. And of course there are a number of rulers styled 'monarchs' who are not crowned, such as the present King of Spain. My own feeling is that monarch can't be defined strictly and we should talk about emperors and kings and presidents and prince-bishops, etc, separately. Which, of course they are, in their own articles.Gazzster (talk)
The President of the USA is also a singular head of state and ruler of sorts, albeit with limited power and in some ways subordinate to Congress, but not in every way. Yet, he is not referred to as a monarch. As for the Vatican, while it is a sovereign state and I am not arguing with that, all its citizens are citizens more or less by choice (Cardinals, their Secretaries; Members of Swiss Guard, their children), contrary to one of the earlier arguments that some of its citizens might not even be Roman Catholic. So, it is a sovereign state where none are granted citizenship except by their choice of career. One is not born a Cardinal or a Secretary serving under a Cardinal, nor is one born a member of the Swiss Guard. My point is that a monarch such as Queen Elizabeth II can have people become her subjects automatically in a way that Pope Benedict XVI can't: A person can be born a permanent citizen of the state of Great Britain, not having to join a committee like the College of Cardinals nor a protective agency like the Swiss Guard. (Children of Guard members are not permanent. Boys and girls lose Vatican citizenship at 18 years of age and marriage, respectively.) By these means, it could still be argued that she is a monarch and he isn't. As for the Bishop of Urgel, he is not a single ruler (monarch) given that he rules Andorra with the President of France. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A problem of definitions

[edit]

The difficulty here, as in monarchy, is that there is no clear definition of what a monarch is.

hereditary? The Holy Roman Emperor and Kings of Poland were elected, as indeed, is the Pope.
crowned? The only monarch who is stilled crowned is the Sovereign of the UK (the popes used to be crowned).
rules a territory? Well the Pope does fit there. What about the Dalai Llama, or the exiled King of Afghanistan? Are they monarchs?
a single ruler? Well, on that grounds, why don't we include presidents?

And what about the Co-Princes of Andorra? They're not strictly monarchs on that score?

weilding great power? Most monarchs are limited by constitutions. Many presidents of democratic governments, let alone authoritarian ones, have more power than monarchs these days.

Where does that leave us? Well, I think we are left with whoever is traditionally styled a monarch. The name 'monarch' doesn't reallty help. It would be more useful to have 'king' and 'queen' or 'kings and queens' as articles standing alone, and not as redirects.--Gazzster (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know precisely, but maybe this will help: Altho the Holy Roman Emperors and Polish kings were elected, they came from powerful hereditary royal or noble ruling families. This is not the case in Andorra: The princes of Andorra are not hereditary, and not from royal or even noble backgrounds. Therefore, while Andorra is defined as a principality, it is not a monarchy.--- (Kaelin von Gross). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.232.109 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an interesting insight, but I still feel it's a very grey area. My Oxford defines monarch 'sovereign with title of king, emperor, etc; supreme ruler.'Dictionary definitions are always limited and this particular one is pretty broad. The definition of monarchs tend to be based on titles.So any sovereign ruler with a medieval sounding title would qualify.--Gazzster (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazzter and Kaelin: The Principality of Andorra is indeed an elective constitutional monarchy.! My first analysis (above) was incorrect because I failed to re-read Andorra's constitution of 1993.! The constitution provides for "a single monarch, described as the co-principality of the Bishop of Urgel and the President of France". In the case of monarchy in Andorra, apparently two equals one, de jure.!! Interestingly, altho the French President is elected, the Bishop of Urgell (also titled Prince-Bishop of Andorra) is appointed for life, subject to removal for incapacities or resignation. Also, both are apparently double Excellencies, both as Co-Princes of Andorra and by the fact of their (outside) positions as Bishop and President.----(Kaelin von Gross)

Dictatorship vs. Absolute Monarchy

[edit]

This article minces words. The words "dictator" or "dictatorship" never appear. Even I fail to understand the difference of powers between "Dictator" and "Absolute Monarchy". Where does North Korea fit in this article? I'm sure there are other examples. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

[edit]

Queen Margethe II is also Queen of Greenland -k

  • As Greenland is constitutionally a part of the Kingdom of Denmmark, I do not see how this can be so.--Pharos 21:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

She is Queen of Greenland because she is chief of state of Greenland. It's similar to Canada to Elizabeth II. So teechnically she is Queen of Greenland. Look at the Greenland page and it'll tell you.

As far I can see, she is Queen of Greenland only in the way that George W. Bush is President of California. Canada is not part of the United Kingdom in any way, so Elizabeth II is independently Queen of Canada. If, as the article says, Greenland is an "integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark", I cannot see how they are not under the "Queen of Denmark". Please provide some sort of official source if that's possible.--Pharos 01:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) 

Independence: none (part of the Kingdom of Denmark; self-governing overseas administrative division of Denmark since 1979)

National holiday: Birthday of the Queen, 16 April (1940)

Constitution: 5 June 1953 (Danish constitution)

Legal system: Danish Dependency status: part of the Kingdom of Denmark; self-governing overseas administrative division of Denmark since 1979.

So therefore the nominal head of state is the Danish monarch, represented by a high commissioner, and the monarch today is Magrethe II. 

 I found this information onhttp: //www.wifak.uni-wuerzburg.de/fact98/gl.htm

Perhaps this will help: Constitutionally, the Danish monarch today is Margrethe II, Queen of Denmark. She is not "by the grace of God, Queen of Denmark and all her realms", as is the general case in the UK. Margrethe II is simply Queen of Denmark, and only Denmark. She is not "Queen of Greenland" or "Queen of Faroes" etc., even tho these lands are an integral but autonomous part of the Kingdom. The situation is entirely different in the British Commonweath: QE II is constitutionally and "by the grace of God, Queen of Canada", for example (and 15 other "realms", ie. commonwealth monarchies). ----(Kaelin von Gross) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.232.29 (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many many non-sovereign monarchs

[edit]

This website has been collecting some impressive info on Non-European royalty. Look at their page for Nigeria alone. It should be clear, looking at this, that we can never hope to put all monarchs on one relatively small list at the end of this article.--Pharos 05:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles

[edit]

As I have understood it, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are both integral parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. If this understanding is correct, Beatrix is no more "Queen of Aruba" than, for instance, Elizabeth II is Queen of Gibraltar or George W. Bush is President of North Dakota. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Jao 18:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, she is queen by name only. Were arguing on a issue we both agree on.
No, it doesn't sound as if we are agreeing. My point is that she is "Queen of Aruba" not even by name, and shouldn't be listed as such here, just as Margrethe II is not "Queen of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands" or some such nonsense (there was a discussion on this somewhere not too long ago). Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not monarchies. They are parts of monarchies. If we start listing parts of monarchies, there would be no stopping having Elizabeth as Queen of the Falkland Islands, Queen of Queensland, Queen of Ontario, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Wales, Queen of British Columbia... You get the point. The list would never end. -- Jao 10:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Coming to the party very much later, I must point out that whole the rest of your list is accurate... Elizabeth actually is the Queen of Scotland (it is a separate throne that just happens to be "United" with that of Englad and Northern Ireland). The UK itself is a bit of an onion of nations. --Marcinjeske (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "The Netherlands" into the "Kingdom of the Netherlands", since the latter includes the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, of which the Queen is indeed not sovereign seperate from The Netherlands itself. -- kaivanmil 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A good solution. -- Jao 08:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Beatrix is no more "Queen of Aruba" than Elizabeth II is "Queen of England"! <g> - Nunh-huh 08:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Beatrix should be "Queen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" instead of just plain Queen of the Netherlands. Margarethe II is not listed as "Queen of the Kingdom of Denmark" and I don't see a "King of the Kingdom of Norway" in the list etc. etc. Since the thing about her being Queen of Aruba and the Nl Ant. was deemed a non issue anyway, she should be plain Queen of the Netherlands. Just like other Kings and Queens of countries with overseas territories. --Gerard von Hebel 23:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above "The Netherlands" and the "Kingdom of the Netherlands" are not one and the same thing. HRH Queen Beatrix is "Queen of the Netherlands" by means of a title, as she is "Princess of Orange-Nassau" by means of title also; she is however "Queen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" by means of (political) function as a monarch - the subject at hand. -- kaivanmil 03:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---I agree with Gerard (above). Beatrix is "Queen of the Netherlands" by constitution, title and officio. She is not, per se, Queen of Aruba, Queen of Netherlands Antilles, even tho these lands are an integral part of the Kingdom. There are really no semantics here. The addition: "Queen of the Kingdom of Netherlands" is superfluous and shoud be re-adressed.----(Kaelin von Gross).

Time to take the list out?

[edit]

Perhaps it's time to take the list out and merge it into List of current monarchs, and link to that? Alternatively, List of current monarchs should go. There's no point in having the list at two places. -- Jao 20:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. There are some problems of concistency with this list. I can not see why Constantine II of Greece should be included. And while I like the fact that non-sovereign monarchs are included, I think it should be limited to those who have an official function where state law is concerned. For instance the monarchs of the constituent states of Malaysia and of the United Arab Emirates. And the kings of the Ugandan kingdoms, who still have an official function. I believe the Zulu King also still has a function in Kwazulu Natal. But otherwise traditional leaders should not be included. The Nigerian traditional monarchs have no official capacity. If we would add all traditional monarchial leaders the list would become endless. BTW what's up with this Patsy Rogers guy from this island off the coast of Ireland? Thats ridiculous. --Gerard von Hebel 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good plan to me. -- kaivanmil 00:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then do it now. Why are there still names in this list of people died or disposed half a century ago? --Tauʻolunga 20:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (five years later) Nightw 05:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

[edit]

Well Jao, there is a damn good reason to treat the Netherlands the same as other countries by indicating the KINGDOM with the name it uses in the United Nations, of course that Kingdom of is no part of the TITLE, but the link should be to the Kingdom of the Netherlands article, not to the Netherlands page. As the Kingdom is more relevant to the Queening than the country.

Category

[edit]

Category:Monarchs has more than 150 articles in the main category. Many of these should be taken out and put in subcategories. But I don't know much about the subject. Can anyone help with this? Thanks. Maurreen 15:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth's titles

[edit]

Added in the Lord of Mann, and the Duke of Normandy, because they are the Queens formal titles in the Crown Dependencies, which are not formally part of the UK Nudge 20:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The doctrine of the Unity of the Crown stipulates that the Queen, while her title is differently styled for each of the Commonwealth Realms, has only one sovereignty. That is to say, she is not Queen of Canada AND Queen of Australia. These titles are theoretically the same, only styled differently in the various Commonwealth Realms. In other words, these countries share a mutual "Kingship" and not a personal union. The Queen of Canada is so only in Canada, and not in New Zealand for instance.--Gerard von Hebel 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are seperate Crowns. See this article. Richard75 19:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Gerard, Richard is 16 times correct. Read the constitutions of each of the commonwealth monarchies. Fiji is no longer a commonwealth monarchy.! altho QE-II was given the honorary title of "Great Chief of Fiji", she is no longer legally head-of-state there. Fiji still remains a republic within the British Commonwealth. Also, Australia may vote again soon to become a republic.!-----(Kaelin von Gross).

Often inherited

[edit]

'Often inherited' is currently the only way we define monarachs, which isn't really that definitive. I know that there are a few cases(one case?) where the Monarch is elected so we can't use inheritance of title as a defining characteristic for monarchy. However my understanding is that all monarchs hold the post for life (unless deposed or abdicated). Are there any exceptions? I'm going to add it in the intro with qualifiers anyway. I'll remove the qualifiers if no-one comes up with an exception. DJ Clayworth 15:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Yang Dipertuan Agong is elected for a five year period. --Palnatoke 20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The French co-prince of Andorra is also an exception. Both are listed in the "Possible definitions" section. -- Jao 20:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The text seriously overstates the prevalence of hereditary kingship and teh extent to which this is traditional. In fact, the Kingdom of England was elective until 1066, the Kingdom of France until 1179, the Kingdom of Poland until its partition in 1795, the kingdom of Germany until its dissolution in 1805, etc. Indeed, you could fairly say that European kingdoms were trraditionally elective, and that hereditary kingdoms were a late development. Agemegos 08:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some of the current monarchies are both elective and heriditary: 1---Malaysia: As cited above, HM the YDPA or Supreme Sultan is elected every 5 years on a rotating basis from one of the 9 Malay sultans and rajas who are heriditary within their own state. 2---United Arab Emirates: HH The President (for life) of the UAE is technically elected, but constitutionally is always the hereditary Emir of Abu Dhabi. 3---Samoa: HH the O Le Ao O Le Malo (similar to a noble prince), is now elected every 5 years, and is traditionally (if not constitutionally) nominated from one of the 4 noble (hereditary) ruling families. May be considered a lesser monarch, certainly not a king. ----Kaelin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.239.15 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Island

[edit]

Should Pasty be on this list, honestly? He holds no throne by power, or tradition. From the sounds of it, its a cutise (cutesi, how do you spell it) local thing, not anywhere near the same legitimacy of the other people.

Ecclesiastical Monarchies

[edit]

I can't help thinking that this article should have ecclesiastical Monarchies referenced at some point. I'm mainly thinking back to the Holy Roman Empire, where some Bishops and Archbishops, and even some simple Priors, Abbesses, and other middle-ranking Catholic clergy had temporal power over areas of land with just as much power and right to rule as any Prince or Graf did, under the Emperor's suzerainity of course. It's common to think of them not really as Monarchs as they weren't hereditary and their positions were originally instituted just for clerical matters, but in truth their positions were very much like the Pope is now, and was before - ruler of a (semi-)independent state for the rest of their lives, elected by another clergy figure (in this case the Pope), and not subordinating their rule to another for the sake of acting like a Clergyman. Infact, from what I have read many - especially those with larger territories to govern - acted more as Princes and only gave passing thought to their duties as Clergy.

It's tempting to just ignore this, of course, as one of the many different styles of rule in the Holy Roman Empire, except for the fact that it does still exist today, which is why I decided to bring this up. The Bishop of Urgell in Spain is co-Prince of Andorra in just as much right as the other co-Prince, the President of France, who is referenced on this article. I would just do this myself here and now, but I prefer to be reassured in my convictions, and to ask other people whether they agree with me. That, and I'm really not sure which part of the article I would put it in. Any thoughts? Falastur 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can think of 4 or 5 examples of Bishops, etc. who retain temporal powers over lands, including the (1) above, but are not monarchial (except The Catholic Pope):

1---The Bishop of Urgell, Prince-Bishop of Andorra, who apparently is appointed for life; the French President obviously is not. 2---The Bishop of Rome, The Pope and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Sovereign of the Vatican. He of couse, was elected for life. 3---The Protos-Abbott of Mt Athos (in Greece), subserviant to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, rules the autonomous republic of Mt Athos under Greek sovereign protection. 4---The Supreme Ayatollah of Iran, defender of the faith, and de-facto ruler of Iran for life. 5---The Abbott of Maria-Einsiedeln, Switzerland, to a lesser extent than the above-cited cases, still retains rights to certain woodlands and properties in the county of Einsiedeln, and which are used for secular income-producing purposes.

(Kaelin von Gross) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.232.109 (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to the above: The Prince-Bishop of Andorra (Diocese of Urgell) is indeed part of the Andorran Monarchy. Interestingly, the French President apparently inherited the monarchial rights of Andorra from the counts of Foix and Kings of Navarre. (see discussion of Andorra above)----(Kaelin von Gross)

Sealand

[edit]

I added sealand to the list of principaliteis Epg 02:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help: A principality may be defined as any land or *entity ruled by a prince. This definition can apply to Sealand (self-proclaimed monarchy), Wales (royal principality within UK), **Andorra (non-monarchial principality), The monarchial sovereign Gulf Emirates (Emirs=Ruling Princes), and SMOM (Sovereign Military Order of Malta--ruled for life by an ecclesiatic noble Prince-Grand Master, and Prince of the Holy Roman Catholic Church).----(Kaelin von Gross)

    • See corrections above regarding Andorra: it is, in fact, an elective constitutional monarchy.!----(Kaelin von Gross).

Shogun

[edit]

"Shogun" just means "general" in Japanese, and is still used in the JSDF(army). The de facto ruler of Japan was known as the Shogun because that was the rank he held, given to him by the Emperor. But it is used outside of the shogunate as well, which the note here does not reflect.

Also, Daimyo was used to refer to the rulers of the provinces, who were independent to a large degree until the end of the warring states era. Should we put that in, or are we keeping it to just the ruler of all Japan? Identity0 11:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God King

[edit]

    Should the term "God King" be added in here and explained here, or should it be its own article? A God King is a king who is simultaneously viewed as a living God, such as the Egyptian Pharoahs. There is currently no article for "God King". --Ihmhi 08:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add some then.--hnnvansier 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting - proposed change

[edit]

By switching the {{executive}} box to above the image we will loose the enormous amount of whitespace between the title and opening lead (at least on my non-widescreen laptop). At the moment it looks awful. I'd be bold but does anyone have any objections first?Pedro |  Chat  12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of titles

[edit]

The list of titles takes up a fairly large portion of this article, while there is also Royal and noble ranks. Would merging anything useful into that article, and keeping the list of titles to a minimum here, be a good idea? -- Jao 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article: Monarch and King

[edit]

As of now, the article "King" redirects to this article. It seems to me that this article should be split up into Monarch, concerning the office of the head of state, its status and history in the world, and King, this European title, its etymology, its evolution, and its equivalents in different languages. These two topics are quite unrelated, with only a small overlap, and having them all bunched up in one article makes the article too long and bloated. And after all, virtually every other title of nobility has its own article, why should King be different? o 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. See also my (somewhat misplaced) comment at Talk:Monarchy#Kingdom usage. -- Jao 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Actually this whole article should go to monarch, & then someone can write a decent one on King. Johnbod 03:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, surely we can do better than this. King is in no was synonymous to monarch! --Camaeron

Yeah, this is an important issue. A king or queen is a ruler who usually has a more sacred character than just 'monarch'.

  1. a king usually reigns by some kind of religious sanction
  2. is often (but not always) a hereditary office
  3. is inaugurated by a ceremony of religious significance
  4. is often crowned and invested with other regalia
  5. is accorded unusual honours

And while some other monarchs might share some (or in some cases,all) of these characteristics, there is a strong cultural understanding of what a king or queen is.--Gazzster (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First post-colonial American Monarchs

[edit]

Although the article states "The first local monarch to emerge in North America after colonization was Augustin I, who declared himself Emperor of Mexico in 1822" Haiti had an Emperor from 1804 to 1806 and was a kingdom from 1806-1811. At issue here is if Haiti is part of North America. Perhaps that debate could be avoided and the issue cleared up by changing "North America" to "the Americas". [[2]] --69.132.214.171 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stadtholder

[edit]

Did the function Stadholder also develop into what we now can name as a monarch? Demophon (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy Wiki

[edit]

I came across it the other day - anyone have its url? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phony African "imperial house"

[edit]

There is a lengthy block of near-gibberish, near the front of the article, about the arcane succession rules of a certain African royal house recognized by no state on earth. There isn't even a wiki page about them. But, when I deleted the text, it was reverted for "vandalism."

Does this really need to be here? I would rewrite it myself and place it appropriately in the article, but these people are not even a real royal family! I mean, their website is on Geocities for goodness sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.57.242 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

[edit]

SMOM is arguably a sovereign noble entity with ambassadors to over 90 countries. SMOM is a principality without land; it has only 3 official citizens. SMOM is not a monarchy (like perhaps the Vatican).

The new Grand Master & Prince of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta needs to be updated on the "Current Monarchists of The World" Page: HMEH Fra! Matthew Festing Born: 1949 Reign: 2008

Error: The above perhaps shoud not be updated on the listing of "current monarchs of the world". SMOM, altho a sovereign entity, it is not a monarchy. It is not a nation, no longer possesses land and inhabitants, etc. Interestingly, it does have some earmarks of sovereignty: issues coins, stamps, and official license plates. It has extraterritorial rights to properties in Rome which are equivalent to ad jure foreign embassies. ----(Kaelin von Gross).

Merge request

[edit]

Monarch → Monarchy — substantially overlapping content —Neutralitytalk 06:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the merge proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]

Please now all have a good read of both the relevant procedures and policies, and also of the two articles. They are not basically the same at all, the topics are substantially different, and there is content in each that would be less relevant to the other. If the overlap is excessive, try to edit it out. But there's no reason to remove all of the overlap. Many good articles overlap.

A merge may be a good idea. But there's some preparatory work that should be done first, and I'm still opposed until this is done. Andrewa (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Andrewa that "they are not basically the same" as it currently stands. A lot of careful prep needs to be done before merging. Is the nominator or someone else willing to undertake this? A simple merge would result in a very long article so, if the merge is done, possibly farm out some of the longer list sections like "Current subnational and trans-national traditional monarchies" to separate articles. — AjaxSmack 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my johnny-come-lately thouts: For the "Current Monarchs" list, I woud keep the (subnational) monarchs of the 9 Malay sultans, and the 7 UAE Emirs. These shoud be the only overlap listings permitted from the "Current Subnational and Traditional Monarchies" list; There are reasons for this which I will defer for the moment.----(Kaelin von Gross) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.11.75 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

[edit]

Sheik Khalifa is President of the UAE, not Sheik of the UAE. He is the ruling Emir of Abu Dhabi, and according to the current constitution, makes him President-for-Life of UAE, subject to removal for certain offences or incapacities. The title of Sheik is simply an honorific title given to many leaders, both religious and secular, thru-out the Arab/Muslim world. All members of the ruling princely (Emiri) families of the UAE are accorded this title. The title of "Sheik of the UAE" shoud be dropped.----(Kaelin von Gross).

Etymology

[edit]

Yes I agree there is a lack of etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.172.167 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31. European Principalities

[edit]

It is stated that there currently are two principalities in Europe, presumably Monaco and Lichtenstein. There is also. of course, Wales, which as part of the UK is a special case. In German there is a distinction between a ruling prince (Fürst) and another royal with the princely title (Prinz), and, in spite of the territorial connexion, the Prince of Wales is regarded as the latter (Prinz von Wales). Shulgi (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know that is not exactly the case. Prince of Wales was adopted at an uncertain date, probably in the 16th century, and spuriously, and so really doesn't mean Prince of Wales because it was not inherited or even gained by conquest from the ancient Welsh royal family. Wales was conquered but the style was not adopted then. The English and Scots really did things their own way and their titles sometimes don't mean what one would expect. Another peculiar one is Lord of the Isles, deriving from the Norse-Gaelic title of 1st millennium origin Rí Innse Gall or King of the Isles. Because Lord is translated into the Gaelic Tiarna or Flaith, not Rí, no king of Scotland or England has ever been King of the Isles, the traditional title. This was last held by the grandfather or great-grandfather of the downgraded Lord (Tiarna) of the Isles who lost his inheritance to the Scottish Crown. Probably I should point all this out in that article for the benefit of humanity but I am too lazy and also don't want to start a fight. DinDraithou (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King, Kingdom

[edit]

King and Kingdom direct here, shouldn't they have their own article? All other monarchical titles have their own article. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Svein, King of Norway

[edit]

See Talk:Svein, King of Norway#Post move discussion. There is arguement about this man status as King. The arguement is also about what defines a king?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch, Defined

[edit]

Define Monarch; A Monarch (Mon-Arch) is a human-being (mon of Mon-Arch) who has an area of land which the monarch arches (Arch of Mon-Arch) over; The land area is a majesty. The Majesty belongs to the Monarch. The Monarch was chosen as a KING/Queen due to their proven achievements to build and provide essential accommodations for humanity while preserving nature and the entities outside of humanity, such as wild life. EXAMPLE: The King of Egypt built pryamids to archive spiritual information showing the need to preserve existence, while finding ways to build and accommdate the people with the NILE (canal) so that people had water. Lines of KINGS and/or Queens were set-out from the caucacian region of the globe, to establish ways of improving-upon existence (to include the defense and maintenance thereof) while forming constituted and civil ways of life. Each Monarch established a separate Majesty, unique-and-thus-different from far east influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.70.80 (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh... FactStraight (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Viceroys and Barons?

[edit]

The chart of monarchical titles includes Viceroy and Baron. Are there any historical examples of Viceroys/Vicereines and Barons/Baronesses who were monarchs with sovereignty over a state? My understanding is that a Viceroy represents a King/Queen (or other monarch) -- and so might wield all the power of the monarch, but always deriving from and in that monarch's name, never in his/her own right.

Sovereign baronies could well have existed, like sovereign counties, etc. Are there any examples that could be cited? DanTrent (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince as default title?

[edit]

Added {{Citation needed}} tag to the assertion that the "normal" European monarch title is prince or princess. If no one can source this, it should be removed. 24.56.23.240 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Prince" is the generic title for a European sovereign, and I have provided a citation for that usage. It was never the "normal", prevalent or default title for a sovereign, so I have deleted the claim that it was. FactStraight (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed this also. Perhaps what was meant to be said was that in some times past it was -- by far -- the most common rank (title) for a monarch. For example. in 1648 at the time of the Treaty of Westphalia, the most common of the resulting sovereign states (in the several hundred) were principalities, ruled by princes. By the end of the Empire (HRE) in 1806, the most common type of realm of the 360 or so States at the time were principalities, ruled by princes. Also, when the Indian subcontinent was under the British Empire, the very vast majority of the States (on the order of 650 or so, if I remember correctly) were principalities, rules by princes. Further going back in time somewhat to around 1350 through to about 1450 or even after, the vast majority of States in what became the Russian Empire were principalities, ruled over by princes. From about 1300 through to at least 1800 the most common rank for a monarch was -- by far -- that of Prince. Obviously today, there are but about a handful of modern States still ruled by princes (even counting emirates as being principalities). So any statement about which rank or title was most common for a monarch is greatly dependent on what historical period (and to some extent what geographical region of the world) is in view. --L.Smithfield (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In 1648 most of those whose territories were a Reichsstand in the Holy Roman Empire were counts, not princes: even those who would head sovereign principalities until 1918, the rulers of Lippe, Reuss and Waldeck, were not yet princes in 1648, while most of the higher-ranking rulers reigned under a title other than prince (Austria - Archduke, Baden - Margrave, Bavaria - Duke, Brunswick/Hanover - Duke, Hesse - Landgrave, the Rhineland -- Count Palatine, Prussia -- Duke or Margrave, Saxony - Duke, Wurttemberg - Duke, etc.): nearly the only exception among these was Anhalt, which was indeed ruled by a prince -- but exchanged that title for Duke, as did the Nassaus, in the early 19th century. At the 1806 mediatization of scores of German rulers, most were Imperial counts (Reichsgrafen), not princes. Afterward, Europe had more ruling dukes (Anhalt, Brunswick, Nassau and the Ernestine duchies) and granddukes (Baden, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Hesse and the Rhine, Luxembourg, Saxe-Weimar) than it had sovereigns titled "Prince". Russia's Rurikids had lost their sovereignty by 1648 and when they ruled Rus by the dozens as "princes" (Knyaz), that title was rare in Western Europe. "Prince" was used generically to describe the rulers of India in the 19th century, but they had widely varying individual titles as rulers, just as did Europe. So I cannot agree that "prince" was ever "the most common" title for a sovereign although, as I said previously, it was the most common generic term for hereditary rulers. FactStraight (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King should not redirect here

[edit]

While "king" is a title often used by monarchs, it is also a complicated concept which has evolved over time and varies from place to place. This entry, and the first ne on "Monarchy" are like dictionary definitions ms rather then encyclopedia entries. This is really disappointing and a kind of dumbing-down of Wikipedia.TheCormac (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

[edit]

I have made a little change to the description of the Nine Sovereigns photo. Maymichael2 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split / merge titles of king and queen

[edit]

In regards to the tags applied to the Monarch and Royal and noble ranks pages, there are two places in which the titles of kings, and their equivalents in various countries, are discussed:

There is also a redirect Royal titles to Royal and noble ranks. This section is to begin the discussion about the best place for that info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use content from Monarch titles - wherever the content goes, it seems that the information in the Monarch article is broader (it includes male and female columns) and breaks the information down by region.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King and Queen pages

[edit]

I started at discussion at the politics page about ideas about creating uniform king and queen pages.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "uniform"? "King" is pretty unambiguously used to refer to "a male head of state or highest ranking male in a kingdom". While that definition would also be true of some queens, "queen" is used with a wider range of meanings and different prevalence. Specifically, I'd surmise that the most commonly used and understood meaning of queen is "wife of a king" (aka queen consort). Queen regnant is less common because there have been far fewer of them than queens consort or even queens dowager. While there are also kings consort, like queens regnant they are historically relatively few, and therefore not the default meaning of the term "king". Most Western monarchies have now replaced masculine primogeniture and Salic law with absolute primogeniture, but as that trend began less than 50 years ago and has made little progress outside of Europe, "queen regnant" has not yet caught up with "queen consort" as the role or position most often bring referred to when a "queen" is mentioned. Even in Europe, the wife of a king is automatically a "queen", but nowhere is the husband of a queen a king -- automatically or by specific designation. And it is not Wikipedia's function to promote rather than to reflect prevalent usage. Moreover, a "king" is one type of monarch, so the terms aren't synonymous: Not all monarchs are kings, although (most) kings are monarchs. The article Royal and noble ranks should be divided: "royalty" is now a general term for persons who belong to families that have ruled by hereditary right (regardless of specific titles: members of an emperor's family are no less "royals" than those of a king's family). By contrast, nobility are those persons who enjoy some officially acknowledged privilege that is not enjoyed by non-noble citizens, privileges which may range from no more than a right to a title or to ceremonial precedence up to substantial legal prerogatives or exemptions, but which stop short of the de jure privilege of ruling (i.e. sovereignty) over a land or people. Nobility are not royalty. FactStraight (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, FactStraight, I just meant for this to be an FYI - for people to comment at the discussion on the the politics page. If you look there, it's about disambig pages, king/queen page, and king (title) and queen (title) pages. If you have any comments about that, that would be great!
I struck out "creating uniform" - I see how that confused matters.
Regarding the dividing of the Royal and noble ranks, someone tagged the Monarch and that article, and I started a discussion in the section just above this one. Do you mind weighing in there about that article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Monarch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Could someone change the picture of Barack Obama as a monarch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CE:4200:1772:C475:CD9:85D:A042 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Office Column

[edit]

I added a column to the table in Titles and precedence in Europe, however, it was reverted with the reason: These words are not in wide use, if in use at all.

I think the reversion is a misstep. In fact, I'd argue that the name of the title holder's office is more relevant than the name of their realm; this section explains that the realm is not always attached to the title.

About their usage:

Pontificate: "Pontificate" 398 000 results

Emperorship: "Emperorship" 23 200 results

Kingship: "Kingship" 443 000 results

Viceroyship: "Viceroyship" 8 750 results

Archdukedom: "Archdukedom" 2 080 results

Dukedom: "Dukedom" 320 000 results

Princedom: "Princedom" 50 000 results

Marquisdom: "Marquisdom" 408 results

Countship: "Countship" 28 400 results

Viscountship: "Viscountship" 1 890 results

Lordship: "Lordship" 1 060 000 results

Baronship: "Baronship" 918 results

With the exception of baronship, all the words are recognised by Oxford Dictionary and appear in various literature. Regardless if these are to be considered wide usages or not, it cannot be denied that they are accepted words that are attached to their respective titles.

Go-Chlodio (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally unnecessary. The tables are already too much as they are. This is an article about monarchs not a dictionary. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it unnecessary? As I have already stated the office is always attached to the title, unlike the realm.
There's plenty of room for another column.
Which is why it includes the far less relevant realm and adjective columns. With the whole not-a-dictionary-argument we might as well cut the adjective and realm columns.
Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The reference section lists three bulleted references that are not cited in the body of the article. I've linked one to the corresponding text (i.e. added in-line citation); I don't know what the other two are. The two citations at the very beginning seem unnecessary / excessive - after the definition 'A monarch is a head of state'. Leoseliv (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarch&oldid=1202009137"