Talk:Monarchy

message: Why is Asiana the map of jarod? I think this version is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Monarchies.png
Thank you very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.254.90.124 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Map 

message: Perhaps North Korean should also be listed within this article hundred the heading of communist monarchy.http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/LJ22Dg01.html "For the Kims, the weakest link is family":
"I'm a sociologist, by discipline. Or indiscipline, do I hear you sneer? True, my subject has its share of what one eminent sociologist, Garry Runciman, has called attitude and platitude. Plenty of obfuscating jargon, too. Nor is it half as trendy as when I first got hooked, back in 1968 - when I mixed it up with Marxism. These days, subjects like psychology, history and even economics (despite our present discontents) are more highly regarded than sociology. 
But my trade has its uses too, as I shall now try to demonstrate. Take Kim Jong-eun, newly crowned dauphin of North Korea. A communist monarchy: that's a strange beast indeed, and a contradiction in terms. But sociology, I contend, may shed some light here. What is going on? How on earth did it come to this? And can such a peculiar system survive? 
...
Communist monarchy
Communist monarchy: what a grotesque paradox. Yet there is a double logic to this. First, at the end of the day who can you trust? Especially in a culture that prizes filial piety, your own family looks the best bet. Kim Jong-il certainly thinks so, promoting not only his son but his sister - Kim Kyong-hui also becomes a full Politburo member - and of course her husband Jang Song-taek, now an alternate Politburo member as well as a vice-chair of the National Defense Commission (NDC), the highest executive body of state outranking the Cabinet. 
Second: In a state barely 60 years old, but preceded by centuries of Confucian monarchy and (more immediately) four decades of emperor-worship under Japanese occupation (1905-45), keeping it in the Kim family presses powerful buttons. Or to put it more sociologically, this mode of essentially patriarchal legitimation of rulers is familiar, indeed deeply ingrained. 
On October 8 Yang Hyong-sop, a veteran Politburo member aged 85, told Associated Press Television News (APTN): Our people take pride in the fact that they are blessed with great leaders from generation to generation... Our people are honored to serve the great president Kim Il-sung and the great general Kim Jong-il. Now we also have the honor of serving young general Kim Jong-eun. 
He sounded deeply traditional: a loyal courtier to his kings. But North Korea's communist origins mean it can't admit it has become a monarchy, so this isn't quite enough. Both the ruler, and even more his successor, have to justify their rule in some other way. This is the third factor, and it takes two forms - or more precisely, stages. 
The first is a cult of personality: originated by Stalin, extended by Mao, and pushed to its extremes by Kim Il-sung. Hey, if a guy claims absolute right to rule, he'd better be special. This is what the German sociologist Max Weber called charisma: a term which has entered the language in a looser sense. Or if he's not so special, you make up stories to pretend he is. These may be ludicrous, but woe betide anyone rash enough to giggle or cast aspersions. 
Yet as Weber saw, as a mode of rule charisma has problems. Unlike traditional authority - a monarchy proper, for instance - charisma is vested in just one exceptional individual. What happens when they die? The challenge, in Weber's rather ugly term, is to routinize charisma."Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea: Communist Monarchy 

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

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

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

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

message: Which Monarchy or Kingdom is the richest in the world? and which is the poorest?  Any tally of wealth by Kingdom? CaribDigita (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool to have a comparison of wealth between Kingdoms 

message: :rule throne king/queen candidate, there are two options:
* only male child from the sequence; or
* the sequence child and gender sex (from above to below) 
if the children and grandchildren from the king/queen dies/divorce then sister-in-law/brother-in-law can't be a member of the royal family.
Akuindo (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The particulars of succession varies in each monarchy depending on which laws of succession are in place there. Anyway I am not quite sure which part of this article it is that you suggest improving, you will have to be a bit more specific. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule king/queen monarch

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

message: tt e5wwwwwwwwwww rbbdbdygggn  tt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:480:5550:856C:CD67:AC88:136C (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  eyg nyt     hyedyt  

message: Parse the worth, into it's components, especially if you have a mind above ...
Monarchy, does NOT create My Enemy, it creates, "My Arch, and?"
Do orphans have an issue that a family man places his umbral over that what he(she) has created, maintained themselves?
(Beaurocrats and social anarchist mafia do, but do you?)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.122.242 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mon Arch 

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

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

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

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article fails to mention even any of the argument that the concept of monarchy is in itself discriminatory as it differentiates between families based on birth, asserting that members of one particular family are "higher", "nobler" or simply "better" than all others.
How is it not discriminatory to deny millions of people the equal right and chance to be the head of state of their country because one family was at some stage hundreds of years ago awarded the exclusive privilege usually based on centuries of oppression and tyranny (which is how "royal" families usually gained their wealth, or rather stole it).
:Good idea.  I think this would fit well somewhere in the last two paragraphs of the History section when many countries turned away from monarchism; it would make sense to include these kinds of critiques from an Enlightenment perspective of human rights.  Note, also, however, that anything added would have to include citations referencing reliable secondary sources.--MattMauler (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could benefit from significant revisions, and we would welcome your help on this article, but I would ask for a more specific statement of the problems with the current version before saying yes to a complete re-write.  Currently, the article does differentiate between constitutional and absolute monarchies, as well as comparing several different methods of succession.  Additionally, before adding some of your above claims to the article, I recommend gaining consensus (and providing sources) here on the talk page first. A "market" for government?  Monarchies more tolerant of differences? (than whom? when?)  Many of these claims would require careful citation ... And if cited and added, they wouldn't necessarily require a rewrite of the text now in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchy is equal with discrimination 

message: Does not disambiguate between chieftain (pre-roman), manorial system, kingdom (pre-christian dominance), Monarchy(christian monarchy), papal monarchy, constitutional monarchy (Secular), absolute monarchy (european), tzardom (absolute), Despotism, and the international equivalents or the eras they existed in and why; variation by civilization and ethnicity and why; the various constraints on each being a function of traditional laws of the region, and the military and economic and developmental differences that caused those differences in government.  Why does this matter? This article is a sort of hearsay collection of complaints. Monarchy provides predictable change in power, and limits competition for power, thereby forcing people into the marketplace for survival, prosperity, and status. Most revisionist criticisms of aristocracies and monarchies are due to the land (Farming) being the only means of increasing productivity, and welfare and wars as a system of economic entrepreneurship, just as economic wars are conducted today with money and law, they did with money and arms. With europe's success and lack of stagnation like other civilizations due to distribution of power into competitors forcing a market for government. Monarchies were more tolerant of people and differences, but intolerant of use of politics or war to obtain power (unlike today). Why is it the dynastic monarchies lasted for so long and modern states so short?  Why were taxes 1-3% under monarchies and 50%+ today? Why couldn't people participate in government (ignorant, illiterate, lazy, petty, superstitious on a level we can't imagine). Who fought in wars and why? (It was profitable. Piracy of the land. People volunteered enthusiastically.) Why do we call them sovereigns, yet also state every man is sovereign in our traditional law? Were monarchs and policies influential or just what we talk about when common law and custom determined people's actions far more so? Where are cites from the say, the Routledge History of Monarchy? Any work of comparative government? And the hundreds of other sources? 
So the question is: is a rewrite possible? Is it worth it for me to invest time in updating it? Or is this kind of work subject to petty political infighting? -Thanks
CurtDoolittle (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could benefit from significant revisions, and we would welcome your help on this article, but I would ask for a more specific statement of the problems with the current version before saying yes to a complete re-write.  Currently, the article does differentiate between constitutional and absolute monarchies, as well as comparing several different methods of succession.  Additionally, before adding some of your above claims to the article, I recommend gaining consensus (and providing sources) here on the talk page first. A "market" for government?  Monarchies more tolerant of differences? (than whom? when?)  Many of these claims would require careful citation ... And if cited and added, they wouldn't necessarily require a rewrite of the text now in the article.--MattMauler (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs complete rewrite 

message: Nsae Comp, I recently made a relatively minor edit, removing this material from the lead because I believe that it is unnecessary and repetitive (diff here).  The monarch can go by various titles, and little extra information or clarity is added if we include that their authority can be "proclaimed" and "recognized" by inhabiting various seats.  It's a more complex way of saying the same thing, so both sentences were not needed.  The other sentence I removed stated that monarchs can be bound by and rule over territories or people groups, just as can almost any ruler, so it did not seem significant.  Additionally, the example title given "King of the Belgians" is functionally no different from most other monarchs.  All of this, besides the over-linking of words, adds unnecessary complexity to the lead.I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, as we seem to be the most frequent and consistent editors on the page recently.  However, it seems as though we have very different standards for the type of information that should be in the lead.  Perhaps a third opinion would help?--MattMauler (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for the elaborate explanation. I think your arguments are fine, even if I clearly have a different approach. A third opinion is allways good, but I have no problem with your edit thanks to your elaboration. All the best.  Nsae Comp (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

text: Last but not least, maybe there is a spot in the article where the taken out senances can be of use? Obviously I find it important to note somewhere what the senances say about the nuances of legitimation of monarchs through insignia, seats or connection to territory or people. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps somewhere under the "role of the monarch"?  The territory vs. people could go there, maybe.  The problem with the "insignia" or seats information is that it's often unclear whether these insignia or seats have an important impact on the role of the monarch.  Again, if it goes in, it should be clear to the reader how the different "seats" are functionally different rather than mostly being different terminology (and it would also have to be supported by sources, of course).--MattMauler (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to lead 

message: Different versions of the lead:
"A monarchy is a political system in which supreme authority is vested in a monarch who functions as head of state and who normally ascedes to the position by heredity. The system's political legitimacy and legal authority exercised by the monarch may differ from varying levels of constitutionally constrained (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy). However, common across monarchical systems are the monarch as the legal fount of executive, legislative and judicial power."
"A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The legitimation and governing power of the monarch may vary from purely symbolic (crowned republic), to restricted (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), combining executive, legislative and judicial power." 
I argue for the latter because:
"Political system" is broader than "form of government", a monarchy can be within a larger political system and does not need to be supreme or hereditary, good example here is Malaysia. Further mention of heredity is later in next paragraph and wording is longer. The last aspects are also not common, only historically, because legaly in the today common form, a constitutional monarchy, these powers are given by the constitution contracting subjects. I think the lead needs to consider the many contemporary and historic monarchies that are subnational and mostly symbolic, since they outnumber the top layer monarchies of nations and independent states. Nsae Comp (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: — Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology