Category talk:Child monarchs

message: This is a potentially very large and problematic category.  Is the cut off point the age of 16, or what?  Is "ruler" synoymous with "monarch"?  Does it extend to any child monarch, even though they never ruled in any meaningful sense e.g. because they died in infancy (there are examples of this)? PatGallacher (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this category is potentially huge, and the cut-offs are admittedly fuzzy. This category may end up needing sub-categories. I will tackle some justification and definition under three headings below.--Iacobus (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

message: Child rulers are historically significant. In the absence of the ruler’s ability to exercise actual rule due to their minority, rivalries between competing interests become more heated and exposed. Sometimes the minority of a ruler can lead to consitutional change or clarification. Other rulers can emerge from their minority with a renewed conviction of the importance of their own power (as did Louis XIV). Other regencies can lead to national weakness (eg. Honorius or Valentinian III). It is often through a regency for a minor that women are able to exercise actual power (eg Elagabalus and Alexander Severus, or Otto III).--Iacobus (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of rule by a child 

message: This category should include any ruler who entered into their office below the age of majority. This includes those who died before their majority, as well as those who lived longer.
While legal majority today is generally at age 18, rulers in the past seem to have reached majority and dismissed their regents by around age 15 or 16. Under 16 seems like a useful limit. If a ruler is recorded as exercising personal rule, without regents, at age 15, then I would suggest that they not count as children for the purpose of this category.--Iacobus (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining “child” 

message: As a general rule I would suggest that this be defined as those whose office is invested with temporal and sovereign authority. 
By “temporal”, I mean to exclude those whose office has a purely religious authority. Their rule must extend to the normal machinery of government over some defined territory. 
By “sovereign”, I mean those whose authority is paramount in their particular territory or jurisdiction. An emperor, king or sovereign prince would fut snugly into this definition. I would exclude those who hold courtesy titles (eg. Prince of Wales, King of the Romans, etc) and the like, as well as those invested with royal or imperial title as an adjunct to another’s rule (eg. a reigning king naming his son king to ensure the succession). I would suggest that holders of aristocratic titles be excluded unless their rule can be considered to be effectively sovereign and free within their territory.
I would extend the definition of ruler to those who died in their minority. Even though they were unable to exercise any actual rule, their office is invested with that authority, and others exercised rule in their name.
I would suggest that usurpers or pretenders be generally excluded, unless it is shown that effective rule was exercised in their name.
Due to their nature, child rulers will almost always be hereditary monarchs. However, I could envisage some exceptions (eg. republics with strong dynastic rule), so I have entitled the category “Child rulers” instead of “Child monarchs.”--Iacobus (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "Head of State" is a better term than ruler? But I won't change the category title unless others think it worth it.--Iacobus (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have been including some medieval nobility in the category, such as powerful dukes and counts in France (eg. Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou, Blois, Toulouse). While they were theoretically vassals of, say, the King of France, the relationship was one of suzerainty.--Iacobus (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining “ruler” 

message: Are you sure the British young kings should be there — they didn't really rule as children — they reigned, but regents ruled on their behalves (regent meaning "they rule"). What think you? † DBD 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No child would be included in this list if the criteria was that they personally rule. The purpose of this category remains to group and list those whose office exercises supreme temporal and sovereign authority within a territory. This is significant for the reasons I have outlined. If anyone can think of a better term than "ruler", let me know. For reasons stated, the term "monarch" is restrictive (eg. some Japanese shoguns were children, yet they were not really monarchs, although the shoguns were the rulers of Japan.--Iacobus (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British kings