Talk:Diarchy

message: Yeah, makes sense because they mean the same thing. Cameron Nedland 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What? — LlywelynII 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeah

message: The Mongol diarchy may be worth mentioning. In example Shang-du and Beijing capitals during the rule of Khubulai Khan in the Yuan Dynasty(Correct me if I'm wrong).--Oniroi 18:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mongols

message: It's diarchy, so why is the monarchy portal here? Diarchies aren't necessarily "monarchies but with two leaders" the President of France is not a monarch nor are San Marino's Captains Regent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.110.25 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The president of France is ex officio a joint monarch. San Marino's captains regents aren't monarchs but they hold executive power. The portal should remain here since some→many diarchies are exactly "monarchies but with two leaders". — LlywelynII 05:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually argue that any diarchal ruler, by consequence of being a diarchal ruler, is inherently therefore not a monarch. Monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is embodied in a single individual, while diarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is embodied in two individuals; these two things are mutually exclusive.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchy? 

message: is entirely unsupported by the words' definitions in reliable dictionaries. — LlywelynII 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The distinguishing between diarchy and duumvirate occurring atm

message: is very reasonable but also completely unsupported by Merriam–Webster, who omit it, and the OED, which has an entirely separate botanical definition for that term. These people are called corulers, duumvirs, or by specific terms (Sparta's 'kings', Rome's 'consuls', &c.). — LlywelynII 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The term diarch

message: in the late 18th century, two mamluks called Murad Bey and Ibrahim Bey formed a de facto duumvirate in Ottomon Egypt until Napoleon's invasion. someone could add the section in the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Bey_(Mamluk)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murad_Bey
(BountyFlamor (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt

message: was not a diarchy at any stage. The editor presumably intended the Republic's consuls. — LlywelynII 02:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Rome's monarchy

message: To be added 23th king: Sauromaces II (pages 24-26.) and 25th king: Mithridates/Mihrdat III (page 27.).--Lasha-george (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diarchy was in Iberia 

message: Wouldn't the entities ruling the country of Đại Việt under the Revival Lê Dynasty constitute a diarchy? With the purest definition applying to the Trịnh Lords holding a position similar to "Shogun" in Japan (which is listed in this article) and perhaps the Nguyễn Lords which nominally were under the authority of the Lê, but factually ruled a country subordinate to them (so not really ruling as "co-rulers" as their authority was derived from the Revival Lê Dynasty on paper). --Donald Trung (talk)  00:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Đại Việt under the Revival Lê Dynasty