Talk:Monarchy

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Aristotle's model for monarchy

In the second paragraph, it says

"Aristotle's model for states was the Greek city-state, very different from the modern-day nation-state (think current monarchies like Liechtenstein, Monaco, Luxembourg, Brunei ...)".

This has an ambiguous meaning. Is it saying that the 4 micro-monarchies listed are like Aristotle's idea of a monarchy, or is it using them as examples of modern-day nation-states, which is unlike Aristotle's idea? --LiamM32 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Differences between monarchies and dictatorships

The first paragraph is simply wrong when it states that the difference between the two depends on whether or not there are limits to the power held. Historically many monarchies were absolute and frequently dictators had some nominal requirement to to refer to other political bodies. So they may have more or less power then each other. The difference is in how that power is theoretically transferred: by inheritance or (probably) by revolution.

Unless anyone objects I'll edit it later.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And three months later I did.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretenders

Should there be a separate section on these?

Not the respectable 'pretenders' (if the monarchy of X were restored they would be installed - [1] is a good list) but the creative, offbeat and 'in their imagination' etc.

Examples would include the Romanov imposters, and persons such as these chaps. Another category would be the opportunists - Emperor Norton, Boris Skossyreff, the Prince of Sealand and others. Anna Livia (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a disambiguation page pretender which doesn't currently point to much. Monarchy#Pretenders discusses British pretenders (for some reason there's a long section on the British monarchy on this page), and Emperor Norton is mentioned occasionally around RW. Mensur Omerbashich, pretender to various Balkan thrones, also has an article. There's certainly a lot of cranks that could be covered: I'm surprised Anastasia or Anna Anderson doesn't have a page. --Annanoon (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is this on the other place. Anna Livia (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the entire Royal family budget be included?

After all, the Presidents cost only extends to his income. Wouldn't it be more representative to show the entire Royal family cost? ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.45.63.205 / talk / contribs}

to which royal family do you refer?AMassiveGay (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Monarchy in Britain

this section opens with two sentences that are speculative and speculative bullshit at that. it claims british royals have come to be 'not intelligent' enough to think they can run the country, but not stupid enough to think they can run the country. the first part of that statement is nonsensical and redundant. the not stupid enough part enough on its own, but 'not stupid enough' is apparently to positive a sentiment on its own so we had have to a dig at with 'not intelligent enough' part i guess. its bullshit and speculative assessment of their supposed intelligence based on not much at all while misunderstanding on the reasons that are they 'not stupid' enough think they can run the country. they dont think they can run the country because they know they cannot though centuries of precedent and legislation have made it so they are not in a position to run the country, and they are not stupid enough think otherwise. it has nothing with to do with the relative intelligence of members of the royal family whether they think have the requisite brain power or not. that part is entirely irrelevant.

the second bit about charles 3, and that he might be dumb enough to he think can run the country is also complete nonsense. the 'evidence' is that hes been outspoken about many subjects, or maybe topics is better of choice of words all things considered, before his ascension to the throne. this is bullshit. he could be outspoken before being crowned because he was not yet king. he still had that luxury. and he was largely outspoken on topics that did not suggest he was likely to reinstate the divine of right of kings or something. its also notable that as his eventual coronation, he made it very clear that he would not be a 'meddling monarch'. i remember one interview where his exact words where 'im not stupid'. in fact, his actions before and after coronation have been to do with reforming the monarchy to make it more palatable to the public and to ensure that the institution continues, or at the very least, not ended under his watch. hes had his whole lime being groomed for the role, and it is was always idyll and baseless speculation that he would not have learned to bite his lip by the time of his crowning.

also who ever updated this page to change prince to charles 3 didnt think it to bother to remove the 'stay alive, liz' bit? come on now thats just lazy. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)