I'm curious, which European countries still have monarchies?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I'm curious, which European countries still have monarchies? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:34:08 PM EDT

Kind of curious. Obviously Britain does. Obviously, France, Germany and Austria do not. How many other monarchies/royal families remain?

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:35:59 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Kind of curious. Obviously Britain does. Obviously, France, Germany and Austria do not. How many other monarchies/royal families remain?

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Spain are a few

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:36:54 PM EDT

[#2]

Among others, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands for sure.

Belgium (I think). Greece and Spain still has a royal family but I am not sure if they still have a part in government.

... eta: and then you've got places like Monaco and other "principalities" and little stuff like that.

Technically, I guess you could consider the Vatican a monarchy.

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:37:48 PM EDT

[#3]

The important ones

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:40:31 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Among others, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands for sure.

Belgium (I think). Greece and Spain still has a royal family but I am not sure if they still have a part in government.

Spain does. King Juan Carlos de Bourbon. He could have had substantial powers but he relegated himself within a few years to a level not unlike many of the monarchies in Europe today. The Greek royal family is in exile like several of them (although some are only out of power, such as the Hapsburgs, although they were in exile for awhile).

There's also Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Vatican City, and Andorra.

Royal families out of power that are still around include the Austro-Hungarian, Greek, German, Serbian, Portuguese, and Italian ones at the least. Don't know about the French, although some of the nobility still exists. I think paris-dakar mentioned there were still Russian royals around, although I would have thought they were all dead. I'm sure there are others.

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:44:11 PM EDT

[#5]

Link - The answer is 12

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:49:10 PM EDT

[#6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

Posted: 4/29/2011 4:52:58 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

There's a difference between an absolute monarchy and a "real" one in your sense. A monarch need not be absolute to have real power. Most monarchies in the West evolved towards the regimen mixtum. You are right in the rest, though. The countries where the monarch has little or no practical power, or even worse, little to no constitutional power, might as well not be considered a real monarchy. The result has been the triumph of democratic forces (although sometimes the latter brought about the former), which has tended to have a negative effect on all involved. In practice in many of these countries, the governments have become very centralized, bureaucratic democracies with an effectively unicameral legislature, which ensures there are no checks and balances. Such is a horrible form of government and the monarch is nearly irrelevant in such a system.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:06:48 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Kind of curious. Obviously Britain does. Obviously, France, Germany and Austria do not. How many other monarchies/royal families remain?

Let's see how I can do without looking:

Great Britain
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
The Netherlands
Spain
Luxembourg (if a grand duke counts, IIRC)
Lichtenstein (if a prince counts, IIRC)
Monaco
Andorra (if the president of France and a bishop - IIRC - count)

Now, there are plenty of royal families remaining - the royal families of Austria, Greece, Romania, France, and Italy are still around for sure, and if you count some of the nobility of the old Holy Roman Empire/North German Confederacy (like the Wittelsbachs, for instance), there are tons of those around too.

So who'd I miss? ETA d'oh, Belgium.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:09:17 PM EDT

[#9]

Latveria

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:10:13 PM EDT

[#10]

France has one heir to the Bourbons still alive in France. He's an odd little man.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:13:01 PM EDT

[#11]

That one stuck north of Mexico, south of Canada....since early 2009.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:14:12 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

I guess it depends on your definition of "real" and "fake"

In my view, monarchies like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands - and I guess Britain, Sweden and Norway too - are the "real" ones, because the current monarchs are the direct decendants of the actual absolute rulers of the country. The fact that they have given up most of their power in order to allow for a more modern form of government doesn't change the fact that they are "real" royalty.

Also remember that the royals in those places still retain some ACTUAL power, even if it is mostly exercised in cermonial ways. For example, only the monarch in Denmark can dissolve a government, and can call for new elections. While the monarch will DO so at the request of the Prime Minister and head of the current government, nothing compels them to. As another example, Denmark cannot go to war without the approval of the Monach, who is the Supreme Commander of all armed forces. This was very evident on April 9, 1940 when the nazis invaded Denmark. No Danish forced engaged the German invaders (except the Royal Guard Regiment at the Royal Palace), because the King was still deciding whether or not to fight the Germans. In addition, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of Denmark, the official state church that most Danes belong to. Traditionally, the Monarch is also the head of all Danish free masons.

Places like Monaco are just principalities, and there's a question of whether or not it's REALLY "royalty" or just "nobility" - since they are not kingdoms.

If you want to see "fake" royalty, look to the middle east, where whatever tribal nomadic savage that was the most ruthless at then end of their colonial rule just DECLARED themselves "royalty" (I know I am over-simplifying, but fuck those jumped up noveau-royals

).

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:14:13 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

France has one heir to the Bourbons still alive in France. He's an odd little man.

The House of Hohenzollern and House of Habsburg-Lorraine still exist, as well.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:14:21 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

That one stuck north of Mexico, south of Canada....since early 2009.

Kingdoms, not People's Republics.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:18:16 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

I guess it depends on your definition of "real" and "fake"

In my view, monarchies like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands - and I guess Britain, Sweden and Norway too - are the "real" ones, because the current monarchs are the direct decendants of the actual absolute rulers of the country. The fact that they have given up most of their power in order to allow for a more modern form of government doesn't change the fact that they are "real" royalty.

Also remember that the royals in those places still retain some ACTUAL power, even if it is mostly exercised in cermonial ways. For example, only the monarch in Denmark can dissolve a government, and can call for new elections. While the monarch will DO so at the request of the Prime Minister and head of the current government, nothing compels them to. As another example, Denmark cannot go to war without the approval of the Monach, who is the Supreme Commander of all armed forces. This was very evident on April 9, 1940 when the nazis invaded Denmark. No Danish forced engaged the German invaders (except the Royal Guard Regiment at the Royal Palace), because the King was still deciding whether or not to fight the Germans. In addition, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of Denmark, the official state church that most Danes belong to. Traditionally, the Monarch is also the head of all Danish free masons.

Places like Monaco are just principalities, and there's a question of whether or not it's REALLY "royalty" or just "nobility" - since they are not kingdoms.

If you want to see "fake" royalty, look to the middle east, where whatever tribal nomadic savage that was the most ruthless at then end of their colonial rule just DECLARED themselves "royalty" (I know I am over-simplifying, but fuck those jumped up noveau-royals

).

Well, in fairness, the Sauds and even more the Hashemites, at least, had been major players for quite awhile; and the European royalty/nobility basically derives from whatever tribal nomadic savage was most ruthless at the end of the Migration Period, so we're only talking a matter of time, not basic quality.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:19:51 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

I guess it depends on your definition of "real" and "fake"

In my view, monarchies like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands - and I guess Britain, Sweden and Norway too - are the "real" ones, because the current monarchs are the direct decendants of the actual absolute rulers of the country. The fact that they have given up most of their power in order to allow for a more modern form of government doesn't change the fact that they are "real" royalty.

Also remember that the royals in those places still retain some ACTUAL power, even if it is mostly exercised in cermonial ways. For example, only the monarch in Denmark can dissolve a government, and can call for new elections. While the monarch will DO so at the request of the Prime Minister and head of the current government, nothing compels them to. As another example, Denmark cannot go to war without the approval of the Monach, who is the Supreme Commander of all armed forces. This was very evident on April 9, 1940 when the nazis invaded Denmark. No Danish forced engaged the German invaders (except the Royal Guard Regiment at the Royal Palace), because the King was still deciding whether or not to fight the Germans. In addition, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of Denmark, the official state church that most Danes belong to. Traditionally, the Monarch is also the head of all Danish free masons.

Places like Monaco are just principalities, and there's a question of whether or not it's REALLY "royalty" or just "nobility" - since they are not kingdoms.

If you want to see "fake" royalty, look to the middle east, where whatever tribal nomadic savage that was the most ruthless at then end of their colonial rule just DECLARED themselves "royalty" (I know I am over-simplifying, but fuck those jumped up noveau-royals

).

I don't think the contention is that they are not real royalty. They are. But the country's are not really monarchies in any significant practicl way in many cases. I would argue that this is not more "modern", as you put it, but rather represents a devolution in government that adversely impacts the liberties of those within said countries and results in worse government than might otehrwise be the case.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:33:24 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
...
I don't think the contention is that they are not real royalty. They are. But the country's are not really monarchies in any significant practicl way in many cases. I would argue that this is not more "modern", as you put it, but rather represents a devolution in government that adversely impacts the liberties of those within said countries and results in worse government than might otehrwise be the case.

I guess I just see it as so obvious that OF COURSE there are no actual countries in Europe that are "absolute monarchies" in the modern world, so pointing out that Consitutional Monarchies are somehow "fake" when they are pretty much what monarchies ARE in this day and age seems weird. Of course they are monarchies - they are just not absolute monarchies. But just because they are not ONE particular type of monarchy doesn't mean they are "fake" - which is what I was responding to - it just means they are a different type.

That's like saying that artillery today is "fake" because we don't use nerve gas and mustard gas shells any longer. Sure, modern artillery is different, and maybe not as "powerful" by some measure, but just because it's different doesn't make it "fake"

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:45:55 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
I don't think the contention is that they are not real royalty. They are. But the country's are not really monarchies in any significant practicl way in many cases. I would argue that this is not more "modern", as you put it, but rather represents a devolution in government that adversely impacts the liberties of those within said countries and results in worse government than might otehrwise be the case.

I guess I just see it as so obvious that OF COURSE there are no actual countries in Europe that are "absolute monarchies" in the modern world, so pointing out that Consitutional Monarchies are somehow "fake" when they are pretty much what monarchies ARE in this day and age seems weird. Of course they are monarchies - they are just not absolute monarchies. But just because they are not ONE particular type of monarchy doesn't mean they are "fake" - which is what I was responding to - it just means they are a different type.

That's like saying that artillery today is "fake" because we don't use nerve gas and mustard gas shells any longer. Sure, modern artillery is different, and maybe not as "powerful" by some measure, but just because it's different doesn't make it "fake"

I wasn't talking about absolute monarchies. A constitutional monarchy can have a monarch with substantial powers, like those of the American President, and most did until the triumph of democratism. When the monarch has no power the institution seems rather pointless and in many cases can effectively be said to be a monarchy in name only.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:46:54 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
I don't think the contention is that they are not real royalty. They are. But the country's are not really monarchies in any significant practicl way in many cases. I would argue that this is not more "modern", as you put it, but rather represents a devolution in government that adversely impacts the liberties of those within said countries and results in worse government than might otehrwise be the case.

I guess I just see it as so obvious that OF COURSE there are no actual countries in Europe that are "absolute monarchies" in the modern world, so pointing out that Consitutional Monarchies are somehow "fake" when they are pretty much what monarchies ARE in this day and age seems weird. Of course they are monarchies - they are just not absolute monarchies. But just because they are not ONE particular type of monarchy doesn't mean they are "fake" - which is what I was responding to - it just means they are a different type.

That's like saying that artillery today is "fake" because we don't use nerve gas and mustard gas shells any longer. Sure, modern artillery is different, and maybe not as "powerful" by some measure, but just because it's different doesn't make it "fake"

I wasn't talking about absolute monarchies. A constitutional monarchy can have a monarch with substantial powers, like those of the American President, and most did until the triumph of democratism. When the monarch has no power the institution seems rather pointless and in many cases can effectively be said to be a monarchy in name only.

I guess I see what you are saying.

I think there are just better words to describe that variation that "fake"

... and I am still going to take it personally, dammit!!

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:48:30 PM EDT

[#20]

I can't remember, I usually try to switch to communism or something else. I think monarchy does make a lot of money though.

Posted: 4/29/2011 5:51:59 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

If you want to see "fake" royalty, look to the middle east, where whatever tribal nomadic savage that was the most ruthless at then end of their colonial rule just DECLARED themselves "royalty" (I know I am over-simplifying, but fuck those jumped up noveau-royals

).

True, but didn't European royalty mostly get started the same way, just 1,000 years or so earlier? Minus the colonial rule part, of course.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:12:20 PM EDT

[#22]

I'm sorry, but it is just my personal opinion (opinions being like assholes and all) but your not really a royal anything anymore if former subjects ran you or your family out of your country at gun, pike, sword, or lance point. Or were chasing you (or an ancestor) hard with hatred and the intent of snatching the life from the royal body(s) with methods most cruel. That is pretty much the signal that the royalty has passed away and that you or your family might need to start looking for j..... j......

....j.......

....jo...JOB(s).

At this point the only things separating the former Grand Poobah of Sliznicstein from everyone else is whatever money that might have been stashed in foreign banks hidden away in Mr. Poobah's accounts.....kind of like Baby Doc and the former President of Eqypt.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:20:36 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
I don't think the contention is that they are not real royalty. They are. But the country's are not really monarchies in any significant practicl way in many cases. I would argue that this is not more "modern", as you put it, but rather represents a devolution in government that adversely impacts the liberties of those within said countries and results in worse government than might otehrwise be the case.

I guess I just see it as so obvious that OF COURSE there are no actual countries in Europe that are "absolute monarchies" in the modern world, so pointing out that Consitutional Monarchies are somehow "fake" when they are pretty much what monarchies ARE in this day and age seems weird. Of course they are monarchies - they are just not absolute monarchies. But just because they are not ONE particular type of monarchy doesn't mean they are "fake" - which is what I was responding to - it just means they are a different type.

That's like saying that artillery today is "fake" because we don't use nerve gas and mustard gas shells any longer. Sure, modern artillery is different, and maybe not as "powerful" by some measure, but just because it's different doesn't make it "fake"

I wasn't talking about absolute monarchies. A constitutional monarchy can have a monarch with substantial powers, like those of the American President, and most did until the triumph of democratism. When the monarch has no power the institution seems rather pointless and in many cases can effectively be said to be a monarchy in name only.

I guess I see what you are saying.

I think there are just better words to describe that variation that "fake"

... and I am still going to take it personally, dammit!!

I was mostly being contentious by calling it fake on purpose...

I guess impotent would be a better descriptive term.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:21:41 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
...
I was mostly being contentious by calling it fake on purpose...

I guess impotent would be a better descriptive term.

I can't decide if that is better or worse!

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:28:55 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
France has one heir to the Bourbons still alive in France. He's an odd little man.

The House of Hohenzollern and House of Habsburg-Lorraine still exist, as well.

Indeed. I think the Romanians are Hohenzollems. Their exact status in their country is still a subject of much discussion.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:30:05 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That one stuck north of Mexico, south of Canada....since early 2009.

Kingdoms, not People's Republics.

You say oligarchy, I say monarchy...let's call the whole thing off.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:37:00 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
I was mostly being contentious by calling it fake on purpose...

I guess impotent would be a better descriptive term.

I can't decide if that is better or worse!

Hah.

I do think fake was the wrong term but I suppose you get my meaning. Sadly, impotent may not be a bad word to describe the monarchical aspect of such governments.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:38:50 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
I was mostly being contentious by calling it fake on purpose...

I guess impotent would be a better descriptive term.

I can't decide if that is better or worse!

Hah.

I do think fake was the wrong term but I suppose you get my meaning. Sadly, impotent may not be a bad word to describe the monarchical aspect of such governments.

"Neutered" or "gelded" might be an appropriate term as well - although also pretty insulting

.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:42:43 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
I was mostly being contentious by calling it fake on purpose...

I guess impotent would be a better descriptive term.

I can't decide if that is better or worse!

Hah.

I do think fake was the wrong term but I suppose you get my meaning. Sadly, impotent may not be a bad word to describe the monarchical aspect of such governments.

"Neutered" or "gelded" might be an appropriate term as well - although also pretty insulting

.

It's kind of hard to argue they don't fit such a definition. I suppose you could try to find the least offensive synonym in a thesarus. The truth often offends, I guess.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:51:20 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Among others, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands for sure.

Belgium (I think). Greece and Spain still has a royal family but I am not sure if they still have a part in government.

... eta: and then you've got places like Monaco and other "principalities" and little stuff like that.

Technically, I guess you could consider the Vatican a monarchy.

The Vatican City is sometimes referred to as the only remaining absolute monarchy in Europe.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:52:50 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
"Neutered" or "gelded" might be an appropriate term as well - although also pretty insulting

.

It's kind of hard to argue they don't fit such a definition. I suppose you could try to find the least offensive synonym in a thesarus. The truth often offends, I guess.

I don't have a problem with an accurate description (hence my beef with the word "fake") - I just prefer to use a non-offensive word in place of an offensive one, if possible.

Plus, I also think there's a contexual issue that people in the U.S. often don't fully understand about monarchies in Europe, particular in smaller homogenous countries with looooong histories like the Scandinavian ones, or Holland. Keep in mind that the current monarch of Denmark is a direct descendant of the people who basically led and ruled the Danish people for a thousand years. Even though the current royals may be very limited in power (but not necesssarily influence) today, the legacy alone creates a lot of identity for the people, and a lot of respect. So while the may be a lot of technical accuracy to words like "impotent" - it seems that other descriptors that accomplish the same thing could be used.

Ultimately, they are just words, of course. Really, it's no skin off my back. Clearly, there are some VERY anti-monarchy folks in America, and that's fine. There are some VERY anti-gun people in Europe

and we can all have our opinions about central aspects of each others' cultures.

Posted: 4/29/2011 6:58:31 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
"Neutered" or "gelded" might be an appropriate term as well - although also pretty insulting

.

It's kind of hard to argue they don't fit such a definition. I suppose you could try to find the least offensive synonym in a thesarus. The truth often offends, I guess.

I don't have a problem with an accurate description (hence my beef with the word "fake") - I just prefer to use a non-offensive word in place of an offensive one, if possible.

Plus, I also think there's a contexual issue that people in the U.S. often don't fully understand about monarchies in Europe, particular in smaller homogenous countries with looooong histories like the Scandinavian ones, or Holland. Keep in mind that the current monarch of Denmark is a direct descendant of the people who basically led and ruled the Danish people for a thousand years. Even though the current royals may be very limited in power (but not necesssarily influence) today, the legacy alone creates a lot of identity for the people, and a lot of respect. So while the may be a lot of technical accuracy to words like "impotent" - it seems that other descriptors that accomplish the same thing could be used.

Ultimately, they are just words, of course. Really, it's no skin off my back. Clearly, there are some VERY anti-monarchy folks in America, and that's fine. There are some VERY anti-gun people in Europe

and we can all have our opinions about central aspects of each others' cultures.

I actually don't understand the Americans who have a raging hatred of monarchy. Seems like they put no thought in the matter with their statements often sounding rather ignorant. Such sentiments were not always so strong in this country, though.

Posted: 4/29/2011 7:00:29 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

There's a difference between an absolute monarchy and a "real" one in your sense. A monarch need not be absolute to have real power. Most monarchies in the West evolved towards the regimen mixtum. You are right in the rest, though. The countries where the monarch has little or no practical power, or even worse, little to no constitutional power, might as well not be considered a real monarchy. The result has been the triumph of democratic forces (although sometimes the latter brought about the former), which has tended to have a negative effect on all involved. In practice in many of these countries, the governments have become very centralized, bureaucratic democracies with an effectively unicameral legislature, which ensures there are no checks and balances. Such is a horrible form of government and the monarch is nearly irrelevant in such a system.

You'll note that those governments may accurately be seen as direct successors to the absolutism, the secretive habits, and the derogation of individual rights that characterized the monarchies they replaced. In many senses, the biggest change in the relationship between the people and the government is that the crown is now shared among a crew of itinerant ward heelers rather than resting on a single head.

Posted: 4/29/2011 7:05:59 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

There's a difference between an absolute monarchy and a "real" one in your sense. A monarch need not be absolute to have real power. Most monarchies in the West evolved towards the regimen mixtum. You are right in the rest, though. The countries where the monarch has little or no practical power, or even worse, little to no constitutional power, might as well not be considered a real monarchy. The result has been the triumph of democratic forces (although sometimes the latter brought about the former), which has tended to have a negative effect on all involved. In practice in many of these countries, the governments have become very centralized, bureaucratic democracies with an effectively unicameral legislature, which ensures there are no checks and balances. Such is a horrible form of government and the monarch is nearly irrelevant in such a system.

You'll note that those governments may accurately be seen as direct successors to the absolutism, the secretive habits, and the derogation of individual rights that characterized the monarchies they replaced. In many senses, the biggest change in the relationship between the people and the government is that the crown is now shared among a crew of itinerant ward heelers rather than resting on a single head.

Liberalism, using the word in its true sense (which is how it's used on the Continent), developed to some of its highest levels in monarchies where the monarchs had real power. Individual rights have gone downhill since they effectively became democracies, as is almost always the case in democracies in general. Constitutional monarchies were also not characterized by absolutism (and even absolute monarchies in the West were not so absolute; absolute monarchs then could not have dreamed of having the powers the modern democratic governments have today).

Posted: 4/29/2011 7:06:25 PM EDT

[#35]

The Vatican isn't a monarchy, shame on your poli-sci teachers. Vatican is ruled by Theocracy.

Posted: 4/29/2011 7:07:12 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
I don't think the contention is that they are not real royalty. They are. But the country's are not really monarchies in any significant practicl way in many cases. I would argue that this is not more "modern", as you put it, but rather represents a devolution in government that adversely impacts the liberties of those within said countries and results in worse government than might otehrwise be the case.

I guess I just see it as so obvious that OF COURSE there are no actual countries in Europe that are "absolute monarchies" in the modern world, so pointing out that Consitutional Monarchies are somehow "fake" when they are pretty much what monarchies ARE in this day and age seems weird. Of course they are monarchies - they are just not absolute monarchies. But just because they are not ONE particular type of monarchy doesn't mean they are "fake" - which is what I was responding to - it just means they are a different type.

That's like saying that artillery today is "fake" because we don't use nerve gas and mustard gas shells any longer. Sure, modern artillery is different, and maybe not as "powerful" by some measure, but just because it's different doesn't make it "fake"

I wasn't talking about absolute monarchies. A constitutional monarchy can have a monarch with substantial powers, like those of the American President, and most did until the triumph of democratism. When the monarch has no power the institution seems rather pointless and in many cases can effectively be said to be a monarchy in name only.

I guess I see what you are saying.

I think there are just better words to describe that variation that "fake"

... and I am still going to take it personally, dammit!!

I would expect nothing different from the man who is 23d in line to Hoerkdengatten, seat of the Grand Dukes of Kronnern-Pooften (225 Fleischerzplattz, upstairs over the barber shop).

Posted: 4/29/2011 7:09:45 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I'm sorry, but it is just my personal opinion (opinions being like assholes and all) but your not really a royal anything anymore if former subjects ran you or your family out of your country at gun, pike, sword, or lance point. Or were chasing you (or an ancestor) hard with hatred and the intent of snatching the life from the royal body(s) with methods most cruel. That is pretty much the signal that the royalty has passed away and that you or your family might need to start looking for j..... j......

....j.......

....jo...JOB(s).

At this point the only things separating the former Grand Poobah of Sliznicstein from everyone else is whatever money that might have been stashed in foreign banks hidden away in Mr. Poobah's accounts.....kind of like Baby Doc and the former President of Eqypt.

Remember that on a bad day they were run back and forth in and out of every mudhole in Europe, even when their word was law on a good day.

Posted: 4/29/2011 7:24:18 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
The Vatican isn't a monarchy, shame on your poli-sci teachers. Vatican is ruled by Theocracy.

You are splitting hairs. In the sense of the middle ages sovereigns and the "old order" governance of Europe, it is an institution that remains in power, still holds some real estate, and is still sovereign.

Posted: 4/29/2011 7:31:30 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
The Vatican isn't a monarchy, shame on your poli-sci teachers. Vatican is ruled by Theocracy.

It is an elective monarchy.

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:17:00 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

I guess it depends on your definition of "real" and "fake"

In my view, monarchies like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands - and I guess Britain, Sweden and Norway too - are the "real" ones, because the current monarchs are the direct decendants of the actual absolute rulers of the country. The fact that they have given up most of their power in order to allow for a more modern form of government doesn't change the fact that they are "real" royalty.

Also remember that the royals in those places still retain some ACTUAL power, even if it is mostly exercised in cermonial ways. For example, only the monarch in Denmark can dissolve a government, and can call for new elections. While the monarch will DO so at the request of the Prime Minister and head of the current government, nothing compels them to. As another example, Denmark cannot go to war without the approval of the Monach, who is the Supreme Commander of all armed forces. This was very evident on April 9, 1940 when the nazis invaded Denmark. No Danish forced engaged the German invaders (except the Royal Guard Regiment at the Royal Palace), because the King was still deciding whether or not to fight the Germans. In addition, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of Denmark, the official state church that most Danes belong to. Traditionally, the Monarch is also the head of all Danish free masons.

Places like Monaco are just principalities, and there's a question of whether or not it's REALLY "royalty" or just "nobility" - since they are not kingdoms.

If you want to see "fake" royalty, look to the middle east, where whatever tribal nomadic savage that was the most ruthless at then end of their colonial rule just DECLARED themselves "royalty" (I know I am over-simplifying, but fuck those jumped up noveau-royals

).

That's how ALL royalty starts. English Royalty goes back to the Anglo-Saxon barbarians which were a tribal people lead by chieftans, the same ones that displaced the civilized Romans. The difference you high-light between Arab royals and European royals is that the Arabs are much younger.

Wikipedia is an amazying thing. For fun, I started with Queen Elizabeth II, the current Queen, and kept clicking on the hot link for their "predecessor" until I arrived at a man named "Cerdic" who apparently was the first King of Wessex, which later became the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, which later became England, which later became Great Britain, which later became the United Kingdom. Cerdic was probably a ruthless barbarian chieftan. King Aurthur, who's very existance is debatable, supposedly lead the Britons against Cerdic unsucessfuly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex

Once I get myself some land, I will like to think of my self as my own King, just like Alfred the Great, only with a somewhat smaller kingdom.

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:18:40 PM EDT

[#41]

The ones that don't have the sense to get rid of them?

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:50:51 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
...
That's how ALL royalty starts. English Royalty goes back to the Anglo-Saxon barbarians which were a tribal people lead by chieftans, the same ones that displaced the civilized Romans. The difference you high-light between Arab royals and European royals is that the Arabs are much younger.

I know that.

But 1000 years gives you a bit of time to acquire a bit of class and polish.

Wikipedia is an amazying thing. For fun, I started with Queen Elizabeth II, the current Queen, and kept clicking on the hot link for their "predecessor" until I arrived at a man named "Cerdic" who apparently was the first King of Wessex, which later became the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, which later became England, which later became Great Britain, which later became the United Kingdom. Cerdic was probably a ruthless barbarian chieftan. King Aurthur, who's very existance is debatable, supposedly lead the Britons against Cerdic unsucessfuly.

Elizabeth is not really a descendant of any of those old kings. The current British royal line doesn't actually go back all that far, and is basically German. The Swedish royal family is also very young - from the 1800s - and is French. The Japanese "royal family" is also pretty young. Often the institution is very old, but the current dynasty is actually quite young.

The current Danish royal family is arguably the oldest (certainly one of the oldest) existing royal families in the world. The current monarch is descended (through three branches of the family tree) from Gorm the Old, who ruled Denmark until 958, and was suceeded by his son Harald Bluetooth, who was suceeded by his son, Svend Splitbeard - so the current family now technically spans three millenia.

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:56:50 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
That's how ALL royalty starts. English Royalty goes back to the Anglo-Saxon barbarians which were a tribal people lead by chieftans, the same ones that displaced the civilized Romans. The difference you high-light between Arab royals and European royals is that the Arabs are much younger.

I know that.

But 1000 years gives you a bit of time to acquire a bit of class and polish.

Wikipedia is an amazying thing. For fun, I started with Queen Elizabeth II, the current Queen, and kept clicking on the hot link for their "predecessor" until I arrived at a man named "Cerdic" who apparently was the first King of Wessex, which later became the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, which later became England, which later became Great Britain, which later became the United Kingdom. Cerdic was probably a ruthless barbarian chieftan. King Aurthur, who's very existance is debatable, supposedly lead the Britons against Cerdic unsucessfuly.

Elizabeth is not really a descendant of any of those old kings. The current British royal line doesn't actually go back all that far, and is basically German. The Swedish royal family is also very young - from the 1800s - and is French. The Japanese "royal family" is also pretty young. Often the institution is very old, but the current dynasty is actually quite young.

The current Danish royal family is arguably the oldest (certainly one of the oldest) existing royal families in the world. The current monarch is descended (through three branches of the family tree) from Gorm the Old, who ruled Denmark until 958, and was suceeded by his son Harald Bluetooth, who was suceeded by his son, Svend Splitbeard - so the current family now technically spans three millenia.

As far as monarchies in the last few hundred years go, it has been rare for a dynasty to be native to the country it has ruled. I think in recent times Serbia was one of the few that had a native monarch.

Posted: 4/29/2011 8:58:41 PM EDT

[#44]

I used to jump on the "screw Royalty!" bandwagon, but I am increasingly fascinated by them in their various forms.

We seem to be descending into an utterly filthy lot, and it's nice to see some folks with class show up once in a while.

Even if it's snoody, born-into-it class.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:02:31 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

I guess it depends on your definition of "real" and "fake"

In my view, monarchies like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands - and I guess Britain, Sweden and Norway too - are the "real" ones, because the current monarchs are the direct decendants of the actual absolute rulers of the country. The fact that they have given up most of their power in order to allow for a more modern form of government doesn't change the fact that they are "real" royalty.

Also remember that the royals in those places still retain some ACTUAL power, even if it is mostly exercised in cermonial ways. For example, only the monarch in Denmark can dissolve a government, and can call for new elections. While the monarch will DO so at the request of the Prime Minister and head of the current government, nothing compels them to. As another example, Denmark cannot go to war without the approval of the Monach, who is the Supreme Commander of all armed forces. This was very evident on April 9, 1940 when the nazis invaded Denmark. No Danish forced engaged the German invaders (except the Royal Guard Regiment at the Royal Palace), because the King was still deciding whether or not to fight the Germans. In addition, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of Denmark, the official state church that most Danes belong to. Traditionally, the Monarch is also the head of all Danish free masons.

Places like Monaco are just principalities, and there's a question of whether or not it's REALLY "royalty" or just "nobility" - since they are not kingdoms.

If you want to see "fake" royalty, look to the middle east, where whatever tribal nomadic savage that was the most ruthless at then end of their colonial rule just DECLARED themselves "royalty" (I know I am over-simplifying, but fuck those jumped up noveau-royals

).

To me, an monarchy is not dictated by bloodlines but rather power. Does the Monarch have absolute power?

To me a real monarch would be the KSA for example, where nobosy is elected and the king says what goes.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:05:30 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
...
That's how ALL royalty starts. English Royalty goes back to the Anglo-Saxon barbarians which were a tribal people lead by chieftans, the same ones that displaced the civilized Romans. The difference you high-light between Arab royals and European royals is that the Arabs are much younger.

I know that.

But 1000 years gives you a bit of time to acquire a bit of class and polish.

Wikipedia is an amazying thing. For fun, I started with Queen Elizabeth II, the current Queen, and kept clicking on the hot link for their "predecessor" until I arrived at a man named "Cerdic" who apparently was the first King of Wessex, which later became the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, which later became England, which later became Great Britain, which later became the United Kingdom. Cerdic was probably a ruthless barbarian chieftan. King Aurthur, who's very existance is debatable, supposedly lead the Britons against Cerdic unsucessfuly.

Elizabeth is not really a descendant of any of those old kings. The current British royal line doesn't actually go back all that far, and is basically German. The Swedish royal family is also very young - from the 1800s - and is French. The Japanese "royal family" is also pretty young. Often the institution is very old, but the current dynasty is actually quite young.

The current Danish royal family is arguably the oldest (certainly one of the oldest) existing royal families in the world. The current monarch is descended (through three branches of the family tree) from Gorm the Old, who ruled Denmark until 958, and was suceeded by his son Harald Bluetooth, who was suceeded by his son, Svend Splitbeard - so the current family now technically spans three millenia.

As far as monarchies in the last few hundred years go, it has been rare for a dynasty to be native to the country it has ruled. I think in recent times Serbia was one of the few that had a native monarch.

It's all that inter-marriage between royal families, or just to foreigners. As soon as an heir dies off, the relatives from other countries come running.

For example, Queen Margrethe married a French guy. The crown prince Frederik married and Australian girl, and the younger prince first married a Chinese-Austrian girl, then divorced her and married a French gal. Apparently the only people the Danish royals won't marry are Danes.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:06:43 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Absolute_monarchies

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Forms_of_government.svg/2000px-Forms_of_government.svg.png

Pretty much just the Vatican for a real monarchy. The semi-real ones are Liechtenstein and Monaco. The fake ones are Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and Belgium. Why have a monarchy if all they do is be official and make knights and whatever keeps them out of the way of the real leadership? Maybe I don't understand because here the Head of Government and Head of State are the same... There's no distinction between the USA and its government in the minds of the people.

I guess it depends on your definition of "real" and "fake"

In my view, monarchies like the ones in Denmark, the Netherlands - and I guess Britain, Sweden and Norway too - are the "real" ones, because the current monarchs are the direct decendants of the actual absolute rulers of the country. The fact that they have given up most of their power in order to allow for a more modern form of government doesn't change the fact that they are "real" royalty.

Also remember that the royals in those places still retain some ACTUAL power, even if it is mostly exercised in cermonial ways. For example, only the monarch in Denmark can dissolve a government, and can call for new elections. While the monarch will DO so at the request of the Prime Minister and head of the current government, nothing compels them to. As another example, Denmark cannot go to war without the approval of the Monach, who is the Supreme Commander of all armed forces. This was very evident on April 9, 1940 when the nazis invaded Denmark. No Danish forced engaged the German invaders (except the Royal Guard Regiment at the Royal Palace), because the King was still deciding whether or not to fight the Germans. In addition, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of Denmark, the official state church that most Danes belong to. Traditionally, the Monarch is also the head of all Danish free masons.

Places like Monaco are just principalities, and there's a question of whether or not it's REALLY "royalty" or just "nobility" - since they are not kingdoms.

If you want to see "fake" royalty, look to the middle east, where whatever tribal nomadic savage that was the most ruthless at then end of their colonial rule just DECLARED themselves "royalty" (I know I am over-simplifying, but fuck those jumped up noveau-royals

).

To me, an monarchy is not dictated by bloodlines but rather power. Does the Monarch have absolute power?

To me a real monarch would be the KSA for example, where nobosy is elected and the king says what goes.

That's rather simplistic given that many monarchies where the monarch had real political power were not absolute monarchies. A monarchy does not have to by definition be absolute to be called a monarchy. Where there is some abiguity is where the monarch has little to no real power, and is mainly symbolic.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:09:17 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
....
To me, an monarchy is not dictated by bloodlines but rather power. Does the Monarch have absolute power?

To me a real monarch would be the KSA for example, where nobosy is elected and the king says what goes.

I guess I can see that. That's not how I look at it, but it's an entirely legitimate way of seeing it.

I always wonder what the U.S. would have been like if Washington had agreed to become king. Maybe even have it be an elected office, not heriditary - but keep a powerful ruler. More like a variation of Plato's type of Republic, rather than the more democratic-based Republic you decided on. Obviously, Washington would never have done it - but it's a fun thought experiment.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:42:43 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
....
To me, an monarchy is not dictated by bloodlines but rather power. Does the Monarch have absolute power?

To me a real monarch would be the KSA for example, where nobosy is elected and the king says what goes.

I guess I can see that. That's not how I look at it, but it's an entirely legitimate way of seeing it.

I always wonder what the U.S. would have been like if Washington had agreed to become king. Maybe even have it be an elected office, not heriditary - but keep a powerful ruler. More like a variation of Plato's type of Republic, rather than the more democratic-based Republic you decided on. Obviously, Washington would never have done it - but it's a fun thought experiment.

Washington was not the only person asked. Prince Henry of Prussia and someone from the House of Orange were also asked. I'm pretty sure at least one other European royal was asked if they would take the job. The American monarchists were divided between an elective monarchy and a hereditary monarchy and whether or not to have titles of nobility outside of the royals. The powers of the King (and they considered using an alternative title) would have been fairly similar to those ultimately granted to the President under the U.S. Constitution. The structure of the government would still have been fairly similar, i.e. a mixed government. As it is, the Presidency as originally concieved was essentially an untitled elective monarchy. Both the monarchists and republicans drew much inspiration from the Dutch Republic (which was "crowned") and the British monarchy when it came to creating the constitution.

Posted: 4/29/2011 9:46:36 PM EDT

[#50]

I think they all have them. They are not displayed as much as Briton's.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I'm curious, which European countries still have monarchies? (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us