Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

22

Theoretically, yes. The prime minister is appointed by the governor-general, who is the representative of the Australian monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II). The queen could instruct her representative to appoint a new prime minister at any time. (If the governor-general refused, the queen could appoint a new governor-general.) In practice, however, ...


21

While Queen may refer to both Queen regent (sovereign) or Queen consort, the King has always been the sovereign. There are historical reasons for this hierarchy --in a long line of English monarchs you will find more Kings than you would find Queens. In fact, if you do not recognize Matilda's and Lady Jane's claim to the throne of England then Queen Mary I ...


15

The first attempt at unification was sparked by succession disputes, after Margaret of Scotland died in 1290. This lead to a series of conflicts, spanning from 1296 to 1357, known today as the Wars of Scottish Independence. Scotland retained its status as an independent nation after the end of the wars. The claim of Mary, Queen of Scots to the English ...


12

If you accept that the Parliament of the United Kingdom currently has "sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal ... it can, in short, do ...


11

There are two types of queens. A Queen Consort is the wife of a King. A Queen Regnant is a ruler in her own right, a "female king" of you will. The husband of a Queen Consort is just the King, per the above. But the husband of a Queen Regnant is a Prince Consort. "Prince" is one level below King, and the Consort's title is held at a level below the Queen's. ...


10

This is because the forces that overthrew them used to consider the monarchy as an alternative source of power that commanded loyalty of thousands of people. In case of any crisis, the monarch could have the power to overthrow the democratic forces, especially since many in the administration and army (not all of whom can be removed) are expected to remain ...


9

Section 61 of the Constitution says "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative [...]". Prime Minister Robert Menzies had to pass a Parliamentary standing order specially for Queen Elizabeth to be able to open Parliament when she visited Australia in 1954 because ...


9

The last king to lead in battle is George II in the Battle of Dettingen. The last one to die in battle was Richard III at Bosworth.


9

At the time Europe used to be called Christianity. Most if not all monarchies ruled by divine right. All names were officially in Latin so each country translated it in its own vernacular language, even if some names had obviously no Latin origin (Karl, Otto, etc) : Franciscus =>> François / Francis / Franz/ Francisco Carolus =>> Charles / Charles / ...


9

I am not well enough read in French history and governance to offer a good answer, so I shall offer a poor answer. My understanding of the comment is that all the governance of France originated in and was legitimized by Louis. What we now call the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the government were vested in Louis' person. Any of these ...


8

If you'll take Ken Jennings as a source (as he does seem to know his literature), he not only agrees that there is no evidence that Louis XIV said this, but goes a step further and says that Louis XIV probably wouldn't have said it. He claims not only that it wasn't true that the French monarch was equivalent to the state, but that Louis XIV probably didn't ...


8

The person that comes to mind is Getulio Vargas of Brazil. He first took power in 1930, in a military-backed coup, after being defeated in a Presidential race, ousting the outgoing President and President-elect. He ruled as a virtual dictator until 1945, at which time he was forced to step down from the Presidency, and allow democratic elections, because his ...


7

As a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Humanitarian_disaster - which is a reason why Leopold was put in the "ranking " you've pasted. There's a simple reason Belgium is still a monarchy: because there was no political reason for changing the state of affairs - this idea did not occur neither to public opinion nor to international ...


7

The killings to which they are doubtless referring occurred as part of his ownership of the Congo Free State. They all happened in Africa, and the deaths seem to have been the result of a rather abusive form of slave labor that was employed to keep productivity there high. The wikipedia page says that estimates range from 2 to 14 million deaths, but there's ...


6

The question is based on the premise that the monarch of England is simply determined by applying a set of defined rules - i.e. legitimate, male line succession. As argued by others above, this has always in practice been combined with a degree of pragmatism (i.e. who is the best ruler) and even an element of democracy (as shown by the Act of Settlement) not ...


6

They don't all seem to be the same lion. Spain and Denmark's lions aren't even yellow. This is another rendering of the Coat of Arms of Sweden: Compare it with the Coat of Arms of the Netherlands. Notice the similarities between the lions. Much of the similarities between these different lions could be because the same artist drew them. By this, I do not ...


6

European monarchies are extremely intertwined, all European dynasties are related to each other, it's not surprising that they use very similar symbols. For example, take a look at the family tree of the German monarchs: Looking at that royal mess, and considering the hereditary nature of heraldry, I think it's quite obvious how we ended up with only two ...


6

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was Tsar of Bulgaria from 1943 to 1946. 2001, Simeon resumed the role of leader of the nation upon taking office as Prime Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria from July 2001 until August 2005. But there were no plans of a restoration of the Bulgarian monarchy.


6

Today the British monarchy is an almost entirely ceremonial position. All the real political power in the country is invested in Parliament (mostly the House of Commons) and the court system. The Queen is left with only the ceremonial "Head of State" duties that in the US are performed by the President (or more often in fact delegated to the First Lady ...


5

I'll look at non hereditary absolute rulers first, which are similar to monarchies. If you look up Dictator, you'll find examples of absolute rulers who had set terms. Roman Dicatators being the original example as well as Giuseppe Garibaldi. Many states have or have had emergency power laws that effectively result in a dictator for the duration of an ...


5

In short, it's a Christian symbol loaded with meaning, and the symbol of the Lion representing royalty [goes back even further than that.] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_(heraldry)#Long_history_of_lion_imagery) 1) It's representative of God, indicating that God is King, and also emblematic of heavenly favor for the monarchy. 2) The lion was considered ...


5

The Queen (or King) of England is a constitutional monarch, a ceremonial figure whose powers are strictly circumscribed by the constitutions of England (or other Commonwealth countries). In THEORY, the "chain of command" goes from the queen, to the governor-general of the Commonwealth, to the Prime Minister of Australia. In actual fact, the queen and ...


5

The examples you gave were either deposed through a revolution, or lost power because the former monarch chose the wrong side and was seen as complicit in leading the nation to ruin. If the populace was upset enough to end royal rule, why would they tolerate a reminder of their unhappy past living lavishly in their midst? The British monarchy which you ...


5

In Russian there is a similar convention. For example, we refer English monarchs by German-like names. I think the origin of this convention is pragmatism. Many monarchs changed their country by marriage. Some monarchs were sovereigns of two or more countries with different language. As such it is difficult to define the "true" ethnicity of many monarchs ...


4

To answer the question here are some extracts from specified sources: Scottish Historical Documents, by Professor Gordon Donaldson (p. 266, ISBN 1-897784-41-4): England retaliated in 1705 with the Alien Act, which declared that, until Scotland accepted the Hanoverian succession, all Scots would be treated as aliens in England and the import of cattle, ...


4

Most absolute rulers, be they Monarchs or dictators, will accept no diminution of their power, so that when the populous approach them with such a suggestion they, the absolute ruler, relinquish some or all of their power,they tend to reject the demands of the populous. If the feelings of the populous are strong enough then the populous will persist with ...


4

The Wikipedia article sets out the main suspects, including Richard III himself and various allies of his. There were a number of people who claimed, after Richard had died, to be one of the Princes in the Tower, the most famous being Perkin Warbeck, who fought Henry VII for the throne. after Warbeck was captured he confessed under torture that he had made ...


4

I think the problem lies in the "should" of your question - by what criteria? And Richard III actually usurped the throne from his nephews - the "Princes in the Tower" - whether he had them murdered or not, so can hardly be "the last line legitimate" monarch, as you state. IF you believe in a divinely-ordained right of succession, whereby the Crown passes ...


4

Roman king (rex) had a limited term of 8 years, but this was never observed. The kings manipulated the law to extend their term. Under Diocletian the Dominate system was established in Roman Empire where an emperor's term was limited to 10 years. But only a few emperors followed this limitation, which soon became obsolete. But it is not certain whether ...


4

Well, in 1946 the Italians voted to abolish the kingdom and create the republic, basically because the monarchy was tainted by association with Mussolini. Italy's monarchy was a stronger one (in my estimation) than the East European ones but still it couldn't weather the storm. I have the impression that in Eastern Europe the real prestige of the monarchies ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible