Since 1800, most of the world's monarchies have been abolished by dismemberment or annexation, or have been transformed into republics; most current countries that are monarchies are constitutional ones. Among the few states that retain aspects of absolute monarchy are Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland and the Vatican City. In Jordan and Morocco, the monarch also retains considerable power. There are also recent (2003) developments in Liechtenstein, wherein the regnant prince was given the constitutional power to dismiss the government at will. Nepal had several swings between constitutional rule and direct rule related to the Maoist rebel movement and killings by a suicidal crown prince. In December 2007 the Nepalese government agreed to abolish the country's monarchy after the Constituent Assembly elections in 2008.
Britain, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, they are all European countries, but they are also European remaining monarchies. That´s not counting one Grand Duchy (Luxembourg) and two principalities (Monaco and Liechtenstein). It´s a remarkable survival story despite revolutions, two world wars and the resulting global upheavals. Though they have little remaining political power, Europe´s royal houses retain a hold on social history, and in some cases Britain, Spain, the Netherlands on some relics of their earlier power. They are a puzzling phenomenon that´s deeply embedded in the national psyche.
De Monarchia is a treatise on secular and religious power by Dante Alighieri (1265-1321, was born into Florence). With this Latin text, the poet intervened in one of the most controversial subjects of his period: the relationship between secular authority (represented by the Holy Roman Emperor) and religious authority (represented by the Pope). Dante's point of view is known on this problem, since during his political activity he had fought to defend the autonomy of the city-government of Florence from the temporal demands of Pope Boniface VIII.
Monarchy is first proved to be the true and rightful form of government. Dante, who spent the last two decades of his life in exile because of the chaos among the petty states of Italy, saw nothing odd in also asserting that the empire is necessary for human freedom. Freedom is the perfect condition of man, the state he was designed for. The monarch could create the institutional basis for a society in which the most people would be able to approach this condition. This is because only the monarch could himself be entirely free; having the greatest honor in the world, there would be nothing further for him to desire. Thus, being wholly disinterested, his reign would have no object other than the common good.
Dante tells us that the history of the rise of the Roman Empire had seemed an inexplicable wonder to him. Then he realized that the Roman people did not acquire the monarchy of the world by ferocity, but through right, guided by providence. The progress of the Roman people was at many points attended by miracles, like the history of the Hebrews. Thus we see that God approved of the empire; Christ Himself chose to be born in the “fullness of time,” the peaceful age of Caesar Augustus.
The institution of monarchy in Thailand
The institution of monarchy in Thailand is in many ways unique, often difficulty for outsiders to fully comprehend. Not only does it have a history going back more than seven hundred years, but it also continues to function with extraordinary relevance and vitality in the contemporary world.
Although the 1932 Revolution brought an end to absolute monarchy, the institution today can be said to be more powerful than ever in the sense of providing a unifying element for the country
– a focal point that bridges together people from all backgrounds and shades of political thoughts and gives them an intense awareness of being Thai.
The King of Thailand under the constitutional monarchy is the head of state and a symbolic figurehead for the people of Thailand. While his role in government is that of a figure head, Thailand's King receives a tremendous amount of respect from the citizens of Thailand.
The current King reigning in Thailand is King Bhumibol Adulyadej. King Bhumibol Adulyadej was born on December 5, 1927. He has been reigning as the current Thailand King since June 9, 1946. Thislong serving reign as King has lead to him being the world's longest serving current head of state as well as the longest reigning King Thailand has ever had. He is often referred to as "The Great" by the people of Thailand and those outside of Thailand.
As a head of state the monarchy of Thailand has powers and rights that do not deal directly with the political side of the government. The government side is handled by an elected government that honors the current day constitution of Thailand. Some of the powers that the reigning King still retains include being head of the Royal Thai Armed Forces, the power of pardon, and the royal assent. As King in Thailand he is also a defender of the Buddhist faith, which is the main religion throughout Thailand.
Brief Italian Monarchy
Until the 19th century, the peninsula we now call Italy was made up of many city-states. These independent nations exist under successions of various invading empires of the French, Turks, Germans, Austrians and Spanish. The individual states, although sharing a small geographical space, were each culturally unique. They spoke separate dialects, worshiped in different churches and had unique attitudes. The cultural movement of the 16th and 17th centuries created a sense of nationalism within the future Italy for the first time.
In 1796, Napoleon, the Emperor of France, began his invasion of Italy and eventually liberated the city-states from the various foreign rulers. He politically unified them into the Kingdom of Italy, over which he proclaimed himself king. It is interesting to note that Napoleon was born Napoleone Buonaparte and later changed his name to the French Bonaparte, so he was actually Italian, not French. During his rule, Napoleon created Italy’s first centralized administrative, judicial and civil code. The feudalism that characterized prior centuries was virtually eliminated. The civil vital records for most regions began in 1809, during the Napoleonic era so we have Napoleon to thank for the many records we are able to discover today.
After Napoleon’s fall, Italy reverted to its reunification city-states and the European monarchs redrew their old boundaries. The north was ruled by the Austrian empire, the central region consisted of the Papal States and the south was ruled by Spain. Secret underground societies developed to encourage a free Italy. In the mid-1800s a movement called il Risorgimento (the resurrection) inspired a new Italy. During this political active decade between 1860 and 1870, il Risorgimento incited Victor Emmanuel II to unite the individual kingdoms into a single empire. By 1870, Italy as we know it was born.
This last major unification of Italy is important to genealogists because it played a major role in a sweeping emigration from Italy. While unification was suppose to have brought about better conditions, it was indirectly responsible for this massive emigration. Within a decade, massive deforestation had occurred in southern Italy. Top soil which was poor to begin with, was washed away by heavy rains. Raising crops was difficult in this environment. Malaria epidemics were very common. Hundreds of thousands of people died and many others were left too ill to work and support themselves. These conditions prompted the southern Italians to seek a better life in the Americas.
African Monarchy
Pharaohs ruled ancient Egypt over the course of three millennia (c. 3150 BCE to 31 BCE) until Egypt was absorbed by the Roman Empire. In the same time period, several kingdoms flourished in the nearby Nubia region. In the Horn of Africa, the Aksumite Empire (4th c. BCE
- 1st c. BCE) and later the Ethiopian Empire (1270-1974) were ruled by a series of monarchs. Haile Selassie, the last Emperor of Ethiopia, was deposed in a coup d'état. The Kanem Empire (700-1376) was in central Africa. Kingdoms such as the Kingdom of Kongo (1400–1914) existed in
southern Africa. Other powerful African monarchs incuded the Oba of Benin who ruled over the Benin Empire with its capital at Benin in modern day Nigera (unrelated to the modern day country of the Republic of Benin). The oba, (meaning king or ruler in the Yoruba language), at Oyo who had the title
, Alaafin of Oyo, once lead the famous Yoruba Oyo empire. During the reign of Igbo born Jaja of Opobo, Opobo was a small but wealthy African kingdom, being one of the most lucrative palm oil centers of trade.
Europeans conquered, bought, or established African kingdoms and styled themselves as a monarch. Royal descent plays an important role in many African societies; authority and property tend to be lineally derived. Among tribes which recognize a single ruler, the hereditary blood line of the rulers (who early European travelers described as kings, queens, princes, etc., using the terminology of European monarchy) is akin to a dynasty. Among groups which have less centralized power structures, dominant clans are still recognized.Oral history would be the primary method of transmitting genealogies, and both nobles and commoners base their status on descent. The royal blood is among the centralized power of all blood groups.
American Monarchy
(Emperor Montezuma II - Aztec Empire) Monarchies existed among the indigenous peoples of the Americas long before the European colonization. Pre-Columbian titles used in the New World included Cacique (in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico) Tlatoani (Nahuatl term for the ruler of an altepetl, Aztec polity), Ajaw (Maya), Sapa Inca (Inca Empire), Morubixaba (Old Tupi for "chief").
When the Europeans arrived they referred to these tracts of land within territories of different aboriginal groups to be kingdoms, and the leaders of these groups were often referred to by the Europeans as Kings, particularly hereditary leaders.Many of the leaders were queens, but this was not understood by the Europeans, who had no knowledge of the indigenous history or languages, much less an understanding of matrilineality.
Independent monarchs also emerged. Augustin I declared himself Emperor of Mexico in 1822, after colonization. Maximilian I ruled as Mexican emperor from 1863 to 1867. Two members of the House of Braganza, Pedro I and Pedro II, ruled Brazil as emperors from 1822 to 1889.
(Portrait Maximilian I of Mexico) These American emperors were deposed due to complex issues, including pressure from the highly republican United States, which had declared itself independent of the British monarch in 1776. The British, worried about U.S. colonial expansion, invasion following the American Civil War, and the fact that the U.S. had aided the Mexican republican rebels in overthrowing Maximilian I, pushed for the union of the Canadian provinces into a country in 1867. With Confederation, Canada became a self-governing nation which was considered a kingdom in its own right, though it remained subordinate to the United Kingdom; thus, Victoria was monarch of Canada, but not sovereign of it. It was not until the passing of the Statute of Westminster that Canada was considered to be under a distinct Canadian Crown, separate to that the British, and not until 1953 that the Canadian monarch, at the time Elizabeth II, was titled by Canadian law as Queen of Canada.
Between 1931 and 1983 nine other previous British colonies attained independence as kingdoms, all, including Canada, in a personal union relationship under a shared monarch. Therefore, though today there are legally ten American monarchs, one person occupies each distinct position. See Canadian Confederation.
Asia Royalty
In China, "king" is the usual translation for the term wang (), the sovereign before the Qin dynasty and during the Ten Kingdoms period. During the early Han dynasty, China had a number of small kingdoms, each about the size of a county and subordinate to the Emperor of China. The Japanese monarchy is now the only monarchy to still use the title of Emperor.
Monarchs, as a consequence, have come to seem as obsolete as court jesters or princesses in towers. For nine out of 10 people in the world, royalty is the stuff of fairy tales.
Yet in much of Asia, royalty is still a fact of life, a constant and living presence. In Thailand, King Bhumibol Adulyadej is just such a presence. Recently, Thais marked, with genuine joy, the 60th anniversary of the King's coronation—five days of dazzling celebrations attended by crowned heads from 25 nations.
Venerated partly through tradition and the law, but mainly for the way they are perceived to have dedicated themselves to improving the lives of the Thai people, it can be hard for foreigners to comprehend the relationship between the monarchy and the common people. King Bhumibol Adulyadej- the longest reigning monarch in the world - and his wife Queen Sirikit stand out as extraordinary exceptions.
Held in overwhelming affection by the vast majority of Thai citizens, they are viewed as symbols of national identity every bit as much as the flag or national anthem and pictures of the King and Queen adorn almost home and office building. They've travelled extensively to the remotest and most deprived parts of Thailand to find out and listen to the concerns of the rural poor and then endeavor to provide practical solutions. Despite having royal photographers, the King often takes photos himself to document what he finds and is frequently seen in royal photos with a camera around his neck.
The results are impressive - the King personally holds patents on a artificial rain making techniques for instance, and there's a long list of royal initiated projects to improve agriculture and farming conditions, education and health. The King is now nearly 82.(Year 2012).
Type of monarchies Absolute monarchy . In an absolute monarchy, the monarch rules as an autocrat, with absolute power over the state and government—for example, the right to rule by decree, promulgate laws, and impose punishments. Absolute monarchies are not necessarily authoritarian; the enlightened absolutists of the Enlightenment were monarchs who allowed various freedoms.
The rise of absolute monarchies dates back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when several monarchs in western and Eastern Europe increased the power of their central governments. In doing so, these kings, emperors, or sultans secured their position as the supreme ruler and possessor of all power. They surrounded themselves with followers and advisors who were strong advocates of royal absolutism. For those that opposed their behavior and seizure of power they replied that they had been granted the divine right of kings.
In several countries an absolute monarchy appeared to be the only viable solution to dealing with the problems that plaguedit. France, for example, had been torn apart from religious wars, the citizens had no respect for law and order, the feudal nobility had seized control and the finances of the central government were in chaos. Furthermore, French prestige was at an all time low and when Henry of Navarre became king he was determined to change all of this. Once in power he restored the authority of the central government, curtailed the power of the nobility, launched a comprehensive program of economic reconstruction and dealt with the religious turmoil that had been tearing the country apart. His goal was to strengthen France and then have it become the supreme power in Europe. Unfortunately, he was never able to fulfill these dreams because he was assassinated as he was preparing for war. His vision for the future, however, was not entirely lost.
After the death of Henry IV, his wife and son, Louis XIII, became the new rulers of France. Although they proved to be very incapable leaders a prominent figure did emerge during their reign, Cardinal Richelieu. Similar to Henry IV, he sought "to make the royal power supreme in France and France supreme in Europe"(Sullivan 422). He followed this policy strictly and crushed any perceived threats to royal absolutism. However, it was not until the rule of Louis XIV that the French monarchy was able to secure formidable power. It was also during this time that the idea of divine right monarchy emerged. It was argued that the royal monarch was not only inspired by God, but also the image of God and was therefore only accountable to God. This idea soon spread throughout Europe and remained dominant during the late seventeenth and much of the eighteenth centuries.
Although quite different from Western Europe, this same pattern became evident in Eastern Europe. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most of the countries in eastern Europe were economically less developed than their western counterparts, the landed aristocracy was the dominant power, serfdom was more harsh than ever, and most areas lacked the strong central governments that were prevalent throu
ghout much of western Europe by this time. All of this made the idea of an absolute monarchy even more favorable, especially in countries such as Prussia, Austria, and Russia. These countries strengthened their standing armies, gained new territories, improved commerce, dealt accordingly with religious problems, and made important compromises with the nobility and aristocracy. This was all made possible after the development of a strong national government and powerful monarchy in each of these countries.
Limited monarchy. In a limited monarchy, it is another form of monarchy in the early stage of constitutional monarchy when the constitution not yet formulated. The monarch has limited political power under a rule of law.
The Anglo-Saxon kings were never absolute monarchs in any case, since they were elected from among the Bretwalda, and always recognized that their powers were limited by the law and the powerful nobles. The Norman kings after 1066 were much more absolutist, and basically did whatever they wanted.
The first time the kings accepted any restriction on their powers was when King John put his seal on the Magna Carta in 1215, although that is basically a guarantee of the aristocracy's rights rather than those of the ordinary people.
However the Stuart kings, James VI and I, and Charles I were great believers in the Divine Right of Kings, which basically meant that since they got their throne by authority of God, no human authority could interfere with their decisions - so Charles tried to rule without a Parliament for many years (though this caused him problems because only Parliament could authorize legitimate taxes), which of course resulted in the Civil Wars of 1642-1648 and Charles I's execution in 1649, which rather limited the monarchy's powers. Charles II's restoration in 1660 put the monarchy back in control, but the Revolution of 1689 definitively decided that Parliament had the final say in deciding who could be king, when Parliament deposed James II and installed William and Mary as co-monarchs. Parliament further took the upper hand in 1702 when the Act of Succession defined exactly who could become monarch in future (Protestant heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, who are not married to Catholics), which is the current succession rule. The last time a monarch rejected a law passed by Parliament was in about 1708 when Queen Anne refused to approve a law relating to the Scottish militia.
The Legitimacy of Non Reigning Royal Families Page 5