Talk:List of current sovereign monarchs/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
The O le Ao o le Malo is a ceremonial president
 |
I wrote to the Samoan government's website at and the response was that it was a ceremonial presidency.
- from therequiembellishere@gmail.com
- to contact@govt.ws
- date Jul 15, 2007 2:12 AM
- subject O le Ao o le Malo
- mailed-by gmail.com
- To whomever this letter concerns,
- I write to you as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as an amateur contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Within the community, there is a question as to whether your Head of State should be seen as an elective monarch or as a ceremonial president, which would simultaneously answer as to whether the Independent State of Samoa should be considered a parliamentary monarchy or a parliamentary democracy.
- I would graciously appreciate if this could be answered quickly, as I will by cut off from internet access in two weeks and would like to resolve the conflict within the Wikipedia Community as soon as possible.
- Many Thanks,
- Benjamin (last name omitted)
Response:
- from presssecretariat@samoa.ws
- to therequiembellishere@gmail.com
- date Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM
- subject Re: O le Ao o le Malo
- Talofa Benjamin,
- Thank you for your enquiry. The Independent State of Samoa is a representative government. Our Head of State is a ceremonial president. Being free from politics, any law will not become law unless assented to by the Head of State.
- Regards,
- Deborah Mauinatu
- Office of the Government Press Secretariat
Therequiembellishere 05:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I still maintain that the Oleao-olemalo of Samoa should not be summarily dismissed as a monarch, simply because a government press secretary (Ms Mauinatu) defines him as a president. The current office holder still retains the trappings of royalty, being a hereditary high chief of one of the four highest noble families of Samoa. His position could be described perhaps as an "elected duke or grand duke" for a 5 year term of office, quite similar to the example of Malaysia, with it's elected 5-year-rotating supreme sultan. Furthermore, the Oleao-Olemalo is formally addressed as 'His Highness', as was his predecessor.
Therefore, until I see a "commoner" elected to this high position, Samoa should be defined as an elective parliamentary monarchy in fact.
Kaelin von Gross —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.2.101 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Merged list from monarch
--Neutralitytalk 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Abdicated monarchs
Would it be worth including a list of monarchs who are living but who have passed their rule on to their heirs? I'm thinking of Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan and Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. Or, if not, is there another page where one might find or more properly add this information? Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think such a list would be appropriate here. There also appears to be one just like that which you suggest at the Abdication article. --G2bambino (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Appearance
I've restored the appearance of the tables that User:SeNeKa undid. As he didn't leave any edit summary explanation, I'm unsure what his concerns were. --G2bambino (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
United Arab Emirates
I think including the president of the United Arab Emirates on the list of Asian monarchs is inconsistent. Despite the fact that the federation consists of emirates, on the federal level it isn't a monarchy - unlike Malaysia - since its head of state is styled 'president'. So Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan can be considered no more of a monarch than the rulers of the other six emirates of the UAE. So I believe the seven emirs (along with the kings and sultans of the states of Malaysia) should be included in the box of 'Subnational monarchs'. Any comments? ZBukov (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. While the EU isn't a single sovereign nation, it's still sort of analogous in that its member nations include monarchies, yet its own form is certainly not that of a monarchy. On the other hand, the British Commonwealth, other than not being a sovereign nation, has the form of a monarchy even though most of its member nations aren't monarchies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Tibet
Should this place be included? Does China recognize the Dalai Lama as it's actual territorial ruler? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Can Vatican be called a Monarchy?
Neither is it hereditary nor is there any training from Birth --Vinay84 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's elective, same as Andorra and has all the trappings of a monarchy. I'm sure it was already discussed under the monarchy section about it. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Netherlands
Queen Beatrix is the Queen of The Netherlands, Aruba and the Dutch Antilles so actually is she a pan-continental monarch too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.100.44 (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is so wrong! Those other places are not seen as fully independent nations, but are still part of & under the rule of The Netherlands. If this was the case, then other places would also have to be added in, like the Cook Islands & Niue, etc. Only those under the criteria of 'pan-continental' here need to be as fully recognized nations sharing the same monarch. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a pan-continental state by itself, just like France or Denmark. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is the sovereign "fully independent nation", and the Netherlands comprises one part, the European part, of it; the rest is in America. So even by herself, Beatrix belongs under Pan-Continental. Night w (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It may be seen that way, but then why isn't Spain for example also not included? The Canary Islands are also considered part of the Kingdom of Spain, even though they are within the continental area of Africa. The way I took it by that definition was a shared monarch with other independent states on different continents and not by territories/colonies. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Technically Spain should be included in that list also, and so should Denmark. And they're not territories--they're countries within the kingdom. Aruba has the same constitution status as the Netherlands under the Dutch Crown. I don't agree with it (and it will probably come up again with another editor), but to avoid technicalities like Spain, and since she resides in Europe, you can move B back to Europe. Altho, is this right "pan-continental"? Shouldn't it be "intercontinental"??? Pan- is across a singular continent... Night w (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- It may be seen that way, but then why isn't Spain for example also not included? The Canary Islands are also considered part of the Kingdom of Spain, even though they are within the continental area of Africa. The way I took it by that definition was a shared monarch with other independent states on different continents and not by territories/colonies. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a pan-continental state by itself, just like France or Denmark. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is the sovereign "fully independent nation", and the Netherlands comprises one part, the European part, of it; the rest is in America. So even by herself, Beatrix belongs under Pan-Continental. Night w (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
In the strict sense, I can see how that is, but let's keep things to the motherland itself. I'm sure the intent made was to show those nations having a shared monarch & you are correct in the actual wording, in that it should be 'intercontinental' (since it's among continents & not all). I'll make the needed changes. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Subnationals
I was in the process of merging information from List of subnational monarchs when I became frustrated with the sheer magnitude of the task. To say the list on the aforementioned page is incomplete would be a huge understatement. There's certainly plenty of Googlable information on each possible entry, but there's just so many--mostly in West Africa. I didn't get to Côte d'Ivoire or Cameroon, and I gave up during Nigeria. There's some examples here: 1, 2, 3, 4; this guy does a good job of consolidating this kind of information (that URL links to his page on Nigeria, but he does one on everywhere), but even his lists are incomplete.
I think the table would end up being massive. What I think needs to be discussed is the very definition of a sub-national monarchy. There are monarchs whose status is written into a state's constitution (like in Malaysia); there are those who ceremoniously reign over a portion of territories (like some in Nigeria); a lot of the rest are leaders of ethnic groups, like the Maori King, and more in Africa...one might call these chiefs (a term mentioned in the Monarch page), but a lot of them preside over a nation (i.e. the whole ethnic group), which is divided into tribes---but the positions are still hereditary. What does everyone think? Night w (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Rather than making the same list twice, it would be a better idea to keep things here more simple & export what has been so far done here (in the format it has) to that other article already made. Afterwards, just make a link on here to re-direct others to the list of subnational monarchs. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)