Anon63205: I was making that comment based on what monarchy was defined as at the start of the article. It said a monarchy is a form of government in which the head of state is a single person. Most governments have only a single man as head of state, and this has been true historically as well. The president is one man, and he is the sole head of state in the United States.

That said, the definition of a monarchy is not a single ruler who has absolute power over his branch of Government. By your logic, then the United Kingdom is not a monarchy because Queen Elizabeth II is not in absolute control over any branch of government. Neither is Norway a monarchy since the monarch doesn't have absolute say over his branch of government. Monarchy doesn't require the monarch to have absolute control over his or her branch of government, and that's never been part of the definition of a monarchy.

Also, you’re wrong about the US presidents. We can't overthrow him at any time. In fact, an attempt to overthrow the president would be seen as an act of treason, and you would be arrested and possibly executed for trying.

I know you want to claim that because he is elected, and we hold periodic elections, he can be overthrown, but this isn't accurate since he presidency expires at the end of a four year term. We don't overthrow presidents, we simply hold elections. But since the election cycle is once every four years, then even allowing a liberal use of language, you can't say we can overthrow our president at any time. We have to wait four years to "overthrow" any of them. That's not "any time".

it doesn't actually make the US a monarchy because he doesn't have complete authority over everything in his branch of government. he can be overthrown at anytime.

Actually its a poor article. For instance, it says that monarchy is a form of government whose head of state is a single person. Well, this makes the United States a monarchy since the President is the sole head of state.

It also claims that the original use of the term was for a type of government in which the Monarch had absolute authority, which is quiet the opposite of how monarchy developed. Originally the monarch arose as a chief judge, not an absolute ruler.

While absolute monarchies did eventually develop, the original form of monarchy was that the king settled disputes and kept the peace between individuals of a community.

Indeed, when monarchies where being redeveloped in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, they weren't all that powerful at all, and had to constantly engage in political maneuvering with local lords, allies, judges and the church.

There is also a problem when one mentions that most places do not have an absolute monarchy because people value freedom these days.

It should be noted that even in a monarchy in which the king has a great deal of power over the government, such as in France before the Revolution of 1789, the people where generally free to live as they liked.

Freedom is not necessarily equated with the ability to influence government, you know.

Freedom for the people doesn't mean that the government has to allow a parliament rather than just the king making major decisions, and freedom should not be so understood as limits in a king's authority.

Also, while the article mentions the Vatican, it says this is only technically a monarchy, as the Pope is not hereditary. I hate to break it to you, but monarchy isn't always hereditary to begin with.

In the early Middle Ages, monarchs weren't hereditary, nor where they hereditary in the Holy Roman Empire in the early days, nor in the first kingdom of Rome. The first seven kings where actually chosen in elections!

Monarchy isn't only technical if the monarch isn't hereditary, and nothing suggests monarchy has to be hereditary.

The article also assumes that monarchy is only retained for cultural reasons, as if somehow it can't be retained for practical benefits it may offer.

Indeed, the article takes the Whig view of History, that sees men emerging form primitive tribes and developing monarchies as the oldest, and thus most primitive, form of central governance, only to later develop representative government as a higher and more evolved system of rule.

It may, of course, be comfortable for us in the age of Democracy to view history as a linear progression with our form of government at the top of the heap and the most advanced and enlightened system of governance ever devised, and so to see monarchy as primitive, but democracies are as old if not older than monarchy, and Aristotle said they were older, and less developed.

Democracies and republics (which is what most governments we call democracies actually are) aren't really the product of advancement beyond monarchy, and sometimes monarchies develop to replace republics or democracies as people find them superior. Again, see Medieval Europe as a prime example, or read Aristotle.

Monarchy can be argued for aside from historical and cultural roots, as having virtues in its own right.

For instance, a republic is unstable by its very nature since its mean of operation requires competition between rival factions, which at election time always divides society against itself.

Monarchies, unless elective, do not have this as a problem, as their are typically no elections and thus no factions to side with. This also allows people to feel a connection to the monarch they don't to politicians, in that the monarch truly represents the whole people, not just the party that elevated him.

As an example, the Queen of the Netherlands currently is well loved by Dutch, and all, even republicans, see her as a symbol of unity and claim her as their queen. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama legally represents all 300 million Americans, yet about half did not vote for him, were disappointed that he won, and now work hard to undermine his presidency in order to get their party back in the White House. Some even say he isn't their president!

Likewise, since a monarch isn't beholden to a political party to acquire and maintain power, they are free form the petty squabbling and power lays we associate with politicians.

Since monarchs also don't have to sell themselves to the public and acquire powerful backers to get him elected, we can also find monarchs who are less willing to compromise, and more willing to make tough decisions.

And this is just a summary of the benefits of monarchy. There is much more than can be said of the above, and many other points. Monarchy need not be seen as a relic of the past retained only for cultural reasons, but can be seen as a legitimate form of government in its own right, with its own unique advantages.

i thought monarchy was an old, old wooden ship.

Nice article.

Someone who rules in place of an underage or incapacitated monarch is usually called a regent. The government is then a regency. Occasionally, if the person is not of royal blood, he or she may take a title such as Lord Protector or Lord Governor.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, a regency was in place in England. King George III was incapacitated by illness and his son, Prince George, was named Prince Regent, until George III died and the Prince Regent became King George IV.

What is a replacement for an under age monarch called and what is he called in relation to ruling his monarchy.

This article helped but, it doesn't say how this form of government arose.

Yeah its all right. i should be able to complete my report.

gives a clear view of what monarchy is. good job

Thumbs up!

I found this article amazingly helpful when i was working on my homework. I thoroughly recommend this article if you are learning about monarchy.

can you tell me more about the Elizabethan times monarchy?