This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Absolute monarchy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Absolutism (European history) was copied or moved into Absolute monarchy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Does anyone else think the examples section is NPOV? It reads like a freshman or high school paper, overall, and a biased one at that. "X was a successful absolute monarch" is not how an encyclopedic article should look. Nach0king 01:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I was going to express the same sentiment as Nach0king, but it seems as if I will just echo theirs. There are no links anywhere (wiki or otherwise) within that section and reads, as Nach0king already mentioned, like an essay. It also contradicts a part of the article that talks about the English kings being ultimately unsuccessful at running an absolutist monarchy. hellenica 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"The sovereign is expected to act according to custom" (How meaningless, aren't they also expected to in constitutional monarchies?), "in an absolute monarchy there is no constitution or body of law above what is decreed by the sovereign (king or queen)" (So... how does monarchy exist... a constitution, or law for that matter, is not a "piece of paper"). "As a theory of civics," (eh?) "absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth."(Even in Anti-Deluvian concepts, such as the Divine Right of Kings, usually Monarchs would claim a form of Apostolic sucession or suchlike ((e.g. James VI and I)), not "good breeding"! Just like in the case of the Ottomans they tended to declare themselves to be "Gaziya", a holy warrior) "In theory, an absolute monarch has total power over his or her people and land, including the aristocracy and sometimes the clergy (... has any Absolute monarch EVER claimed that?!)" Jezze 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Hutt River Province Principality be added to the list of absolute monarchies? effeiets anders 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No. It is not a recognized sovereign state.-- L. Pistachio 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Did an edit to phrasing in this bit; while James I and Charles I may have attempted to import the idea of the Divine Right of Kings (James in particular) a large part of the current thinking in History is that neither were directly trying to establish absolute rule by doing so, although admittedly the threat of absolutism did cause suspicion and fear amongst the Commons and some nobility. While many interpretations disagree on what Charles I was up to I'd say it's open to debate. Jezze 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argument in "Democracy: the God that Failed" to the Theories and History section. The reasons not to seem to be that no monarch has used Hoppe's theory to justify his rule and that Hoppe was not ultimately arguing for monarchy. But it is an original and important contribution. I think I'll write something up unless someone objects. Atripodi 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ive created the page Royal autocracy, and redirected it here. Im not sure how common the term is, but at least it got 2,100 google hits, so I thought it might be a good idea to create a page for it.
However, are the terms Royal autocracy and Absolute monarchy the same thing? As a novice, I would say that they match, but there might be slite differences between the meanings of the words that could justify an own page for Royal autocracy.
Comments?
-- Screensaver 09:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a very small point, but although the pope is the head of his "state", the Vatican should not be included as a monarchy for the purposes of this article. Statehood in this case is merely an internationally recognized protection against influences by or forced allegiance to a geo-political entity. To compare the Vatican - with no significant land, no obliged subjects, no secure income and absolutely no enforcement of law - to a country like Saudi Arabia is a bit misleading. Susie-q-luvs-u 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Someone had put SEXISGOOD after the napolean link...fixed it Invader05 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I kinda disagree with the statement that Jordan and Morocco moved to a constitutional monarchy. In both cases, the king still has absolute power. The "constitutional" part being a mere cloak to silence the West. You can call a cat a dove all you want, it won't make it fly. Seriously, that bit gotta be removed, or at the very least, made more explicit as to not let the reader under the impression that the parliaments in those countries have anything more than a figurative role. I'm respectfully running this by the community first in the hope to find a consensus. Lixy 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite your sources? We do need verification of that. (And how do you sign these comments?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.60.88 ( talk) 06:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Jordan is an absolute monarchy and never moved. Article 30 of The Constitution of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan [1] states "The King is the Head of the State and is immune from any liability and responsibility."-- 80.66.53.158 ( talk) 12:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
References
I think this section is substantially wrong on two accounts. Firstly, I don't think the claim that the king was "first among equals" in the nobility is right. There was a definite hierarchy in medieval society. Some nobles outranked others, and the king was certainly above everyone else. Secondly, the assertion that the declining power of cavalry in battle meant that noblemen were less powerful is absurd. Most armies thereafter were still led by the aristocracy, regardless of troop composition (this was the case even during the First World War). 88.111.89.112 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Revolver66
Absolute monarchy is not absolutism. Absolutism is a period in European history just after feudalism. It is characterized by the end of feudal partitionship, consolidating of power with the monarch, rise of state power, unification of the state and decrease in influence of nobility. It of course uses laws. Absolutist monarchs are Louis XIII and XIV in France, Ivan the Terrible in Russia etc. All about 16th century.-- Dojarca 09:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"Absolutism is a period in European history just after feudalism."According to whose definition? According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, absolutism is "A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority." According to WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University, absolutism is "1. dominance through threat of punishment and violence 2. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) 3. the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government." A word can be defined in different ways. What is your reference or source? -- RisingSunWiki 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an external link at the Wikipedia article Absolutism (European history); it is an article written by Professor Steeves at Stetson University. The first line states, "Absolute monarchy or absolutism meant that the sovereign power or ultimate authority in the state rested in the hands of a king who claimed to rule by divine right." My interpretation of this sentence is that the terms "absolutism" and "absolute monarchy" can be used interchangeably. Furthermore, I checked my university notes from a course I took on the French Revolution, and according to my notes, the professor used "absolutism" and "absolute monarchy" interchangeably as well. So I must conclude, unless I see more compelling evidence, that you original post is false. -- RisingSunWiki 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutism is the belief that absolute monarchy is best. Southafricanguy ( talk) 00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone find out if most European countries during the medieval times were absolute monarchies?-- Dark paladin x ( talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference? I think I'm missing something here, because I don't see any difference between the two. So...that pretty much sums it up.:\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.182.30 ( talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A dictator takes power illegitimately while a monarch gains power legitimately. Southafricanguy ( talk) 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC
Yes, this is what I'm wondering as well, wouldn't this be the same as despotism? A monarch gains power because he is a born to another Monarch, and succeeds him, so legally he has the right to. So, a despot is only someone who has overthrown the government and taken power, not someone who was born into it? So, his child, if he was absolute ruler would not be a Despot because he didn't seize power, he inherited it? It doesn't make sense to me The snare ( talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It seams to me that the Tuders were pretty much absolute manarchs with only the stuats lossesing that power due to thier poor handleing and the english civel war-- J intela ( talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
These do exist, but I removed the call for expert on politics, as these are more a sociological, historical curiosity. The few remaining are not really absolute monarchies in the traditional sense, as in the case of the various Islamic states with tribal rulers, but traditional systems layered over various forms of modernized feudalism or simple bourgeois rule. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 00:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to cause the article to flow around the "Forms of government" sidebar? Currently it's not doing so, and that's a LOOOONG sidebar. It makes the page look pretty atrocious. Msaunier ( talk) 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Where the heck is Amestris? Is that even a real nation? A quick Google search brought up wife of Xerxes I from Persia and a fictional country from the Full Metal Alchemist series. -- 67.237.241.66 ( talk) 03:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the system needs to be fixed so that you cannot rate this article infinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.246.193 ( talk) 00:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this for the second time, as the comments are completely unsourced, and goes against all scholarly opinions on the subject in order to make what seems to be personal opinions. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Swaziland does not support the present article's contention that the country in an absolute monarchy. Indeed, the claim in the present article is without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 ( talk) 05:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Qatar is an emirate and as such belongs in the category of absolute monarchies (in which article it is currently listed). As there was no sources provided in the recent edits that supported a claim of it being a constitutional monarchy, I have reverted them. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The article says Russia was the last country in Europe to abolish absolutism. The Nikolas II of Russia abdicted in 1917. The Emperor (Kaiser) of Germany Wilhelm the II abdicted in 1918. Was he much less absolutist than Nikolas the II? If yes, could they elaborate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.71.26 ( talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history, over the last two months, this article has been constantly vandalized by unregistered users, most of them with no other edits before or after this article. Abstractematics ( talk) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am editing this article in sandbox for my computer science course. This article was full of unsourced material that did not seem reliable to me. To fix this problem i plan to follow the usual procedure, outlined by wikipedia for articles such as this one. I plan on removing all uncredited information/ original research and for certain areas, provide a proper citation for the rest. I am open to more suggestions on how to further improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolasoji ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A monarch is an individual exercising private land ownership...a landlord dictating to the inhabitants of his private realm. An entire nation, or empire, can then be left to the monarch's heirs, just as any private property. The monarch maintains their position of power using a private military. They give temporary land rights, to private mercenaries willing to defend the monarch's ownership. This seems to be an environment of anarcho-capitalism which, by definition, has no true government oversight. Nothinheavy ( talk) 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be hereditary, though. Elective monarchies are a thing. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This phrase, in whatever form, is not supported by a link to the UAE constitution. First, the constitution cannot demonstrate what the UAE is considered. As a primary source (wherever it is hosted) it is not useful for much, other than non-controversial statements about itself. Next, an establishing document cannot speak to what others "consider" the nation to be. Finally, the document says neither "constitutional monarchy" nor "federal monarchy" and does not discuss what anyone "considers" the UAE to be. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This articles says "Russia became the last European country (excluding Vatican City) to abolish absolutism."
However, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article shows the country as being an absolute monarchy from 1929 to 1934, decades after Russia's monarchy was abolished. Pretendus ( talk) 19:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
To editor Mannerheimo: I don't understand how this edit is constructive. Please explain. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't individual emirs in the UAE be added to the list of Absolute monarchies? After all, the article states that they are absolute monarchs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achoo! ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that it's requested to add a Roman Empire subsection under the history section: /info/en/?search=Absolute_monarchy#Roman_Empire
This article History of the Roman Empire contains this prose: "The state of absolute monarchy that began with Diocletian endured until the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453. Diocletian divided the empire into four regions, each ruled by a separate Emperor (the Tetrarchy)." and is contained within two references that may prove promising:
So, perhaps we can use those sources and those key terms as a start to expanding that section. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 23:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Further sources may also be found at these pages which mention "absolute monarch" or "absolute monarchy" in the context of the Roman Empire:
Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 00:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add references to the United Arab Emirates and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's entries on the List of Current Absolute Monarchies (Don't remove those entries without broad community consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.180.69 ( talk) 23:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The Nations to be added are, among others: 1. The individual Emirates of the UAE (or even the U.A.E. itself according to the "Forms of Government Map") 2. North Korea 3. Bahrain 4. All hereditary dictatorships (there should not be a separate "hereditary dictatorship" page, I recommend both articles to be fusioned) Signed 190.5.245.50 ( talk) 16:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Tis entire Wikipedia article is below par. It's full of inaccuracies and should be rewritten from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44B:BDAD:1:A14A:C2E5:9071:18FE ( talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose merging [ Absolutism (European history)] and [ Autocracy (autocrat / absolute monarchy)] into [ Absolute monarchy]. The content in all three entirely constitute the exact same topic of absolute monarchies (rule by one without legal limitations). And combining all three small and individually incomplete pages into one page would improve the quality and overall scope of the topic without causing any article-size or weighting problems. Darkmagine ( talk) 22:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Just wondering. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 19:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
If not, what are the un-authoritarian absolute monarchies? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know, North Korea considers itself to be a republic but it behaves like an absolute monarchy. It has a track record of three authoritarian leaders from the same family, one following the other, and one can reasonably expect this line to continue... [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) ( talk) 13:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Did Andorra cease being an absolute monarchy earlier than 1917 ? And what about Liechtenstein ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.147 ( talk) 21:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Absolute_monarchy&oldid=1106381228
I rest my case. Humanwaveattack666 ( talk) 19:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
"Absolute monarchy originally emerged in Europe after the social upheaval of the Black Death and Renaissance" Could Someone clarify the above statement? Doesn't absolute monarchy exist before social upheaval? 2405:800:9031:4555:1:0:F3F:CD44 ( talk) 19:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Absolute monarchy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Absolutism (European history) was copied or moved into Absolute monarchy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Does anyone else think the examples section is NPOV? It reads like a freshman or high school paper, overall, and a biased one at that. "X was a successful absolute monarch" is not how an encyclopedic article should look. Nach0king 01:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I was going to express the same sentiment as Nach0king, but it seems as if I will just echo theirs. There are no links anywhere (wiki or otherwise) within that section and reads, as Nach0king already mentioned, like an essay. It also contradicts a part of the article that talks about the English kings being ultimately unsuccessful at running an absolutist monarchy. hellenica 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
"The sovereign is expected to act according to custom" (How meaningless, aren't they also expected to in constitutional monarchies?), "in an absolute monarchy there is no constitution or body of law above what is decreed by the sovereign (king or queen)" (So... how does monarchy exist... a constitution, or law for that matter, is not a "piece of paper"). "As a theory of civics," (eh?) "absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth."(Even in Anti-Deluvian concepts, such as the Divine Right of Kings, usually Monarchs would claim a form of Apostolic sucession or suchlike ((e.g. James VI and I)), not "good breeding"! Just like in the case of the Ottomans they tended to declare themselves to be "Gaziya", a holy warrior) "In theory, an absolute monarch has total power over his or her people and land, including the aristocracy and sometimes the clergy (... has any Absolute monarch EVER claimed that?!)" Jezze 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't Hutt River Province Principality be added to the list of absolute monarchies? effeiets anders 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No. It is not a recognized sovereign state.-- L. Pistachio 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Did an edit to phrasing in this bit; while James I and Charles I may have attempted to import the idea of the Divine Right of Kings (James in particular) a large part of the current thinking in History is that neither were directly trying to establish absolute rule by doing so, although admittedly the threat of absolutism did cause suspicion and fear amongst the Commons and some nobility. While many interpretations disagree on what Charles I was up to I'd say it's open to debate. Jezze 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argument in "Democracy: the God that Failed" to the Theories and History section. The reasons not to seem to be that no monarch has used Hoppe's theory to justify his rule and that Hoppe was not ultimately arguing for monarchy. But it is an original and important contribution. I think I'll write something up unless someone objects. Atripodi 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ive created the page Royal autocracy, and redirected it here. Im not sure how common the term is, but at least it got 2,100 google hits, so I thought it might be a good idea to create a page for it.
However, are the terms Royal autocracy and Absolute monarchy the same thing? As a novice, I would say that they match, but there might be slite differences between the meanings of the words that could justify an own page for Royal autocracy.
Comments?
-- Screensaver 09:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a very small point, but although the pope is the head of his "state", the Vatican should not be included as a monarchy for the purposes of this article. Statehood in this case is merely an internationally recognized protection against influences by or forced allegiance to a geo-political entity. To compare the Vatican - with no significant land, no obliged subjects, no secure income and absolutely no enforcement of law - to a country like Saudi Arabia is a bit misleading. Susie-q-luvs-u 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Someone had put SEXISGOOD after the napolean link...fixed it Invader05 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I kinda disagree with the statement that Jordan and Morocco moved to a constitutional monarchy. In both cases, the king still has absolute power. The "constitutional" part being a mere cloak to silence the West. You can call a cat a dove all you want, it won't make it fly. Seriously, that bit gotta be removed, or at the very least, made more explicit as to not let the reader under the impression that the parliaments in those countries have anything more than a figurative role. I'm respectfully running this by the community first in the hope to find a consensus. Lixy 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite your sources? We do need verification of that. (And how do you sign these comments?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.60.88 ( talk) 06:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Jordan is an absolute monarchy and never moved. Article 30 of The Constitution of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan [1] states "The King is the Head of the State and is immune from any liability and responsibility."-- 80.66.53.158 ( talk) 12:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
References
I think this section is substantially wrong on two accounts. Firstly, I don't think the claim that the king was "first among equals" in the nobility is right. There was a definite hierarchy in medieval society. Some nobles outranked others, and the king was certainly above everyone else. Secondly, the assertion that the declining power of cavalry in battle meant that noblemen were less powerful is absurd. Most armies thereafter were still led by the aristocracy, regardless of troop composition (this was the case even during the First World War). 88.111.89.112 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Revolver66
Absolute monarchy is not absolutism. Absolutism is a period in European history just after feudalism. It is characterized by the end of feudal partitionship, consolidating of power with the monarch, rise of state power, unification of the state and decrease in influence of nobility. It of course uses laws. Absolutist monarchs are Louis XIII and XIV in France, Ivan the Terrible in Russia etc. All about 16th century.-- Dojarca 09:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"Absolutism is a period in European history just after feudalism."According to whose definition? According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, absolutism is "A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority." According to WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University, absolutism is "1. dominance through threat of punishment and violence 2. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) 3. the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government." A word can be defined in different ways. What is your reference or source? -- RisingSunWiki 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an external link at the Wikipedia article Absolutism (European history); it is an article written by Professor Steeves at Stetson University. The first line states, "Absolute monarchy or absolutism meant that the sovereign power or ultimate authority in the state rested in the hands of a king who claimed to rule by divine right." My interpretation of this sentence is that the terms "absolutism" and "absolute monarchy" can be used interchangeably. Furthermore, I checked my university notes from a course I took on the French Revolution, and according to my notes, the professor used "absolutism" and "absolute monarchy" interchangeably as well. So I must conclude, unless I see more compelling evidence, that you original post is false. -- RisingSunWiki 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutism is the belief that absolute monarchy is best. Southafricanguy ( talk) 00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone find out if most European countries during the medieval times were absolute monarchies?-- Dark paladin x ( talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference? I think I'm missing something here, because I don't see any difference between the two. So...that pretty much sums it up.:\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.182.30 ( talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
A dictator takes power illegitimately while a monarch gains power legitimately. Southafricanguy ( talk) 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC
Yes, this is what I'm wondering as well, wouldn't this be the same as despotism? A monarch gains power because he is a born to another Monarch, and succeeds him, so legally he has the right to. So, a despot is only someone who has overthrown the government and taken power, not someone who was born into it? So, his child, if he was absolute ruler would not be a Despot because he didn't seize power, he inherited it? It doesn't make sense to me The snare ( talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It seams to me that the Tuders were pretty much absolute manarchs with only the stuats lossesing that power due to thier poor handleing and the english civel war-- J intela ( talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
These do exist, but I removed the call for expert on politics, as these are more a sociological, historical curiosity. The few remaining are not really absolute monarchies in the traditional sense, as in the case of the various Islamic states with tribal rulers, but traditional systems layered over various forms of modernized feudalism or simple bourgeois rule. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 00:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to cause the article to flow around the "Forms of government" sidebar? Currently it's not doing so, and that's a LOOOONG sidebar. It makes the page look pretty atrocious. Msaunier ( talk) 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Where the heck is Amestris? Is that even a real nation? A quick Google search brought up wife of Xerxes I from Persia and a fictional country from the Full Metal Alchemist series. -- 67.237.241.66 ( talk) 03:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the system needs to be fixed so that you cannot rate this article infinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.246.193 ( talk) 00:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this for the second time, as the comments are completely unsourced, and goes against all scholarly opinions on the subject in order to make what seems to be personal opinions. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on Swaziland does not support the present article's contention that the country in an absolute monarchy. Indeed, the claim in the present article is without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 ( talk) 05:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Qatar is an emirate and as such belongs in the category of absolute monarchies (in which article it is currently listed). As there was no sources provided in the recent edits that supported a claim of it being a constitutional monarchy, I have reverted them. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The article says Russia was the last country in Europe to abolish absolutism. The Nikolas II of Russia abdicted in 1917. The Emperor (Kaiser) of Germany Wilhelm the II abdicted in 1918. Was he much less absolutist than Nikolas the II? If yes, could they elaborate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.71.26 ( talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history, over the last two months, this article has been constantly vandalized by unregistered users, most of them with no other edits before or after this article. Abstractematics ( talk) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am editing this article in sandbox for my computer science course. This article was full of unsourced material that did not seem reliable to me. To fix this problem i plan to follow the usual procedure, outlined by wikipedia for articles such as this one. I plan on removing all uncredited information/ original research and for certain areas, provide a proper citation for the rest. I am open to more suggestions on how to further improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolasoji ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A monarch is an individual exercising private land ownership...a landlord dictating to the inhabitants of his private realm. An entire nation, or empire, can then be left to the monarch's heirs, just as any private property. The monarch maintains their position of power using a private military. They give temporary land rights, to private mercenaries willing to defend the monarch's ownership. This seems to be an environment of anarcho-capitalism which, by definition, has no true government oversight. Nothinheavy ( talk) 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be hereditary, though. Elective monarchies are a thing. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 22:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This phrase, in whatever form, is not supported by a link to the UAE constitution. First, the constitution cannot demonstrate what the UAE is considered. As a primary source (wherever it is hosted) it is not useful for much, other than non-controversial statements about itself. Next, an establishing document cannot speak to what others "consider" the nation to be. Finally, the document says neither "constitutional monarchy" nor "federal monarchy" and does not discuss what anyone "considers" the UAE to be. - SummerPhD v2.0 14:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
This articles says "Russia became the last European country (excluding Vatican City) to abolish absolutism."
However, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article shows the country as being an absolute monarchy from 1929 to 1934, decades after Russia's monarchy was abolished. Pretendus ( talk) 19:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
To editor Mannerheimo: I don't understand how this edit is constructive. Please explain. Chris Troutman ( talk) 15:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't individual emirs in the UAE be added to the list of Absolute monarchies? After all, the article states that they are absolute monarchs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achoo! ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that it's requested to add a Roman Empire subsection under the history section: /info/en/?search=Absolute_monarchy#Roman_Empire
This article History of the Roman Empire contains this prose: "The state of absolute monarchy that began with Diocletian endured until the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453. Diocletian divided the empire into four regions, each ruled by a separate Emperor (the Tetrarchy)." and is contained within two references that may prove promising:
So, perhaps we can use those sources and those key terms as a start to expanding that section. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 23:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Further sources may also be found at these pages which mention "absolute monarch" or "absolute monarchy" in the context of the Roman Empire:
Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, ( message me) 00:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Please add references to the United Arab Emirates and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's entries on the List of Current Absolute Monarchies (Don't remove those entries without broad community consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.180.69 ( talk) 23:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The Nations to be added are, among others: 1. The individual Emirates of the UAE (or even the U.A.E. itself according to the "Forms of Government Map") 2. North Korea 3. Bahrain 4. All hereditary dictatorships (there should not be a separate "hereditary dictatorship" page, I recommend both articles to be fusioned) Signed 190.5.245.50 ( talk) 16:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Tis entire Wikipedia article is below par. It's full of inaccuracies and should be rewritten from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44B:BDAD:1:A14A:C2E5:9071:18FE ( talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose merging [ Absolutism (European history)] and [ Autocracy (autocrat / absolute monarchy)] into [ Absolute monarchy]. The content in all three entirely constitute the exact same topic of absolute monarchies (rule by one without legal limitations). And combining all three small and individually incomplete pages into one page would improve the quality and overall scope of the topic without causing any article-size or weighting problems. Darkmagine ( talk) 22:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Just wondering. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 19:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
If not, what are the un-authoritarian absolute monarchies? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know, North Korea considers itself to be a republic but it behaves like an absolute monarchy. It has a track record of three authoritarian leaders from the same family, one following the other, and one can reasonably expect this line to continue... [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) ( talk) 13:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Did Andorra cease being an absolute monarchy earlier than 1917 ? And what about Liechtenstein ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.147 ( talk) 21:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Absolute_monarchy&oldid=1106381228
I rest my case. Humanwaveattack666 ( talk) 19:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
"Absolute monarchy originally emerged in Europe after the social upheaval of the Black Death and Renaissance" Could Someone clarify the above statement? Doesn't absolute monarchy exist before social upheaval? 2405:800:9031:4555:1:0:F3F:CD44 ( talk) 19:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)