This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of current monarchs of sovereign states 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 |
List of current monarchs of sovereign states is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on January 14, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any opposition to, or comments on, the new version? The diff is here. The "subnational monarchs" have been moved to a separate list. Nightw 05:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Add missing Cook Islands and Niue. Greetings. Cêsar ( talk) 13:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Is SMOM some kind of elective monarchy (like the Holy See)? (see also here). Alinor ( talk) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The list was recently pulled from a TFL spot pending further review. I have done at least some reviewing (of the sources avaliable online) and have come up with several concerns. Only one is for close paraphrasing (what was intended to be checked), but I've run into a few reliable sources concerns that escaped scrutiny from us reviewers during the FLC process. When checking them more thoroughly, the problems become apparent.
Considering that almost 20 refs are of questionable reliability, I think they need to be sorted out, in addition to the close paraphrasing instance, before this will be worthy of a spot on the main page. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus to do so Mike Cline ( talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
List of current sovereign monarchs →
List of current sovereign monarchies –
Per the first sentence of the article A monarch is the person who heads a monarchy This is not a list of such people, or it would only have 30 entries. In enumerating a list of anything, one instance of the listed entity should not appear multiple times.
The default sorting of the countries in the list, and the placing of countries in the first column, make this clearly presented as a list of countries that fit a particular criterion. This has been slightly obscured by the recent splitting of the coregents of Andorra, which should be undone if this proposal receives support. relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Kevin McE ( talk) 19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Copying a previous conversation from the archive of NightW's talk page and mine: Initial response was in response to this edit. Posted here now as the assumption that it is a personal title was reposted today
Can you add a reference to
[1] please? I don't really doubt it but FL standards and all...
Nightw 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
But how does one source an absence of something? The issue is that nowhere in the sites of the Andorran government, nor that of the national paper or the national broadcaster is it ever used as a personal title: you will not find Co-Prince Nicolas or Co-Prince Joan anywhere [unless preceded by "el", which renders it as an adjective rather than a title (a clarification I omitted in February)]. I would have to turn the question around, and ask for the sources for using those phrases. The position holders are referred to consistently as the french co-prince (Catalan does not capitalise nationality indicators) and the episcopal co-prince. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In reply to the following edit summary:
...At the same time, they are also everyone else's. While a heads of state may be the armiger of a coat, it also (in most cases) represents the nation, government institutions, and in some cases the military. They rarely, if ever, represent the head of state exclusively. It does not make much sense to me to display national coats of arms in this list; it is not something that I would expect to see as a reader. Is there any other reason for not displaying standards beyond "not all the monarchs have standards, but they all have arms" (because we can't display all the arms either)? Nightw 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That's very true, but the only reason we can't display all the arms is because there aren't enough suitable images (as in: there aren't enough images that have the right licensing so they can be displayed); not because any of the monarchs are not armigerous. By contrast; not all of the monarchs have Royal Standards. Personally; I'm happy to go with whatever consensus is reached on here. If the standards are to return; I'm not too fussed either way; although I would query the inclusion of the arms of Pope Benedict XVI (although as can be seen on the page on Arms of Dominion, the Popes are an exception as regards this-their personal arms are theirs and not also the arms of Vatican City.) JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I have made a version of the table, currently in my sandbox, which is more genuinely a list of monarchs. It does not repeat any monarch 16 times, which is the key difference between a list of monarchs and a list of monarchies.
Changes required by reconfiguring:
Other changes made:
I believe this is far more what the article calls for, and that slight loss of utility is justified by the concept of presenting a true list of monarchs. There is coding still in place which is redundant in an unsortable table, but it does not affect the reader, and frankly, I've spent enough time toying with it for tonight.
Kevin McE (
talk) 23:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-No; it would not be accurate at all because the list at present does not 'repeat the same monarch sixteen times'-the positions that the Queen of the UK holds as regards each of the commonwealth realms is completely constitutionally separate from each other -it's just that the Queen in a personal union-but personal unions are nothing unusual; and in fact were more common in the past (the most recent case outside the commonwealth being the King of Denmark being simultaneously King of Iceland until 1944.) It's no different to the President of France being at the same time Co-Prince of Andorra (albeit the President of France is not a monarch whereas the Co-Princes of Andorra are)-the monarchs of each of the commonwealth realms(who just happen-through the 1701 Act of Settlement-to be the same person.) are separate legal persons from each other (due to the 1931 Act of Westminster and the re-patriation of their respective constitutions and the various Royal Titles Acts); and as such are treated separately. The Queen of Australia; for example, is a different monarch from the Queen of the United Kingdom; but the actual; physical person who holds both offices is the same person (a difficult legal distiction to make; but there is one nonetheless). Treaties for example on behalf of Australia are worded in right of 'the Queen of Australia', as are declarations of war, and the Australian Constitution gives the Queen of Australia different powers to ones the Queen of the United Kingdom is given in the (unwritten; I hasten to add) British Constitution; and so on. In the hypothetical situation that; say, Greenland were given complete independence from Denmark and the Greenlanders decided to keep the Danish Queen as their Queen (likely in my opinion should Greenland become independent); then a hypothetical (assuming she held that title in right of Greenland)'Margarethe II, Queen of Greenland' would also be listed. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. Sorry, I didn't see this before. When we had the FLC discussion, sortability was asked for by several participants and I do agree that it is useful (I use it often myself and I can definitely see how it would be useful to readers). As long as combining different sets of rows renders that useless, then my vote would be to keep them separated. But if, hypothetically, it were possible to combine certain rows... I have no problems with combining the name and even probably the house and succession rows, as they're justifiable (the person is the same and the succession should be the same). But while they're certainly in a personal union, they're not in a constitutional union; the offices are separate, so combining the title and type is a bit confusing. I don't really have any concerns with shifting the monarch column to the leftmost, as long as the items are still sorted by the realm column, as I think that's the easiest setting for readers to find the row they're looking for. Nightw 19:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
None of the objections have cited sources or wikipedia policies, nor have they had a response to my responses, so applying suggested change. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Well here's my 10 cents:
I agree with Night w. Perhaps the title of the article is a misnomer; as far as international relations and sovereignty are concerned; the fact that each of the commonwealth realms has a monarch who is the same person is wholly irrelevant. The Queen of the United Kingdom can quite legally go to war or conclude a treaty with the Queen of Canada; just like she can with the Queen of Denmark (and in legal terms btw; they do, declarations of war and treaties as regards monarchies are carried out in the name of the monarch)-and before you say 'they can't go to war with each other'; yes they can. The King of India and the King of Pakistan (both of whom were the same person, George VI) were at war with each other during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan War. Likewise, during the 1983 Invasion of Grenada; the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, the Queen of Barbados, Sthe Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of St. Lucia and the Queen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines wwere simultaneously at war with the Queen of Grenada; and at the same time Elizabeth II was condemning the invasion of Grenada in her roles as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Canada. What you are missing is the fact that; although the physical person sitting on the different thrones of the commonwealth realms is the same person; legally they are different legal persons and separate sovereigns who are fully capable of entering into diplomatic relations with each other as they would be were they not in a personal union.
Here is the text of the Contonou Agreement;
http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community_organs/epa_unit/Cotonou_Agreement_&_Lome4_agr05.pdf
-in which, amongst others (including various other monarchs), the parties involved are 'Her Majesty the Queen of Tuvalu'; 'Her Majesty the Queen of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea', 'Her Majesty the Queen of St. Lucia', 'Her Majesty the Queen of St. Kitts and Nevis', 'Her Majesty the Queen of Grenada', 'Her Majesty the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda', and 'Her Majesty the Queen of Belize'; all of whom are separately mentioned, and are the same person. But; they are all clearly different legal persons; because, if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to enter into a legal agreement with each other.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/legislation/legal_bases/documents/accord_cotonou_revise_2010_en.pdf -Here is the 2010 revision of the Conotou Agreement. The Conotou Agreement is an agreement between the European Union and the the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), originally signed in 2005. The United Kingdom is a member of the E.U., and various members of the ACP are commonwealth realms.
Not only is ' Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' mentioned as one of the agreeing parties (in respect to the European Union, of which the UK is a member), in respect to the ACP; the Queens of Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia (as well as )are all mentioned separately as agreeing parties. The concept of 'legal person' is a legal fiction; but it is a concept that exists nonetheless. The Queen is separately 16 legal people by virtue of the separate 16 offices (and titles) she holds; and as such is perfectly capable of declaring war on herself, concluding a peace treaty with herself, entering into a treaty with herself, and ceding the territory of one of her realms to another, in right of any of the realms she is (separately) Queen of, and with the hypothetical situation as regards Denmark and Greenland; the same would be true there for Margarethe II. (It certainly was true for her grandfather Christian X when Denmark and Iceland were in a personal union and he was King of Iceland and King of Denmark at the same time.)
Do you want me to pull out the text of any other treaties to illustrate my point?
""You are evidently aware of the difference between co-regency and personal union, and trying to draw a parallel between the two is patronising." -Yeees; but the person who is President of the French Republic is simultaneously one of the Co-Princes of Andorra; right? I wasn't comparing a co-regency to a personal union; I was pointing out the fact that one of Andorra's Co-Princes is also Head of State of France. Please don't tell me I'm being 'patronising' when you've totally missed the point of what I'm trying to say.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh; and as regards the House of Windsor and the House of Belgium; although they both patrilineally descend from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the 1917 Orders-in-Council which created the House of Windsor removed the designation of 'Duke/Duchess of Saxony' and 'Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' from the members of the British Royal Family, as well as removing the inescutcheon of Saxony the various members bore in their arms See here (text of the original Order-In-Council):
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/prince_highness.htm#German_titles_1917
Furthermore; HM the Queen declared in 1952 that her children (who; according to the 1917 Order-In-Council, were not members of the House of Windsor, because they were not descended from Queen Victoria in the direct male line) as well as herself would be 'known as the House and Family of Windsor':
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#Apr_9_1952
Thus, (as direct-male line descendants still exist of George V's who are members of the House of Windsor-namely, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and their respective families) it would be incorrect to describe the House of Windsor as being 'part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' (because legally; it isn't) or 'descended agnatically from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha', because the part of the House of Windsor that descends from HM the Queen do not descend in the male line from that House; they descend agnatically from the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg branch of the House of Oldenburg.
The Belgian Royal Family; whilst likewise removing the Saxon inescutcheon borne on their arms, did not legally renounce House membership of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; simply (and quitely) changing the name to 'de Belgique' in 1921.
Furthermore; the 1917 House Law of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha specifically excluded anyone who are members of the ducal house who are nationals of a foreign state lose their right of succession for themselves and their issue when their home country wages war against the German Empire". (which applies to both the Belgian and British branches of the family)
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGSachsen-CG.htm#1917
Of course; until the decease of the present Queen of the UK; there is still an agnatic descendant of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the British (and other) throne. Same goes for the King of the Belgians, but I don't know whether combining the footnotes is the right thing to do. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The answer is very simple. The Emperor of Japan was removed from this list of sovereign monarchs because, well, he is not a sovereign monarch. Under the current Constitution of Japan, "sovereign power resides with the people" (Preamble); the Emperor is a symbol of the State "deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power (Article 1). In his treatise on the Constitution of Japan, Professor Matsui describes this as the "first fundamental principle of the Japanese Constitution" and writes that "it is abundantly clear that it is the people who have sovereign power in Japan." [1]
This is important both for accuracy of this page and to maintain historical clarity for anyone studying about Japan. The historical contrast is with the Meiji Constitution, which specifically established Imperial sovereignty in Article 4, and this issue was at the heart of the back-and-forth between the Allied Occupation and Japanese leaders during the process leading up to the enactment of the 1947 Constitution. [2] It is also central to current politics of constitutional reform in Japan, though even the proposed LDP draft would retain popular sovereignty. [3] If more radical revisionists accomplish constitutional revision so as to restore imperial sovereignty, then the Emperor of Japan should be added to this list. But until then, in anyone's name, the Emperor of Japan should not be included here.
AprilInParis ( talk) 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
ZBukov writes: "monarchy and popular sovereignty aren't mutually exclusive, sovereign monarch means monarch of a sovereign country, not monarch possessing the sovereignty instead of the people". That explanation seems linguistically incongruous. I would think a 'sovereign monarch' means more obviously a monarch who is empowered with a nation's sovereignty, end of story.
In any case, that explanation is also inconsistent with the definition currently at the top of the article: "A monarch is the head of a monarchy, a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled by an individual who normally rules for life or until abdication.... Monarchs may be autocrats ... or may be ceremonial figureheads who exercise only reserve power, with actual authority vested in a parliament or other governing bodies...." So the article's definition posits that monarchs listed plainly rule, while the Emperor of Japan does not rule over any polity and does not exercise even "reserve power." Art. 4 of the Constitution of Japan makes this point entirely clear: "The Emperor ... shall not have powers related to government." He might be called an emperor and have great pomp and circumstances surrounding him, but he doesn't fit into the list here. AprilInParis ( talk) 02:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me how the President of the United Arab Emirates could be a monarch? I know that the rulers of the individual emirates are monarchs, but the title of Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan related to the country as a whole is 'president' (while being Emir of Dubai). I would think that if the founders of the UAE would have wanted to establish a federal monarchy (like the one in Malaysia) than they would have granted the federal head of state a monarchical title, which 'president' clearly isn't. The fact that Khalifa is the son of the previous president does not make it a monarchy, because this is also the case in Syria, Togo, Gabon, North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo and those and undoubtedly republics. And President François Hollande is not a relevant parallel either, because his title related to Andorra is Co-Prince. So do you guys have any ideas as to why the President of the UAE would be a monarch? ZBukov ( talk) 09:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Why North Korea not include ? -- Erik Fastman ( talk) 01:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, I believe some of you are simply deleting this entry on the list based on misinformation spread by sources that were previously considered reliable but have turned out to be nationalist propaganda and pr campaigns in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. There have been numerous recent breakthroughs on information the long time war torn state. The fact is now that Ankit is now the sovereign Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Let me address the concerns of the editors who have been deleting information, without reading the sources, especially the recent legal judgments. So first to address the concerns of editor Jwkozak91. Jammu and Kashmir is now on that List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia, you had mentioned. That list was not complete when you shared it. You mentioned the United Nations too, so here is a source to an article from last week in the National Herald that states the United Nations listed Jammu and Kashmir as an independent state. Further it is important to read the sources that lead up to this UN listing this month, such as this recent judgements by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 2015, "In a landmark ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has said that the sovereignty of the state remains “legally and constitutionally” intact and cannot be challenged, altered or abridged." This source of the court judgment should have been enough init self to appreciate the Jammu and Kashmir is indeed sovereign, and if it had a monarch should be included on this "List of current sovereign monarchs." Which in fact it does. As the court ruling goes on to declare, "The sovereignty of the State of J&K under the rule of Maharaja, even after signing of Instrument of Accession and in view of framing of its own Constitution, thus ‘legally and constitutionally remained intact and untampered." Thus the sovereignty of the state is attached to the monarch. Now the editor Kevin McE stated "A claim of Sovreingty that is not recognised by anyone other than the claimant is not relevant for the purposes of such a list" (sic) However this is an opinion and an incorrect one for that matter. As the claimant has indeed been recognized by numerous media publications and sources internationally, nationally and locally from where the claim originates. Including this article लंदन का मेयर बनने की दौड़ में डोगरा महाराज (Dogra Maharaja in race for Mayor of London) in the Dainik Jagran, the largest read newspaper in India, and named as the most credible newspaper source in India in a survey commissioned by BBC-Reuters. They story has also been in the Huffington Post India, in the financial City A.M. newspaper in London, on television on ITV News, and BBC. Further in this case the sovereignty of the Maharaja has already been recognized by Great Britain by section 7 of the India independence act. Thus a change in the sovereign head of state would not require the need to re-recognize the state, if the previous treaty was not canceled. So when Ankit, inherited the titles, they would have been his to announce. Now the important cultural requirement would be for the new monarch to announce himself to the nation too, this was of-course done by the press nationally and internationally. Now at this point Ankit, could have been challenged by a local source. Or a counter claim could have been made by another royal family member. However, there is no source of this happening, in fact the media are quite supportive of him. Inheriting sovereignty for a monarch is a bit like inheriting property. You don't need anybody else to recognize your rights to inheritance, if it's not disputed by a family member, it's not for third party's to judge. You do need to update your name on the property register. Now for a sovereign Monarch there is no such thing as a register, as they are the register being sovereign. So announcements through the media and journalist records are the means to do so. Now some will ask but what about the heirs of Karan Singh, the crown prince who abdicated prior? Well none of the heirs are recoded to have made a claim or challenge Ankit. How could that be? It's simple once again due to the law and history. As Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim majority state with a Hindu royal family, the royal family allied with India. This meant in 1947 Karan Singh himself signed as a cabinet member of the Indian National Congress Party, the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 1947, which barred all Indian citizens from legally holding royal titles. Ankit exceptionally was sent to the Great Britain in 1989, due to the security threat posed to his life from the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. Ankit then became a British citizen this meant his Indian citizenship was automatically terminated due to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In terms of recent historic happenings to strengthen Ankit's royal claim is the fact his father a royal prince, Bhim Singh took over the reigns of the royal Dogra clan, following Karan Singh's abdication, through his political party the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party founded in 1982. This was at the hight of the Islamic terrorist insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Ankit's father then won the election from Udhampur for the Indian parliament, the seat held previously by Karan Singh. So that is the reason most probably why Ankit made headlines in India's biggest papers with his inheritance of the sovereign title despite giving statement from London. I mean try announcing yourself the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, and send out a press release and see who will publish it. So in fact Ankit's inheritance is recognised by multiple reliable sources as the sovereign Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact by the logic used by editor Kevin we could remove all mention of India, Pakistan or China in relation to Jammu and Kashmir, as no one but those states recognize their own claim. However, we need to be neutral on Wikipedia, if we represent the views of India, Pakistan and China, then on this list it is most appropriate to represent the unchallenged sovereign monarch of the state too. Further it is not up to the UN or the USA who should be the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir as in the end it is a local issue of culture, history and law. Further it is not the realm of Wikipedia editors to go against sourced information, or play a role based on opinion in deciding who the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir is, or censoring the information while leaving claims by India, China and Pakistan here. Otherwise this becomes another type of unsavoury imperialism. I appreciate that this maybe ground breaking information, hard for many to digest, and my draw strong reactions form some. Yet by the sources it is most clear and certain, thus it must be included on such list. As that is the prerogative of Wikipedia to be bold and fair in the pursuit of the freedom of speech and information. Even if it may change the world. Wait, especially if it may change the world. JuneKennedy ( talk) 02:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I will read all that one day, but do not have time to right now.
What matters for the article now is encapsulated in the first sentence therein: "'A monarch is the head of a monarchy, a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled by an individual who normally rules for life or until abdication'". Ankit does not currently hold such a position. You may believe that he is a rightful monarch who is unjustly prevented from ruling over that "state or polity" by some injustice: there are those who would say that the same is the case for the thrones of countless countries that are now republics, areas that have been absorbed into other countries, or for members of dethroned dynasties, and they are not going to appear on this list. (Edit: many of these, including Ankit Love, are included at List of current pretenders, which seems perfectly correct. This is not a judgement of what should be, but of the facts as they stand, which is what an encyclopaedia is governed by.)
The idea that inclusion here is justified by your unjustified addition of the territory to another list bears so little merit I will say no more about it now, except to inform you that I am heading to that page to delete it.
You clearly do not have consensus to add this here, and I cannot envisage the situation by which you will achieve that unless either the geopolitical situation there changes, or at least one of the words 'current', 'sovereign' or 'monarch' changes its meaning. Desist. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way we can simplify Elizabeth's Birth section? Having 1926 repeated 16 times, isn't necessary. GoodDay ( talk) 06:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
A prince, by definition, is a monarch, whether elective or hereditary, as mentioned in the introduction of this article. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta article is marked with the category Monarchies of Europe. The first link under the governance section, of the SMOM article, leads to List of Grand Masters of the Knights Hospitaller, which states His Most Eminent Highness as monarch, and is labeled with the Monarchies template. Both the Bishop of Urgell, and the Pope are included as monarchs on this list, and so should the Prince of SMOM. Death Star Central ( talk) 11:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Taken out of context, “ Prince,” is widely known as a popular music artist. In specific context of this article, and under heading of this SMOM sub-section, the title of prince as head of a sovereign entity, is a sovereign monarch. The Prince of Monaco, Prince of Liechtenstein, Co-Princes of Andorra, and Duke of Luxembourg are all noted on this list, as sovereign monarchs. France wields greater influence over Monaco, including right to lawfully abolish it’s monarchy, if the prince does not produce heir. As highlighted in the Monaco succession crisis of 1918. The selection of Andorra’s co-princes is under influence of Vatican and French state. On the List of current heads of state and government, under section of “Other entities,” His Most Eminent Highness Fra’ di Sanguinetto, The Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, is listed as “Head of state,” with his Grand Chancellor von Boeselager listed as “Head of government,” alongside the only other entry in that section, the European Union. Every monarchy on this list, could be considered an “elitist religious self selecting collective.” Death Star Central ( talk) 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this is supposed to be a "list of monarchs of sovereign states", and the monarch of the Order does not reign over any of the entities on the List of sovereign states. Perhaps it would help clarify if we renamed the article? -- Beland ( talk) 02:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice to link from the list to articles on the monarchies themselves, like Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Not sure if this should be its own column or replace the links to country names, or what. It's weird that the titles in the "Monarch" column are linked to lists of past monarchs; maybe this should move into a separate column as well? -- Beland ( talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
How could a co-monarchy exist? It would mean a single person who rules over everything of which there are two. Add to that both of these co-princes aren't monarchs themselves. One is elected temporarily by general election and the other is chosen by heads of a religious faith. Neither of these men can wield power in Andorra without answering to Both the parliament of Andorra and their own respective organizations. There is no meaning of the word monarchy that applies to this situation. The position is not hereditary. They don't have over arching power. And there isn't just one of them. They aren't even called kings or emperors. They're called princes, like the old meaning of the word prince before it because commonly, "the son of a king". The word prince used to mean the principal of a principality, royal or not. 100.34.110.98 ( talk) 14:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
No succession column even though mentioned in Key,
Heir/Heiress Presumptives are also under heir apparent column. column header should be changed or heir presumptives should be marked.
Chamika1990 (
talk) 03:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to have Elizabeth II listed once, instead of 16 times? GoodDay ( talk) 04:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:22, 3 May 2020 (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) 12:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A user asked why North Korea isn't featured, since it has a hereditary system and the response was, "then we'd have to add Syria, Cuba, Togo, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo as well", but why aren't we adding those along with North Korea, since they have hereditary power passing. ReaIdiot ( talk) 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There are Kings that rule a district, not a country. Examples: African kingdoms. Wikistallion ( talk) 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
or province. whatsoever. have their own units for everything. but they are just a province, not a state. Wikistallion ( talk) 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Chipmunkdavis I see you deleted by entry on this list pertaining to Aga Khan IV with the reasoning that "Fatimid Caliphate is in no way a current state", this I believe is incorrect, can you give any facts to qualify this statement of yours? The Aga Khan entered into a treaty with Portugal, that gives his state a seat there, much akin to the the Vatican in Italy. This was the source in La Croix "Lisbon as the Holy See for Ismaili Shia Muslims" further Aga Khan is recognized by many heads of states, including Elizabeth II, Queen of England who hosted his diamond jubilee celebration and he is the only person that she has recognized with the title " His Highness" which is reserved for kings, as covered in this article titled Who is the Aga Khan and why is his Diamond Jubilee being celebrated?. He was also recognize by Canada with the Prime Minister invited Aga Khan to address both houses of Parliament in 2014, a transcript of that speech can be found on the following link to this Canadian parliament website. As you can see in the list of his honors he has received recognition from Bahrain, Canada, Comoros, France, India, Iran, Italy Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morroco, Pakistan, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, and Zanzibar. With about 15 million population belonging to the Imamate that pay tax as well, the entry of Aga Khan I believe sincerely belongs in this list. Death Star Central ( talk) 13:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Should the Taliban emir, now the effective head of state of Afghanistan, be included in this list? Comments welcome; I am aware the Taliban gov’t does not have much official recognition but it IS a reality now. PeaceInOurTime2021 ( talk) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Brunei gained independence from the United Kingdom on 1 January 1984, so the Sultan's reign as a "sovereign monarch" starts from 1984 not 1967. Peter Ormond 💬 09:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The Commonwealth section needs a whole revamp. I added Charles at least but I'm not skilled enough to change everything Nintentoad125 ( talk) 18:03, 8 September 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) 22:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The length of the reigns of the monarchs hasn’t been updated since February 21st, 2023. Before that, it was updated daily. Could someone do something? 2601:603:4D00:E600:51A9:FE82:ABEE:39E8 ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Talking about the UAE. 82.36.70.45 ( talk) 01:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of current monarchs of sovereign states 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 |
List of current monarchs of sovereign states is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on January 14, 2013. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Any opposition to, or comments on, the new version? The diff is here. The "subnational monarchs" have been moved to a separate list. Nightw 05:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Add missing Cook Islands and Niue. Greetings. Cêsar ( talk) 13:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Is SMOM some kind of elective monarchy (like the Holy See)? (see also here). Alinor ( talk) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The list was recently pulled from a TFL spot pending further review. I have done at least some reviewing (of the sources avaliable online) and have come up with several concerns. Only one is for close paraphrasing (what was intended to be checked), but I've run into a few reliable sources concerns that escaped scrutiny from us reviewers during the FLC process. When checking them more thoroughly, the problems become apparent.
Considering that almost 20 refs are of questionable reliability, I think they need to be sorted out, in addition to the close paraphrasing instance, before this will be worthy of a spot on the main page. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus to do so Mike Cline ( talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
List of current sovereign monarchs →
List of current sovereign monarchies –
Per the first sentence of the article A monarch is the person who heads a monarchy This is not a list of such people, or it would only have 30 entries. In enumerating a list of anything, one instance of the listed entity should not appear multiple times.
The default sorting of the countries in the list, and the placing of countries in the first column, make this clearly presented as a list of countries that fit a particular criterion. This has been slightly obscured by the recent splitting of the coregents of Andorra, which should be undone if this proposal receives support. relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Kevin McE ( talk) 19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Copying a previous conversation from the archive of NightW's talk page and mine: Initial response was in response to this edit. Posted here now as the assumption that it is a personal title was reposted today
Can you add a reference to
[1] please? I don't really doubt it but FL standards and all...
Nightw 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
But how does one source an absence of something? The issue is that nowhere in the sites of the Andorran government, nor that of the national paper or the national broadcaster is it ever used as a personal title: you will not find Co-Prince Nicolas or Co-Prince Joan anywhere [unless preceded by "el", which renders it as an adjective rather than a title (a clarification I omitted in February)]. I would have to turn the question around, and ask for the sources for using those phrases. The position holders are referred to consistently as the french co-prince (Catalan does not capitalise nationality indicators) and the episcopal co-prince. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In reply to the following edit summary:
...At the same time, they are also everyone else's. While a heads of state may be the armiger of a coat, it also (in most cases) represents the nation, government institutions, and in some cases the military. They rarely, if ever, represent the head of state exclusively. It does not make much sense to me to display national coats of arms in this list; it is not something that I would expect to see as a reader. Is there any other reason for not displaying standards beyond "not all the monarchs have standards, but they all have arms" (because we can't display all the arms either)? Nightw 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That's very true, but the only reason we can't display all the arms is because there aren't enough suitable images (as in: there aren't enough images that have the right licensing so they can be displayed); not because any of the monarchs are not armigerous. By contrast; not all of the monarchs have Royal Standards. Personally; I'm happy to go with whatever consensus is reached on here. If the standards are to return; I'm not too fussed either way; although I would query the inclusion of the arms of Pope Benedict XVI (although as can be seen on the page on Arms of Dominion, the Popes are an exception as regards this-their personal arms are theirs and not also the arms of Vatican City.) JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I have made a version of the table, currently in my sandbox, which is more genuinely a list of monarchs. It does not repeat any monarch 16 times, which is the key difference between a list of monarchs and a list of monarchies.
Changes required by reconfiguring:
Other changes made:
I believe this is far more what the article calls for, and that slight loss of utility is justified by the concept of presenting a true list of monarchs. There is coding still in place which is redundant in an unsortable table, but it does not affect the reader, and frankly, I've spent enough time toying with it for tonight.
Kevin McE (
talk) 23:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-No; it would not be accurate at all because the list at present does not 'repeat the same monarch sixteen times'-the positions that the Queen of the UK holds as regards each of the commonwealth realms is completely constitutionally separate from each other -it's just that the Queen in a personal union-but personal unions are nothing unusual; and in fact were more common in the past (the most recent case outside the commonwealth being the King of Denmark being simultaneously King of Iceland until 1944.) It's no different to the President of France being at the same time Co-Prince of Andorra (albeit the President of France is not a monarch whereas the Co-Princes of Andorra are)-the monarchs of each of the commonwealth realms(who just happen-through the 1701 Act of Settlement-to be the same person.) are separate legal persons from each other (due to the 1931 Act of Westminster and the re-patriation of their respective constitutions and the various Royal Titles Acts); and as such are treated separately. The Queen of Australia; for example, is a different monarch from the Queen of the United Kingdom; but the actual; physical person who holds both offices is the same person (a difficult legal distiction to make; but there is one nonetheless). Treaties for example on behalf of Australia are worded in right of 'the Queen of Australia', as are declarations of war, and the Australian Constitution gives the Queen of Australia different powers to ones the Queen of the United Kingdom is given in the (unwritten; I hasten to add) British Constitution; and so on. In the hypothetical situation that; say, Greenland were given complete independence from Denmark and the Greenlanders decided to keep the Danish Queen as their Queen (likely in my opinion should Greenland become independent); then a hypothetical (assuming she held that title in right of Greenland)'Margarethe II, Queen of Greenland' would also be listed. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. Sorry, I didn't see this before. When we had the FLC discussion, sortability was asked for by several participants and I do agree that it is useful (I use it often myself and I can definitely see how it would be useful to readers). As long as combining different sets of rows renders that useless, then my vote would be to keep them separated. But if, hypothetically, it were possible to combine certain rows... I have no problems with combining the name and even probably the house and succession rows, as they're justifiable (the person is the same and the succession should be the same). But while they're certainly in a personal union, they're not in a constitutional union; the offices are separate, so combining the title and type is a bit confusing. I don't really have any concerns with shifting the monarch column to the leftmost, as long as the items are still sorted by the realm column, as I think that's the easiest setting for readers to find the row they're looking for. Nightw 19:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
None of the objections have cited sources or wikipedia policies, nor have they had a response to my responses, so applying suggested change. Kevin McE ( talk) 10:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Well here's my 10 cents:
I agree with Night w. Perhaps the title of the article is a misnomer; as far as international relations and sovereignty are concerned; the fact that each of the commonwealth realms has a monarch who is the same person is wholly irrelevant. The Queen of the United Kingdom can quite legally go to war or conclude a treaty with the Queen of Canada; just like she can with the Queen of Denmark (and in legal terms btw; they do, declarations of war and treaties as regards monarchies are carried out in the name of the monarch)-and before you say 'they can't go to war with each other'; yes they can. The King of India and the King of Pakistan (both of whom were the same person, George VI) were at war with each other during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan War. Likewise, during the 1983 Invasion of Grenada; the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, the Queen of Barbados, Sthe Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of St. Lucia and the Queen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines wwere simultaneously at war with the Queen of Grenada; and at the same time Elizabeth II was condemning the invasion of Grenada in her roles as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Canada. What you are missing is the fact that; although the physical person sitting on the different thrones of the commonwealth realms is the same person; legally they are different legal persons and separate sovereigns who are fully capable of entering into diplomatic relations with each other as they would be were they not in a personal union.
Here is the text of the Contonou Agreement;
http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community_organs/epa_unit/Cotonou_Agreement_&_Lome4_agr05.pdf
-in which, amongst others (including various other monarchs), the parties involved are 'Her Majesty the Queen of Tuvalu'; 'Her Majesty the Queen of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea', 'Her Majesty the Queen of St. Lucia', 'Her Majesty the Queen of St. Kitts and Nevis', 'Her Majesty the Queen of Grenada', 'Her Majesty the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda', and 'Her Majesty the Queen of Belize'; all of whom are separately mentioned, and are the same person. But; they are all clearly different legal persons; because, if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to enter into a legal agreement with each other.
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/legislation/legal_bases/documents/accord_cotonou_revise_2010_en.pdf -Here is the 2010 revision of the Conotou Agreement. The Conotou Agreement is an agreement between the European Union and the the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), originally signed in 2005. The United Kingdom is a member of the E.U., and various members of the ACP are commonwealth realms.
Not only is ' Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' mentioned as one of the agreeing parties (in respect to the European Union, of which the UK is a member), in respect to the ACP; the Queens of Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia (as well as )are all mentioned separately as agreeing parties. The concept of 'legal person' is a legal fiction; but it is a concept that exists nonetheless. The Queen is separately 16 legal people by virtue of the separate 16 offices (and titles) she holds; and as such is perfectly capable of declaring war on herself, concluding a peace treaty with herself, entering into a treaty with herself, and ceding the territory of one of her realms to another, in right of any of the realms she is (separately) Queen of, and with the hypothetical situation as regards Denmark and Greenland; the same would be true there for Margarethe II. (It certainly was true for her grandfather Christian X when Denmark and Iceland were in a personal union and he was King of Iceland and King of Denmark at the same time.)
Do you want me to pull out the text of any other treaties to illustrate my point?
""You are evidently aware of the difference between co-regency and personal union, and trying to draw a parallel between the two is patronising." -Yeees; but the person who is President of the French Republic is simultaneously one of the Co-Princes of Andorra; right? I wasn't comparing a co-regency to a personal union; I was pointing out the fact that one of Andorra's Co-Princes is also Head of State of France. Please don't tell me I'm being 'patronising' when you've totally missed the point of what I'm trying to say.
JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh; and as regards the House of Windsor and the House of Belgium; although they both patrilineally descend from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the 1917 Orders-in-Council which created the House of Windsor removed the designation of 'Duke/Duchess of Saxony' and 'Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' from the members of the British Royal Family, as well as removing the inescutcheon of Saxony the various members bore in their arms See here (text of the original Order-In-Council):
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/prince_highness.htm#German_titles_1917
Furthermore; HM the Queen declared in 1952 that her children (who; according to the 1917 Order-In-Council, were not members of the House of Windsor, because they were not descended from Queen Victoria in the direct male line) as well as herself would be 'known as the House and Family of Windsor':
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#Apr_9_1952
Thus, (as direct-male line descendants still exist of George V's who are members of the House of Windsor-namely, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and their respective families) it would be incorrect to describe the House of Windsor as being 'part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' (because legally; it isn't) or 'descended agnatically from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha', because the part of the House of Windsor that descends from HM the Queen do not descend in the male line from that House; they descend agnatically from the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg branch of the House of Oldenburg.
The Belgian Royal Family; whilst likewise removing the Saxon inescutcheon borne on their arms, did not legally renounce House membership of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; simply (and quitely) changing the name to 'de Belgique' in 1921.
Furthermore; the 1917 House Law of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha specifically excluded anyone who are members of the ducal house who are nationals of a foreign state lose their right of succession for themselves and their issue when their home country wages war against the German Empire". (which applies to both the Belgian and British branches of the family)
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGSachsen-CG.htm#1917
Of course; until the decease of the present Queen of the UK; there is still an agnatic descendant of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the British (and other) throne. Same goes for the King of the Belgians, but I don't know whether combining the footnotes is the right thing to do. JWULTRABLIZZARD ( talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The answer is very simple. The Emperor of Japan was removed from this list of sovereign monarchs because, well, he is not a sovereign monarch. Under the current Constitution of Japan, "sovereign power resides with the people" (Preamble); the Emperor is a symbol of the State "deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power (Article 1). In his treatise on the Constitution of Japan, Professor Matsui describes this as the "first fundamental principle of the Japanese Constitution" and writes that "it is abundantly clear that it is the people who have sovereign power in Japan." [1]
This is important both for accuracy of this page and to maintain historical clarity for anyone studying about Japan. The historical contrast is with the Meiji Constitution, which specifically established Imperial sovereignty in Article 4, and this issue was at the heart of the back-and-forth between the Allied Occupation and Japanese leaders during the process leading up to the enactment of the 1947 Constitution. [2] It is also central to current politics of constitutional reform in Japan, though even the proposed LDP draft would retain popular sovereignty. [3] If more radical revisionists accomplish constitutional revision so as to restore imperial sovereignty, then the Emperor of Japan should be added to this list. But until then, in anyone's name, the Emperor of Japan should not be included here.
AprilInParis ( talk) 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
ZBukov writes: "monarchy and popular sovereignty aren't mutually exclusive, sovereign monarch means monarch of a sovereign country, not monarch possessing the sovereignty instead of the people". That explanation seems linguistically incongruous. I would think a 'sovereign monarch' means more obviously a monarch who is empowered with a nation's sovereignty, end of story.
In any case, that explanation is also inconsistent with the definition currently at the top of the article: "A monarch is the head of a monarchy, a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled by an individual who normally rules for life or until abdication.... Monarchs may be autocrats ... or may be ceremonial figureheads who exercise only reserve power, with actual authority vested in a parliament or other governing bodies...." So the article's definition posits that monarchs listed plainly rule, while the Emperor of Japan does not rule over any polity and does not exercise even "reserve power." Art. 4 of the Constitution of Japan makes this point entirely clear: "The Emperor ... shall not have powers related to government." He might be called an emperor and have great pomp and circumstances surrounding him, but he doesn't fit into the list here. AprilInParis ( talk) 02:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please explain to me how the President of the United Arab Emirates could be a monarch? I know that the rulers of the individual emirates are monarchs, but the title of Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan related to the country as a whole is 'president' (while being Emir of Dubai). I would think that if the founders of the UAE would have wanted to establish a federal monarchy (like the one in Malaysia) than they would have granted the federal head of state a monarchical title, which 'president' clearly isn't. The fact that Khalifa is the son of the previous president does not make it a monarchy, because this is also the case in Syria, Togo, Gabon, North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo and those and undoubtedly republics. And President François Hollande is not a relevant parallel either, because his title related to Andorra is Co-Prince. So do you guys have any ideas as to why the President of the UAE would be a monarch? ZBukov ( talk) 09:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Why North Korea not include ? -- Erik Fastman ( talk) 01:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, I believe some of you are simply deleting this entry on the list based on misinformation spread by sources that were previously considered reliable but have turned out to be nationalist propaganda and pr campaigns in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. There have been numerous recent breakthroughs on information the long time war torn state. The fact is now that Ankit is now the sovereign Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Let me address the concerns of the editors who have been deleting information, without reading the sources, especially the recent legal judgments. So first to address the concerns of editor Jwkozak91. Jammu and Kashmir is now on that List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia, you had mentioned. That list was not complete when you shared it. You mentioned the United Nations too, so here is a source to an article from last week in the National Herald that states the United Nations listed Jammu and Kashmir as an independent state. Further it is important to read the sources that lead up to this UN listing this month, such as this recent judgements by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 2015, "In a landmark ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has said that the sovereignty of the state remains “legally and constitutionally” intact and cannot be challenged, altered or abridged." This source of the court judgment should have been enough init self to appreciate the Jammu and Kashmir is indeed sovereign, and if it had a monarch should be included on this "List of current sovereign monarchs." Which in fact it does. As the court ruling goes on to declare, "The sovereignty of the State of J&K under the rule of Maharaja, even after signing of Instrument of Accession and in view of framing of its own Constitution, thus ‘legally and constitutionally remained intact and untampered." Thus the sovereignty of the state is attached to the monarch. Now the editor Kevin McE stated "A claim of Sovreingty that is not recognised by anyone other than the claimant is not relevant for the purposes of such a list" (sic) However this is an opinion and an incorrect one for that matter. As the claimant has indeed been recognized by numerous media publications and sources internationally, nationally and locally from where the claim originates. Including this article लंदन का मेयर बनने की दौड़ में डोगरा महाराज (Dogra Maharaja in race for Mayor of London) in the Dainik Jagran, the largest read newspaper in India, and named as the most credible newspaper source in India in a survey commissioned by BBC-Reuters. They story has also been in the Huffington Post India, in the financial City A.M. newspaper in London, on television on ITV News, and BBC. Further in this case the sovereignty of the Maharaja has already been recognized by Great Britain by section 7 of the India independence act. Thus a change in the sovereign head of state would not require the need to re-recognize the state, if the previous treaty was not canceled. So when Ankit, inherited the titles, they would have been his to announce. Now the important cultural requirement would be for the new monarch to announce himself to the nation too, this was of-course done by the press nationally and internationally. Now at this point Ankit, could have been challenged by a local source. Or a counter claim could have been made by another royal family member. However, there is no source of this happening, in fact the media are quite supportive of him. Inheriting sovereignty for a monarch is a bit like inheriting property. You don't need anybody else to recognize your rights to inheritance, if it's not disputed by a family member, it's not for third party's to judge. You do need to update your name on the property register. Now for a sovereign Monarch there is no such thing as a register, as they are the register being sovereign. So announcements through the media and journalist records are the means to do so. Now some will ask but what about the heirs of Karan Singh, the crown prince who abdicated prior? Well none of the heirs are recoded to have made a claim or challenge Ankit. How could that be? It's simple once again due to the law and history. As Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim majority state with a Hindu royal family, the royal family allied with India. This meant in 1947 Karan Singh himself signed as a cabinet member of the Indian National Congress Party, the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 1947, which barred all Indian citizens from legally holding royal titles. Ankit exceptionally was sent to the Great Britain in 1989, due to the security threat posed to his life from the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. Ankit then became a British citizen this meant his Indian citizenship was automatically terminated due to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In terms of recent historic happenings to strengthen Ankit's royal claim is the fact his father a royal prince, Bhim Singh took over the reigns of the royal Dogra clan, following Karan Singh's abdication, through his political party the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party founded in 1982. This was at the hight of the Islamic terrorist insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Ankit's father then won the election from Udhampur for the Indian parliament, the seat held previously by Karan Singh. So that is the reason most probably why Ankit made headlines in India's biggest papers with his inheritance of the sovereign title despite giving statement from London. I mean try announcing yourself the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, and send out a press release and see who will publish it. So in fact Ankit's inheritance is recognised by multiple reliable sources as the sovereign Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact by the logic used by editor Kevin we could remove all mention of India, Pakistan or China in relation to Jammu and Kashmir, as no one but those states recognize their own claim. However, we need to be neutral on Wikipedia, if we represent the views of India, Pakistan and China, then on this list it is most appropriate to represent the unchallenged sovereign monarch of the state too. Further it is not up to the UN or the USA who should be the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir as in the end it is a local issue of culture, history and law. Further it is not the realm of Wikipedia editors to go against sourced information, or play a role based on opinion in deciding who the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir is, or censoring the information while leaving claims by India, China and Pakistan here. Otherwise this becomes another type of unsavoury imperialism. I appreciate that this maybe ground breaking information, hard for many to digest, and my draw strong reactions form some. Yet by the sources it is most clear and certain, thus it must be included on such list. As that is the prerogative of Wikipedia to be bold and fair in the pursuit of the freedom of speech and information. Even if it may change the world. Wait, especially if it may change the world. JuneKennedy ( talk) 02:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I will read all that one day, but do not have time to right now.
What matters for the article now is encapsulated in the first sentence therein: "'A monarch is the head of a monarchy, a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled by an individual who normally rules for life or until abdication'". Ankit does not currently hold such a position. You may believe that he is a rightful monarch who is unjustly prevented from ruling over that "state or polity" by some injustice: there are those who would say that the same is the case for the thrones of countless countries that are now republics, areas that have been absorbed into other countries, or for members of dethroned dynasties, and they are not going to appear on this list. (Edit: many of these, including Ankit Love, are included at List of current pretenders, which seems perfectly correct. This is not a judgement of what should be, but of the facts as they stand, which is what an encyclopaedia is governed by.)
The idea that inclusion here is justified by your unjustified addition of the territory to another list bears so little merit I will say no more about it now, except to inform you that I am heading to that page to delete it.
You clearly do not have consensus to add this here, and I cannot envisage the situation by which you will achieve that unless either the geopolitical situation there changes, or at least one of the words 'current', 'sovereign' or 'monarch' changes its meaning. Desist. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way we can simplify Elizabeth's Birth section? Having 1926 repeated 16 times, isn't necessary. GoodDay ( talk) 06:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
A prince, by definition, is a monarch, whether elective or hereditary, as mentioned in the introduction of this article. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta article is marked with the category Monarchies of Europe. The first link under the governance section, of the SMOM article, leads to List of Grand Masters of the Knights Hospitaller, which states His Most Eminent Highness as monarch, and is labeled with the Monarchies template. Both the Bishop of Urgell, and the Pope are included as monarchs on this list, and so should the Prince of SMOM. Death Star Central ( talk) 11:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Taken out of context, “ Prince,” is widely known as a popular music artist. In specific context of this article, and under heading of this SMOM sub-section, the title of prince as head of a sovereign entity, is a sovereign monarch. The Prince of Monaco, Prince of Liechtenstein, Co-Princes of Andorra, and Duke of Luxembourg are all noted on this list, as sovereign monarchs. France wields greater influence over Monaco, including right to lawfully abolish it’s monarchy, if the prince does not produce heir. As highlighted in the Monaco succession crisis of 1918. The selection of Andorra’s co-princes is under influence of Vatican and French state. On the List of current heads of state and government, under section of “Other entities,” His Most Eminent Highness Fra’ di Sanguinetto, The Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, is listed as “Head of state,” with his Grand Chancellor von Boeselager listed as “Head of government,” alongside the only other entry in that section, the European Union. Every monarchy on this list, could be considered an “elitist religious self selecting collective.” Death Star Central ( talk) 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this is supposed to be a "list of monarchs of sovereign states", and the monarch of the Order does not reign over any of the entities on the List of sovereign states. Perhaps it would help clarify if we renamed the article? -- Beland ( talk) 02:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice to link from the list to articles on the monarchies themselves, like Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Not sure if this should be its own column or replace the links to country names, or what. It's weird that the titles in the "Monarch" column are linked to lists of past monarchs; maybe this should move into a separate column as well? -- Beland ( talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
How could a co-monarchy exist? It would mean a single person who rules over everything of which there are two. Add to that both of these co-princes aren't monarchs themselves. One is elected temporarily by general election and the other is chosen by heads of a religious faith. Neither of these men can wield power in Andorra without answering to Both the parliament of Andorra and their own respective organizations. There is no meaning of the word monarchy that applies to this situation. The position is not hereditary. They don't have over arching power. And there isn't just one of them. They aren't even called kings or emperors. They're called princes, like the old meaning of the word prince before it because commonly, "the son of a king". The word prince used to mean the principal of a principality, royal or not. 100.34.110.98 ( talk) 14:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
No succession column even though mentioned in Key,
Heir/Heiress Presumptives are also under heir apparent column. column header should be changed or heir presumptives should be marked.
Chamika1990 (
talk) 03:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to have Elizabeth II listed once, instead of 16 times? GoodDay ( talk) 04:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:22, 3 May 2020 (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) 12:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
A user asked why North Korea isn't featured, since it has a hereditary system and the response was, "then we'd have to add Syria, Cuba, Togo, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo as well", but why aren't we adding those along with North Korea, since they have hereditary power passing. ReaIdiot ( talk) 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There are Kings that rule a district, not a country. Examples: African kingdoms. Wikistallion ( talk) 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
or province. whatsoever. have their own units for everything. but they are just a province, not a state. Wikistallion ( talk) 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Chipmunkdavis I see you deleted by entry on this list pertaining to Aga Khan IV with the reasoning that "Fatimid Caliphate is in no way a current state", this I believe is incorrect, can you give any facts to qualify this statement of yours? The Aga Khan entered into a treaty with Portugal, that gives his state a seat there, much akin to the the Vatican in Italy. This was the source in La Croix "Lisbon as the Holy See for Ismaili Shia Muslims" further Aga Khan is recognized by many heads of states, including Elizabeth II, Queen of England who hosted his diamond jubilee celebration and he is the only person that she has recognized with the title " His Highness" which is reserved for kings, as covered in this article titled Who is the Aga Khan and why is his Diamond Jubilee being celebrated?. He was also recognize by Canada with the Prime Minister invited Aga Khan to address both houses of Parliament in 2014, a transcript of that speech can be found on the following link to this Canadian parliament website. As you can see in the list of his honors he has received recognition from Bahrain, Canada, Comoros, France, India, Iran, Italy Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morroco, Pakistan, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, and Zanzibar. With about 15 million population belonging to the Imamate that pay tax as well, the entry of Aga Khan I believe sincerely belongs in this list. Death Star Central ( talk) 13:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Should the Taliban emir, now the effective head of state of Afghanistan, be included in this list? Comments welcome; I am aware the Taliban gov’t does not have much official recognition but it IS a reality now. PeaceInOurTime2021 ( talk) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Brunei gained independence from the United Kingdom on 1 January 1984, so the Sultan's reign as a "sovereign monarch" starts from 1984 not 1967. Peter Ormond 💬 09:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The Commonwealth section needs a whole revamp. I added Charles at least but I'm not skilled enough to change everything Nintentoad125 ( talk) 18:03, 8 September 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) 22:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The length of the reigns of the monarchs hasn’t been updated since February 21st, 2023. Before that, it was updated daily. Could someone do something? 2601:603:4D00:E600:51A9:FE82:ABEE:39E8 ( talk) 01:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Talking about the UAE. 82.36.70.45 ( talk) 01:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)