How many monarchies have died off because

[diggleblop]

a male child wasn't born to take the thrown?

[Slithy Tove]

You mean monarchies, as in "no one to become king, let's switch to a republic," not dynasties, as in " no male heir? Let's have a war to see which family gets the throne?"

[diggleblop]

I guess. I mean, "The poor King and Queen couldn't have a son, so there will be no more King and Queen."

[Lemur866]

But the King not having a son usually means that the throne goes to some other relative...the King's brother, or the King's brother's child. Or to the king's daughter. And it was very common for kings to be elected by the nobility, rather than through inheritance.

I can't for the life of me think of a situation where monarchy was abandoned due to the lack of an heir. Maybe certain kingdoms disolved into smaller kingdoms when no person who could be heir to the throne of each kingdom existed. For instance, for a long time the king of Spain and the king of Portugal were the same person...but Portugal was never annexed, and eventually they split. Or the question of whether the king of England was also the king of Scotland, and vice-versa.

[Giles]

In some monarchies, both males and females can inherit, though in some (e.g., the British monarchy) males inherit before their older sisters.

In England in 1603 the Tudor dynasty ended because Elizabeth died unmarried and childless, and without a younger sister (her older brother and older sister had already reigned before her and died). But the monarchy didn't end -- it went off to a distant cousin, James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England. The English weren't quite ready to become a republic, even though they become a republic less than 50 years later.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Historically, there have been three mechanisms in such a situation.

1) The rules were charged to allow for a female heir to take the throne, as Japan was considering. (IIRC, there were some cases in which the female was called a "king." Perhaps in a Scandinavian country? Please, somebody, jog my failing memory.)

2) The closest living male relative or else a close male relative who was acceptable to all factions took the throne.

3) Another family usurped the throne and started a new dynasty. (This includes cases by coup, by war, or by guile.)

What would the alternative have been? You think that the monarchy - in many times and cultures, anointed by heaven as their divine representation on earth - would just go, "oops," no male heir, let's let the peasants rule?

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by Giles

In some monarchies, both males and females can inherit, though in some (e.g., the British monarchy) males inherit before their older sisters.

In England in 1603 the Tudor dynasty ended because Elizabeth died unmarried and childless, and without a younger sister (her older brother and older sister had already reigned before her and died). But the monarchy didn't end -- it went off to a distant cousin, James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England. The English weren't quite ready to become a republic, even though they become a republic less than 50 years later.

Actually, random sidebar question, is England a republic? I always interpreted a Republic as having all the leadership positions at least nominally be elected by the people rather than inherited (ie: the US Senate vs. the British House of Lords). Don't get me wrong, apparantly what the UK has works quite well, I just always assumed it was something different from a republic.

[RealityChuck]

It's officially a constitutional monarchy -- it has a monarch, but the post is mostly ceremonial and Parliament holds the real power.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

Actually, random sidebar question, is England a republic? I always interpreted a Republic as having all the leadership positions at least nominally be elected by the people rather than inherited (ie: the US Senate vs. the British House of Lords). Don't get me wrong, apparantly what the UK has works quite well, I just always assumed it was something different from a republic.

No, not now. However, it was a republic between 1649 and 1660 (using a variety of systems, including having Oliver Cromwell has head of state with the title of Lord Protector between 1653 and 1658. England has also had at least two interregnums, when there was no effective government, in 1659-1660 and 1688-1689 (the latter also being called the "Glorious Revolution", because it involved throwing the Catholic Stuart king out of the country, and replacing him with a Protestant king).

[Happy Clam]

1) The rules were charged to allow for a female heir to take the throne, as Japan was considering. (IIRC, there were some cases in which the female was called a "king." Perhaps in a Scandinavian country? Please, somebody, jog my failing memory.)

Almost certainly not what you were thinking of, but [Queen] Hatshepsut fits the bill, and is cool enough to be mentioned anyway.

[Miss Mapp]

Originally Posted by Giles

In England in 1603 the Tudor dynasty ended because Elizabeth died unmarried and childless, and without a younger sister (her older brother and older sister had already reigned before her and died).

Slight correction: Edward VI was Elizabeth's and Mary's younger (half) brother.

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by Happy Clam

[Queen] Hatshepsut

Gesundheit.

[silenus]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

(IIRC, there were some cases in which the female was called a "king." Perhaps in a Scandinavian country? Please, somebody, jog my failing memory.)

Sweden?

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Miss Mapp

Slight correction: Edward VI was Elizabeth's and Mary's younger (half) brother.

Yes, you're right. And Edward inherited before them because (1) he had a Y chromosome, and (2) by the time of Henry VIII's death there were doiubts about the validity of the marriages of Catherine of Aragon and of Anne Boleyn, so that the princesses Mary and Elizabeth were of doubtful legitimacy*. In addition, there were religious questions which considerably muddied the waters.


* In the case of Catherine of Aragon, because she had been married to Henry VIII's older brother, Arthur. In the case of Anne Boleyn, because she had been convicted of treasonous adultery.

[Acsenray]

During the British Raj in India, there were two parallel systems of government. There was "British India," consisting of provinces (17 in 1947) ruled by a lieutenant-governor appointed directly by the British government. However, about 40 percent of the territory of India was not part of British India -- they were the Indian/native/princely states (about 600 as of 1947), which were nominally sovereign and ruled by hereditary monarchs (under various titles, such as maharaja, nawab, etc.). These sovereigns were not subordinate to the British government, but were subject to treaties in which they recognized the British monarch as their suzerain.

Under this system, there was a rule called the "Doctrine of Lapse," under which if the hereditary ruler of a princely state did not have a legitimate heir, then the state would lose its sovereignty and be absorbed into British India.

In the Indian tradition, there were many ways in which a monarch could get an heir, including by adoption. However, as time went on, the British instituted progressively narrower definitions of who could be a legitimate heir until by the end, if the monarch did not have a natural, legitimate son of his own body who had attained majority (and, further, one whose character was not approved of by the British), then his dynasty was doomed by the Doctrine of Lapse. So, many Indian monarchies did end for the absence of an heir (at least one who was allowed to inherit by the British).

[Northern Piper]

Doesn't the Principality of Monaco only survive as separate from France so long as the Grimaldi family produces legitimate male heirs?

[Cluricaun]

Originally Posted by diggleblop

a male child wasn't born to take the thrown?

Well if you start throwing your male children around there won't be enough of them left to take over much of anything besides an emergency room.

[Lemur866]

Asencray brings up an interesting point. During the expansion of the Roman Empire there were several kings who left their kingdoms to Rome, so the independant kingdom became part of the Roman republic. So in that case we have the end of monarchial rule due to the lack of an heir. But...these were kingdoms that were already clients of the Rome, they would have given up their independence eventually by conquest if they didn't join the empire semi-voluntarily.

And there are many other examples where small kingdoms lose their independence because the monarch's heir is already monarch of some other kingdom. That's how the Hapsburgs eventually came to rule over most of Europe. But in the Hapsburg case and Indian cases there was still a monarchy.

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Doesn't the Principality of Monaco only survive as separate from France so long as the Grimaldi family produces legitimate male heirs?

Indeed. Or at least it used to be so. However, a new treaty has been signed between France and Monaco some years ago, giving the principality more independance, so maybe this rule was changed at the same time, though I don't think so.

In any case, this provision was included mainly to avoid that, in case the Grimaldi lineage would die out, the throne would go to a relative who would be a foreign prince, or worst a foreign sovereign, or, worst of all, a German prince.

Nowadays, if such a situation happened, given that the Monegasques don't seem to be interested in becoming fench citizens and given that nobody would be bothered by a Hohenzollern (or whatever else) prince in Monaco, I strongly doubt this provision would be enforced, and if it were, it would piss off the onegasques in a major way. However, France could try to do it it it had some major problem with whoever would be chosen as Prince.

[Alive At Both Ends]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

Actually, random sidebar question, is England a republic? I always interpreted a Republic as having all the leadership positions at least nominally be elected by the people rather than inherited (ie: the US Senate vs. the British House of Lords). Don't get me wrong, apparantly what the UK has works quite well, I just always assumed it was something different from a republic.

As has been pointed out already, England ceased to be a republic in 1660 (although it was never called a republic - it was a "commonwealth".) But the modern definition of "republic" is rather different from the original definition, which equated more or less to what we would call a "democracy". By that definition, the UK is a republic because we have regular elections and the Queen has no political power (though she has lots of influence).

Also, since reform in the 1990's, the House of Lords is no longer a hereditary body. Most of the hereditary peerage no longer have the right to sit there. There are 94 hereditary peers who still have seats, but they had to be elected to those seats by the other members (the "life-peers"). Ironically this means that from a democratic point of view the remaining hereditaries actually have a better mandate to sit in the HoL than the life-peers, since they have at least won an election of sorts. The life-peers are simply appointed by the government of the day.

[zagloba]

(IIRC, there were some cases in which the female was called a "king." Perhaps in a Scandinavian country? Please, somebody, jog my failing memory.)

Jadwiga, crowned King of Poland in 1384

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by Alive At Both Ends

As has been pointed out already, England ceased to be a republic in 1660 (although it was never called a republic - it was a "commonwealth".) But the modern definition of "republic" is rather different from the original definition, which equated more or less to what we would call a "democracy". By that definition, the UK is a republic because we have regular elections and the Queen has no political power (though she has lots of influence).

Actually, I don't think anyone knows what to call different kinds of government. The history and polysci classes (intro-level polysci) when I was going to school in Texas stressed that the US was not a true democracy, but was rather a "Representative Republic". They also stressed that for a country as populous and widespread as the US, a true Democratic government woulnd't work very well, so instead we all vote for people who we hope are smart enough to run the government for us (from a more cynical point of view, this also gives the vast majority of us to have someone else to blame if decisions prove to be poorly inspired in hindsight). At various points I've heard England described as a "Constitutional Monarchy" and a "Parliamentary Republic"

[Cunctator]

If there are no male heirs and the throne can't go to women, then adoption may be an alternative. King Charles XIII of Sweden had no legitimate male heirs and adopted a Frenchman, Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who became Crown Prince and, eventually, King Charles XIV John of Sweden.

[APB]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Doesn't the Principality of Monaco only survive as separate from France so long as the Grimaldi family produces legitimate male heirs?

Not quite. The current rule is that it would remain as an independant state but as a French protectorate.

In any case, the real problem was that under the 1962 constitution the succession was limited only to the descendants of the reigning prince. This was, by any standards, a very peculiar and restrictive arrangement. What it meant was that the junior children of the reigning prince lost their places in the succession when that prince died and was succeeded by the senior child (or grandchild etc.). Athough priority was given to sons, daughters did have the right to succeed. So, to take obvious example, Princess Caroline was second-in-line after her (younger) brother, Albert, during their father's lifetime and could have succeeded if Albert had predeceased Prince Rainer, but she would have lost her place in the succession entirely as soon as Albert had succeeded.

But, even more unusually and offsetting such a restrictive rule for succession, the 'descendants' of the reigning prince could include adoptive heirs.

This was all changed by a constitutional amendment in 2002. But that still restricts the succession only to the descendants of the reigning prince or to his siblings and their descendants. Prince Rainer's sister and her descendants all lost their places in the succession when he died last year. However, if these rules leave no one in the line of succession, the Crown Council has the power to appoint a successor from among the more distant members of the family.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by Lemur866

And it was very common for kings to be elected by the nobility, rather than through inheritance.

And that itself was one of the methods for dealing with an extinct royal lineage -- have the Parliament or Privy Council or gathering of the nobles get their heads together and offer the crown to some other family.

[alphaboi867]

Queens Christina and Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden were both elected queen due to a lack of male heirs.

[Elendil's Heir]

Many years ago (before the Meiji restoration, IIRC), Japanese emperors had concubines and, now and then, designated the boys thus conceived to succeed them, when no legitimate male successor was available. Some Japanese conservatives have even suggested a return to that arrangement today, but it ain't gonna happen. With the recent birth of a little prince (the first grandson of Emperor Akihito), it also seems unlikely that the Diet will change the succession law to permit a woman to take the Chrysanthemum Throne as reigning empress anytime soon. More's the pity.

[Boozahol Squid, P.I.]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

1) The rules were charged to allow for a female heir to take the throne, as Japan was considering. (IIRC, there were some cases in which the female was called a "king." Perhaps in a Scandinavian country? Please, somebody, jog my failing memory.)

Actually, this occurred in England, sorta. After the Glroious Revolution, when the English kicked the Stuarts out for good, they invited William of Orange, the husband of the daughter of James II, to rule. but because of the political situation of his right to rule coming through his wife, William and Mary were considered a joint kingship of sorts. Mary was often referred to as King.

The Hungarian nobles vowed to die to defend their "king", Maria Theresa, the empress of the Austrian Empire after the Pragmatic Sanction broke down in the 18th century and she fled to Presburg to evade her enemies.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

They also stressed that for a country as populous and widespread as the US, a true Democratic government wouldn't work very well ...

How then did they explain away India? It has over 1/3 the land area and nearly 4 times the population of the US, so their PxA is higher if anything.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Askance

How then did they explain away India? It has over 1/3 the land area and nearly 4 times the population of the US, so their PxA is higher if anything.

Are you claiming that India is a direct democracy, instead of a representative system like the US? I think you missed Raguleader's point.

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by Askance

How then did they explain away India? It has over 1/3 the land area and nearly 4 times the population of the US, so their PxA is higher if anything.

Look at it this way: India is ONLY 1/3rd the size of the US, which would make the larger population actually work better for a democracy, since they'd be more likely to be close to any polling stations

That said, it has been noted by a number of my professors that the Internet is making a Democracy more practical, except that you'd still have the problem of everyone in the country voting (one of the biggest advantages of a representative government is you DON'T have everyone collectively making direct decisions on how things should be run.)

[DrDeth]

I hate those kinds of exclsionary definitions "since it isn't a pure democracy/communism/etc it's not a democracy etc ". There has never been a pure democracy at a national government level*, nor a "pure" communist government either. Thus, saying that 'well if they aren't what I call pure xxxx, they aren't xxxx at all" is meaningless and pointless jibber-jabber. If you define a form of government so as there is not now nor ever have been a national government with that type, then you're just being pedantic- and wrong.

In the real world, America is a Democracy. To refine which sort of democracy, you can say it is a 'two party, two house, head of state combined with head of government, republic" but it's still a democracy.

Raguleader- your polysci teacher was a pedantic idiot.


*Some of the Greek City states might seem to have been a "pure democracy", but the citizenship was so limited as to nearly make them oligarchies.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Diomedes

Actually, this occurred in England, sorta. After the Glroious Revolution, when the English kicked the Stuarts out for good, they invited William of Orange, the husband of the daughter of James II, to rule. but because of the political situation of his right to rule coming through his wife, William and Mary were considered a joint kingship of sorts. Mary was often referred to as King.

Cite, please, for references to Mary II as a "King"? There had already been Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I - why would they suddenly start calling her a King?

And why would William want to hear his wife referred to as the King? I mean, there's always been rumours about Willy, but I doubt that he'd want public comment that might raise questions about his sexuality...

And why would they do so when the English BIll of Rights, which established William and Mary on the throne, refers to her as the queen?

Originally Posted by English Bill of Rights

...their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Are you claiming that India is a direct democracy, instead of a representative system like the US? I think you missed Raguleader's point.

Yes, I am. They directly elect members straight into the lower house, no "electoral college" equivalent. Is that curious custom not what is referred to by the term "representative republic"?

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by Askance

Yes, I am. They directly elect members straight into the lower house, no "electoral college" equivalent. Is that curious custom not what is referred to by the term "representative republic"?

I didn't look too far in your link before I found number 33: Parliament . Indians directly elect members of parliament, therefore they are a "representative republic" or whatever you want to call it. I'm pretty sure Raguleader was making the distinction that in a democracy, the people themselves vote on legislation. Republics, from several definitions I've heard, have a legislative body composed of elected officials which in turn vote on legislation. So the difference is between every citizen voting on the laws versus every citizen voting for the people who then get to vote on the laws. The distinction is not whether or not the president is elected via electoral college. If that's at all unclear, I apologize.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Askance

Yes, I am. They directly elect members straight into the lower house, no "electoral college" equivalent. Is that curious custom not what is referred to by the term "representative republic"?

Yes, but it is not a direct democracy, as DrCube already explained. Neither the US nor India are direct democracies; legislation is voted on by representatives instead of directly by the people. You have missed Raguleader's point.

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I hate those kinds of exclsionary definitions "since it isn't a pure democracy/communism/etc it's not a democracy etc ". There has never been a pure democracy at a national government level*, nor a "pure" communist government either. Thus, saying that 'well if they aren't what I call pure xxxx, they aren't xxxx at all" is meaningless and pointless jibber-jabber. If you define a form of government so as there is not now nor ever have been a national government with that type, then you're just being pedantic- and wrong.

In the real world, America is a Democracy. To refine which sort of democracy, you can say it is a 'two party, two house, head of state combined with head of government, republic" but it's still a democracy.

Raguleader- your polysci teacher was a pedantic idiot.


*Some of the Greek City states might seem to have been a "pure democracy", but the citizenship was so limited as to nearly make them oligarchies.

Someone shortchange you at the grocery store today?

[Diceman]

The point is, if America was a direct democracy (or "pure democracy") we wouldn't elect representatives. We would vote on laws ourselves. Frankly, that doesn't work too well with modern nations. Would you be able to make an intelligent, informed decision on such complex subjects as corporate tax law, defense needs, foreign policy, etc, etc, etc? More importantly, do you trust your neighbors to make these decisions?

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Yes, but it is not a direct democracy, as DrCube already explained. Neither the US nor India are direct democracies; legislation is voted on by representatives instead of directly by the people. .

Is any nation such a direct democracy? No? Are they (those that are democratic in nature that is) not ALL "representative" democracies? If so, adding "direct" or "representative" to the word 'democracy" is specious- it is a pedantic distinction without a meaningful difference.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Is any nation such a direct democracy? No? Are they (those that are democratic in nature that is) not ALL "representative" democracies? If so, adding "direct" or "representative" to the word 'democracy" is specious- it is a pedantic distinction without a meaningful difference.

I agree with DrDeth here. It seems that whenever people start talking about forms of government, there's always a sidebar about "the United States is not a pure democracy" that, in my opinion, is nearly always irrelevant. There are no pure democracies, so when we talk about "democracy" in the real world we are never talking about "pure democracies" -- stop distracting us with that minutia.

It reminds me of that "a republic not a democracy" nonsense, as if that's supposed to prove a point.

[Jophiel]

Originally Posted by zagloba

(IIRC, there were some cases in which the female was called a "king." Perhaps in a Scandinavian country? Please, somebody, jog my failing memory.)

Jadwiga, crowned King of Poland in 1384

According to the Polish government website, Jadwiga was officially crowned a "monarch" because the title "Queen" (which she was informally called anyway) didn't confer any power.

Originally Posted by The Polish Government

Jadwiga became the first and only female monarch in the history of Poland. Although she is usually referred to as a 'queen' (królowa), that title was normally used for the wife of a king and did not empower its holder to rule the country. On the other hand, the monarch had full royal rights in Poland, with all the duties and privileges arising from this title.

Cite

I'm no expert in Polish history* nor the Polish tongue so I'm not sure if there's distinctly separate words for "monarch" and "king".


*However, I was reading about Polish history last night for a paper I'm writing which is why I knew about this in the first place...

[Elendil's Heir]

May I add that Queen Elizabeth II also holds the titles of Duke of Lancaster, Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann, notwithstanding her gender.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Duke of Normandy .

[Giles]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Her Majesty still rules over part of Normandy, i.e., the Channel Islands, which are not part of England or of the UK. She is also the direct heir of William, Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Is any nation such a direct democracy? No? Are they (those that are democratic in nature that is) not ALL "representative" democracies? If so, adding "direct" or "representative" to the word 'democracy" is specious- it is a pedantic distinction without a meaningful difference.

Why are you directing this comment at me? It was Raguleader's point, which Askance misunderstood. I was merely clarifying the point that was made.

Your point about there being no meaningful difference is nonsense, however. While no current nation state is a direct democracy, such systems do exist at other levels. Here in Panama, local decisions in some of the Indian comarcas (indigenous reserves) are taken by consensus. They effectively are direct democracies. Although there are chiefs who help mold the consensus, they can be overruled.

[Acsenray]

I seem to recall that the King of France actually granted the title "Duke of Normandy" to the English monarch in exchange for a promise that he would no longer lay claim to territory on the French mainland.

[Alive At Both Ends]

Originally Posted by acsenray

I seem to recall that the King of France actually granted the title "Duke of Normandy" to the English monarch in exchange for a promise that he would no longer lay claim to territory on the French mainland.

The English monarchy's claim to be rulers of France was dropped in 1800, at which time there was no King of France.

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by Askance

Yes, I am. They directly elect members straight into the lower house, no "electoral college" equivalent. Is that curious custom not what is referred to by the term "representative republic"?

In the United States, only the President and Vice President are elected via the electoral college. All members of Congress are directly elected by the voters in their state.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Your point about there being no meaningful difference is nonsense, however. While no current nation state is a direct democracy, such systems do exist at other levels. Here in Panama, local decisions in some of the Indian comarcas (indigenous reserves) are taken by consensus. They effectively are direct democracies. Although there are chiefs who help mold the consensus, they can be overruled.

Has any nation/state ever really been a "direct democracy"? If the best you can come up with is a small tribe- and that's even doubtfull, then yes, there is no meaningfulls difference. No nation is now, (nor has ever been AFAIK) a "direct democracy. Do we refer to cars as "4 wheeled"? Or "internal combustion engineed"? If 99.999 of set A intersects with set B, they are- for all useful and meaningful purposes the same set. There is no need to add the word 'representative" or "republic" in front of "democracy" when we are referring to governments as they are for all intents and purposes all "representative".

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Has any nation/state ever really been a "direct democracy"? If the best you can come up with is a small tribe- and that's even doubtfull, then yes, there is no meaningfulls difference. No nation is now, (nor has ever been AFAIK) a "direct democracy. Do we refer to cars as "4 wheeled"? Or "internal combustion engineed"? If 99.999 of set A intersects with set B, they are- for all useful and meaningful purposes the same set. There is no need to add the word 'representative" or "republic" in front of "democracy" when we are referring to governments as they are for all intents and purposes all "representative".

it's worth pointing out that not all cars ARE 4 wheeled. Train cars, for instance, have quite a few more than just 4 wheels, IIRC

I'm not saying you CAN'T call the United States a democracy (in fact, I do it fairly often), I was just noting one of those "Gee Whiz" tangents that a couple of my college professors went on that I found interesting. There's no need to get malignant because a college Political Science professor and a History professor like to get overly specific when describing governments in various countries in history.