Yep.
I live in sweden, a monarchy. Of course, it’s not like the king has anything to say anymore, he just gets some money (around 6 million $) and “promotes” sweden.
Now, I’m not a royalist, and won’t be. But are there any countries left that still has a ruling king? (Names, people, I need names!)
A monarchy, then, but at least the first guy was elected. I can’t find out whether the current King is a descendent or a nominee, though.
Well, this is a list of the remaining monarchies in the world
http://infomanage.com/conflictresolution/monarchies.htm
and the only one marked as an absolute monarchy is Oman, but some of the others skate pretty close to absolutism.
OK, found out - he is the great-grandson of the original king, but he favours becoming a constitutional monarch rather than an absolute monarch.
I heard there’s a country in Africa, too, and there may be some in the South Seas.
Tonga?
It’s not a case that monarchs either rule or don’t rule; they can have varying degrees of power and (almost as important) influence, and influence in particular may or may not be reflected in formal government structures. Conversely, a monarch may have what appears to be absolute power, but in fact be subject to very real constraints because of the formal or informal influence of various individuals, groups or social institutions.
The Vatican City State must be close to being an absolute monarchy, at least formally, although of course it is elective rather than hereditary.
Swaziland, some of the Emirates in the Gulf, Nepal and Thailand also come to mind as countries where the monarch is still extremely powerful.
In Monaco, Prince Rainier seems to appoint the whole executive branch and heads it up. So that’s not bad. OTOH, they do have an 18-member legislative branch that’s elected, so it isn’t absolute power.
Swaziland in Africa has a king who is an absolute monarch, and something of a [censored] too, from what I’ve read of him. Not a place I’d like to live.
.:Nichol:.
Saudi Arabia
according to CIA World Fact Book is a monrachy
U.S. citizens, with a President who is both head of government and head of state, seem to have a difficult time conceiving of the real role of a head of state. In any monarchy, including Britain and Canada, the monarch is “head of state” and has certain reserved powers left to him or her by the constitution. Sweden has remarkably few such powers.
But a classic example of how to handle a crisis as a head of state in a constitutional monarchy is shown in the actions of Haakon VII of Norway during the German invasion of 1940. He did not intervene in the actions of his ministers but simply refused to be party to any collaborationist action and fled to England where he organized a resistance to the overwhelming German power, serving in a manner as though the flag or the constitution had itself taken a formal and vocalized stance on a critical “stand up and be counted” sort of issue.
aldiboronti’s link didn’t include North Korea, which is a monarchy as far as I’m concerned.
I met a Norwegian guy in a bar about three years ago who told me that Norway was a working monarchy, in which laws are created by the king, &c. However, my only cite is a drunk Norwegian in a bar. And aldiboronti’s link lists it as a hereditary constitutional monarchy, so I suppose it’s not absolute.