(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
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”
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.
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.
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.
Queens Christina and Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden were both elected queen due to a lack of male heirs.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
Someone shortchange you at the grocery store today? :rolleyes:
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?
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.