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.
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…
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.
:eek:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, I had a different impresson of what the terms Direct and Representative meant here. My understanding was Direct meant the members of government were directly elected by the people, Representative that they elected representatives who in turn elected the government (or in the US’s case the President and VP).
If Direct is really being used to mean the people directly vote on legislation, then as others point out here it’s a purely theoretical form of government that simply does not and has never existed at the national level, in which case I wonder why we’re even talking about it …?
It’s a mixed system, but I believe the Swiss still go in for a fair amount of the citizen participation malarkey, including voting by show of hands on whether laws should be passed.
OK. First off, “direct democracy” has existed on and off since Classical times, and remains in existence today for certain limited purposes. We’ve all had the thing about New England town meetings, where the voting public is also the town legislature once a year, choosing the selectmen who handle the governance the rest of the time, but able to enact ordinances directly by popular vote at that annual meeting. A few of the Swiss cantons (which like US states have “residual sovereignty” within the Swiss Confederation) also have direct democracy. I seem to recall there were four that did, but the only name I can recall is Appenzell.
Second, “republic” and “monarchy,” if they mean anything more than catch phrases, have defined meanings. In a republic, sovereignty is embodied in the people collectively, as expressed through the institutions of government they choose, and a Head of State (Chef de l’Etat), normally termed President, serves as the functional expression of that sovereignty. A monarch, on the other hand, serves as the individual personal embodiment of the nation’s sovereignty by his/her right to the throne (hereditary, election, conquest, or whatever). He or she is the de jure repository of the nation’s independent existence and authority.
In point of fact, a parliamentary republic or monarchy has placed the de factoauthority to govern in a Cabinet headed by a Prime Minister/Premier, but that authority, granted by Parliament in practice, is nonetheless theoretically drawn from the President or Monarch who embodies the national sovereignty. In a Presidential republic, as in an absolute monarchy, the de facto and de jure governing authorities coincide, in a President who is both head of state and head of government, or in a Monarch whose word is law.
More nonsense. The size of the unit of government is quite irrelevant to the general issue of whether or not there is a distinction between direct and representative democracy. Such a distinction exists, and is valid. As Polycarp points out, the modern Swiss government has elements of direct democracy. So does the US, at least at the state level, in the form of referendums.
With regard to your example, as a matter of fact, we do sometimes refer to cars as four-wheeled, or internal-combustion-powered, in particular contexts. Not all cars are four-wheeled, or powered by internal combustion (some are solar powered, for example). Just because such vehicles are uncommon doesn’t invalidate the distinction. Your example itself undermines your argument.
Your impression happens to be wrong; that is not the definition of direct democracy, nor how the term is typically used.
People sometimes vote directly on legislation at the national level in many countries, in referendums, so direct democracy at the national level, at least on some issues, is far from theoretical. Here in Panama we are shortly having a national referendum on expansion of the Panama Canal.