Talk:Absolute monarchy

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Absolutism (European history) was copied or moved into Absolute monarchy with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The article says Russia was the last country in Europe to abolish absolutism. The Nikolas II of Russia abdicted in 1917. The Emperor (Kaiser) of Germany Wilhelm the II abdicted in 1918. Was he much less absolutist than Nikolas the II? If yes, could they elaborate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.71.26 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think seriously less absolutist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.147 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The German Second Empire is commonly regarded as a constitutional monarchy, albeit with a much greater role for the monarch than in England.

Mainly as he had free reign to appoint his head of government.

Often, the simplest litmus test between absolute vs constitutional monarchy comes down to whether the democratic/checks-and-balance institutions existed through their own right (e.g. via a constitution), or whether the monarch could theoretically abolish/suspend them if desired.

A Kaiser could appoint whom he wished as Chancellor, but the latter then had to navigate an independent parliament of independent parties elected by universal suffrage, as well as the self-governing constituent states (federalism).

And ultimately, the exception proved the rule. When Germany became a de facto royal-backed military dictatorship under the pressures of WW1, it was the nail in the coffin for the monarchy as the precedent of a king suspending democracy meant democrats could no longer trust a return to the prewar status quo. 78.17.101.212 (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think the examples section is NPOV? It reads like a freshman or high school paper, overall, and a biased one at that. "X was a successful absolute monarch" is not how an encyclopedic article should look. Nach0king 01:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to express the same sentiment as Nach0king, but it seems as if I will just echo theirs. There are no links anywhere (wiki or otherwise) within that section and reads, as Nach0king already mentioned, like an essay. It also contradicts a part of the article that talks about the English kings being ultimately unsuccessful at running an absolutist monarchy. hellenica 13:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the interpretation is a bit one-sided, and it would probably be a good idea to take out the assessments of the competence of various absolute monarchs. For instance, while Louis XIV may have been successful at ring power in his lifetime, some historians contend that the financial extravagance and political system he established laid the foundations for the French monarchy's collapse. I think it's worth mentioning that however competent some absolute monarchs may have been, their achievements are often undone by their successors, or by a changing politico-economic climate.

For me, the main problem with the "examples" section is the un-encyclopedic quality of the language. I think some bits should be rewritten, but don't delete it per se. By the way, I deleted the offensive language left at this point on the talk page and I hope whoever wrote it has been blocked. Walton monarchist89 10:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion this page is a joke! It seems focused upon current geo-political conditions(Nothing desperately wrong with that, although historically there have been far more absolutists!) and written from an obviously western-jaundiced and republican POV (Something wrong with this!) I believe that Sharia Law is a form of law... whether you agree with it or not... For example I believe that in Saudi Arabis the 'Ulema are still important... THIS ARTICLE IS RUBBISH!

"The sovereign is expected to act according to custom" (How meaningless, aren't they also expected to in constitutional monarchies?), "in an absolute monarchy there is no constitution or body of law above what is decreed by the sovereign (king or queen)" (So... how does monarchy exist... a constitution, or law for that matter, is not a "piece of paper"). "As a theory of civics," (eh?) "absolute monarchy puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth."(Even in Anti-Deluvian concepts, such as the Divine Right of Kings, usually Monarchs would claim a form of Apostolic sucession or suchlike ((e.g. James VI and I)), not "good breeding"! Just like in the case of the Ottomans they tended to declare themselves to be "Gaziya", a holy warrior) "In theory, an absolute monarch has total power over his or her people and land, including the aristocracy and sometimes the clergy (... has any Absolute monarch EVER claimed that?!)" Jezze 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't

No. It is not a recognized sovereign state.--L. Pistachio 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did an edit to phrasing in this bit; while James I and Charles I may have attempted to import the idea of the Divine Right of Kings (James in particular) a large part of the current thinking in History is that neither were directly trying to establish absolute rule by doing so, although admittedly the threat of absolutism did cause suspicion and fear amongst the Commons and some nobility. While many interpretations disagree on what Charles I was up to I'd say it's open to debate. Jezze 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about adding Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argument in "Democracy: the God that Failed" to the Theories and History section. The reasons not to seem to be that no monarch has used Hoppe's theory to justify his rule and that Hoppe was not ultimately arguing for monarchy. But it is an original and important contribution. I think I'll write something up unless someone objects.Atripodi 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive created the page

However, are the terms

Comments?

--Screensaver 09:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very small point, but although the pope is the head of his "state", the Vatican should not be included as a monarchy for the purposes of this article. Statehood in this case is merely an internationally recognized protection against influences by or forced allegiance to a geo-political entity. To compare the Vatican - with no significant land, no obliged subjects, no secure income and absolutely no enforcement of law - to a country like Saudi Arabia is a bit misleading. Susie-q-luvs-u 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, one distinguishes between the Holy See and the Vatican City State. The former is not meaningfully a monarchy, but the very point of having a Vatican City State is to be a territorial state through which the Holy See conducts some of its relations with the world's temporal powers. As such it comes equipped with most of the traditional accessories of statehood, such as the power to enter international treaties and so forth, and it certainly makes sense to speak about the decision processes that work this power, in the same terminology that is otherwise used to describe what makes territorial states tick. As such, it would not make sense to classify the Vatican City State as anything but an absolute (but elective) monarchy. –Henning Makholm 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have understood it correctly. Vatican City is in the odd position of both being elective and Absolute. As for the critiques, the Vatican does have all the following. It has an income, it has subjects, it has land, and it enforces it's own legal code. It even has a military. 70.77.38.177 (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are the Reliable Sources for the claim that the Vatican is an Absolute Monarchy? And even if you can find them, I expect you'll find many sources to dispute it. I am no fan of any kind of Christianity, having left the Church over 40 years ago, but even I sense some absurd degree of Church-bashing underlying this claim (there are also other problems with this article such as the seemingly arbitrary and poorly sourced way that Wikipedia seems to go about dividing Monarchies into Absolute and Constitutional, but that's an argument for another day). As things stand, Henry VIII, a man who could and did have people hung drawn and quartered, is classified as a Constitutional Monarch, while Benedict XVI, who in practice has no power to kill anybody, gets classified as an Absolute Monarch. Henry could and did change England from a Catholic to an Anglican country, but the Pope has no power to change the Vatican from a Catholic to a non-Catholic State, yet again we're told by Wikipedia to unquestioningly accept that the Pope's powers are absolute while Henry's are limited. And I could probably go on citing examples like this for hours. If that is what Reliable Sources say, they would seem to be thoroughly eccentric and unreliable, but I have yet to see any evidence that this is what any of them say, let alone what the overwhelming consensus of them say (which is what would be required to justify the presentation of this claim as an undisputed fact, as it is currently presented here - if nothing else I'd be very surprised if there are no Catholic 'Reliable Sources' disputing such a claim, and I'd be quite surprised to find only Catholic 'Reliable Sources' disputing it - after all, I'm disputing it, and I'm very much an ex-Catholic).Tlhslobus (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have since removed the portion about the Pope. Anticipating a revert, I'll explain why. There was one source cited, an article from the New York Times. In the whole article the authors make the point of entrenched interests in the Curia controlling Vatican City despite any Pope's supposed authority. And yet, the editor to blame cherry-picked one sentence about the Pope's supremacy.

An absolute monarchy has to be absolutist and a monarchy. This is not the case in the Vatican, as the Pope is elected as the head of the Church and is not considered to be a king although he functions as the head of a microstate with no foreign policy, no domestic policy, essentially no citizens. King Henry VIII had absolute power, as did Ivan the Terrible. The Pope does not. To make such a claim, we need real reliable sources not hand-chosen snippets from Pinch. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is not consistent with the article we have on Vatican City. See its infobox and Governance sections, and read the sources. The official website of Vatican City State states: "Vatican City State is governed as an absolute monarchy. The Head of State is the Pope who holds full legislative, executive and judicial powers." Even a tourist guidebook on Rome states in its Vatican subsection that the Pope technically has absolute, full power within the city-state (I can verify this for you via source if you request it).

Will revert in a few days if no objections. Abstractematics (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I removed that content based on the New York Times source and my own reasoning. While I still wouldn't call Vatican City an absolute monarchy, if Vatican City says it's an absolute monarchy on its own webpage then I suppose I'll let that stand. I have reverted my removal and inserted the link you provided. Thanks for letting me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Someone had put SEXISGOOD after the napolean link...fixed it Invader05 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda disagree with the statement that Jordan and Morocco moved to a constitutional monarchy. In both cases, the king still has absolute power. The "constitutional" part being a mere cloak to silence the West. You can call a cat a dove all you want, it won't make it fly. Seriously, that bit gotta be removed, or at the very least, made more explicit as to not let the reader under the impression that the parliaments in those countries have anything more than a figurative role. I'm respectfully running this by the community first in the hope to find a consensus. Lixy 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite your sources? We do need verification of that. (And how do you sign these comments?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.60.88 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan is an absolute monarchy and never moved. Article 30 of The Constitution of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan^[1] states "The King is the Head of the State and is immune from any liability and responsibility."--80.66.53.158 (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth is also Head of State and, as far as I know, also immune at law. —Tamfang (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't history full of pre-Medieval examples of absolute monarchy? What about Pharoahs, Roman emperors, Mayan kings, etc. Were these monarchies not absolute? -- Minaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.100.224 (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section is substantially wrong on two accounts. Firstly, I don't think the claim that the king was "first among equals" in the nobility is right. There was a definite hierarchy in medieval society. Some nobles outranked others, and the king was certainly above everyone else. Secondly, the assertion that the declining power of cavalry in battle meant that noblemen were less powerful is absurd. Most armies thereafter were still led by the aristocracy, regardless of troop composition (this was the case even during the First World War). 88.111.89.112 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Revolver66[reply]

Absolute monarchy is not absolutism. Absolutism is a period in European history just after feudalism. It is characterized by the end of feudal partitionship, consolidating of power with the monarch, rise of state power, unification of the state and decrease in influence of nobility. It of course uses laws. Absolutist monarchs are Louis XIII and XIV in France, Ivan the Terrible in Russia etc. All about 16th century.--Dojarca 09:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to whose definition? According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, absolutism is "A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority. A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority." According to WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University, absolutism is "1. dominance through threat of punishment and violence 2. a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) 3. the principle of complete and unrestricted power in government." A word can be defined in different ways. What is your reference or source? --RisingSunWiki 23:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The (rather more advanced) French Wikipedia entry states that "absolute monarchy" was a *practice* that developed after the 1400s and had its high point in the 1600s. Whereas the term "absolutism" was invented in the 1800s to describe the *political theory/ideology* of those who supported absolute monarchy.

So the difference is a) between a real-world system of government versus a political ideology; and b) between the original time-period versus a later neologism to describe it. 78.17.101.212 (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an external link at the Wikipedia article Absolutism (European history); it is an article written by Professor Steeves at Stetson University. The first line states, "Absolute monarchy or absolutism meant that the sovereign power or ultimate authority in the state rested in the hands of a king who claimed to rule by divine right." My interpretation of this sentence is that the terms "absolutism" and "absolute monarchy" can be used interchangeably. Furthermore, I checked my university notes from a course I took on the French Revolution, and according to my notes, the professor used "absolutism" and "absolute monarchy" interchangeably as well. So I must conclude, unless I see more compelling evidence, that you original post is false. --RisingSunWiki 20:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutism is the belief that absolute monarchy is best. Southafricanguy (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find out if most European countries during the medieval times were absolute monarchies?--Dark paladin x (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on who you ask and where you draw the line. The Roman Empire had developed an official ideology of absolute monarchy, which was remembered well enough through the medieval ages that many kings would assert that those ideas applied to them. However, such assertions seldom had any great or lasting effect. It seems not to have been be uncommon that the high nobles would tacitly allow the king to style himself absolute lord of all he surveyed, in official documents, as long as he behaved himself! In many cases it is a matter of scholarly disagreement today whether such documents should be taken as face value.

The period that is most often described as the heyday of European absolute monarchy was from about 1600 to 1918, solidly after the middle ages. –Henning Makholm 01:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? I think I'm missing something here, because I don't see any difference between the two. So...that pretty much sums it up.:\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.182.30 (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A dictator takes power illegitimately while a monarch gains power legitimately. Southafricanguy (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC

Yes, this is what I'm wondering as well, wouldn't this be the same as despotism? A monarch gains power because he is a born to another Monarch, and succeeds him, so legally he has the right to. So, a despot is only someone who has overthrown the government and taken power, not someone who was born into it? So, his child, if he was absolute ruler would not be a Despot because he didn't seize power, he inherited it? It doesn't make sense to me The snare (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where the heck is Amestris? Is that even a real nation? A quick Google search brought up wife of Xerxes I from Persia and a fictional country from the Full Metal Alchemist series. --67.237.241.66 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seams to me that the Tuders were pretty much absolute manarchs with only the stuats lossesing that power due to thier poor handleing and the english civel war--J intela (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Tudors were powerful, but they were balanced to a large degree by the English aristocracy of the time. Even if they were absolute monarchs in theory, they were not in practice. Also, please use a spellchecker. Msaunier (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These do exist, but I removed the call for expert on politics, as these are more a sociological, historical curiosity. The few remaining are not really absolute monarchies in the traditional sense, as in the case of the various Islamic states with tribal rulers, but traditional systems layered over various forms of modernized feudalism or simple bourgeois rule. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to cause the article to flow around the "Forms of government" sidebar? Currently it's not doing so, and that's a LOOOONG sidebar. It makes the page look pretty atrocious. Msaunier (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the system needs to be fixed so that you cannot rate this article infinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.5.246.193 (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit for the second time, as the comments are completely unsourced, and goes against all scholarly opinions on the subject in order to make what seems to be personal opinions. --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on Swaziland does not support the present article's contention that the country in an absolute monarchy. Indeed, the claim in the present article is without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the

Politics of Swaziland article: "According to current Swazi law and custom, the monarch holds supreme executive, legislative, and judicial powers", and it is "... a mixed framework of an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy" (although it is difficult to see which elements constitutes the constitutional monarchy). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Qatar is an emirate and as such belongs in the category of absolute monarchies (in which article it is currently listed). As there was no sources provided in the recent edits that supported a claim of it being a constitutional monarchy, I have reverted them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, over the last two months, this article has been constantly vandalized by unregistered users, most of them with no other edits before or after this article.Abstractematics (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing this article in sandbox for my computer science course. This article was full of unsourced material that did not seem reliable to me. To fix this problem i plan to follow the usual procedure, outlined by wikipedia for articles such as this one. I plan on removing all uncredited information/ original research and for certain areas, provide a proper citation for the rest. I am open to more suggestions on how to further improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolasoji (talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A monarch is an individual exercising private land ownership...a landlord dictating to the inhabitants of his private realm. An entire nation, or empire, can then be left to the monarch's heirs, just as any private property. The monarch maintains their position of power using a private military. They give temporary land rights, to private mercenaries willing to defend the monarch's ownership. This seems to be an environment of anarcho-capitalism which, by definition, has no true government oversight. Nothinheavy (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's "anarcho" about it? --

talk) 22:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

An absolute monarchy, is by definition, an hereditary dictatorship. Autocracies often receive different names and connotations... The word "Emperor" or "King" refers to a ruler. 181.179.29.143 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be hereditary, though.

This phrase, in whatever form, is not supported by a link to the UAE constitution. First, the constitution cannot demonstrate what the UAE is considered. As a primary source (wherever it is hosted) it is not useful for much, other than non-controversial statements about itself. Next, an establishing document cannot speak to what others "consider" the nation to be. Finally, the document says neither "constitutional monarchy" nor "federal monarchy" and does not discuss what anyone "considers" the UAE to be. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a look at this link here. The link thus shows that the UAE is a federal monarchy and not just Absolute. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_monarchy#List_of_federal_monarchies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.223.233 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two talk pages in one day?!?! Nice.

You will need a reliable source to add it here. If there is one cited in the other article, feel free to verify it and use it here. If there isn't a source in the other article, feel free to challenge or remove the claim. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This articles says "Russia became the last European country (excluding Vatican City) to abolish absolutism."

However, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article shows the country as being an absolute monarchy from 1929 to 1934, decades after Russia's monarchy was abolished. Pretendus (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mannerheimo: I don't understand how this edit is constructive. Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Absolute monarchy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003120816/http://www.theestimate.com:80/public/022202b.html to http://www.theestimate.com/public/022202b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007033949/http://www.pmo.gov.bn:80/pmo1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=82 to http://www.pmo.gov.bn/pmo1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=82
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118223700/http://sqcic.gov.om/HM.html to http://sqcic.gov.om/HM.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Absolute monarchy. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pmo.gov.bn/pmo1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=82
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111202072946/http://www.diwan.gov.qa/english/the_amir/the_amir_cv.htm to http://www.diwan.gov.qa/english/the_amir/the_amir_cv.htm

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.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't individual emirs in the UAE be added to the list of Absolute monarchies? After all, the article states that they are absolute monarchs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achoo! (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! 115.84.94.156 (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's requested to add a Roman Empire subsection under the history section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy#Roman_Empire

This article History of the Roman Empire contains this prose: "The state of absolute monarchy that began with Diocletian endured until the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1453. Diocletian divided the empire into four regions, each ruled by a separate Emperor (the Tetrarchy)." and is contained within two references that may prove promising:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Adrian Goldsworth, How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower (Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 405–415. Potter, David. The Roman Empire at Bay. 296–98.

So, perhaps we can use those sources and those key terms as a start to expanding that section. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 23:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources may also be found at these pages which mention "absolute monarch" or "absolute monarchy" in the context of the Roman Empire:

• King of Rome
• History of the Roman Empire

Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add references to the United Arab Emirates and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's entries on the List of Current Absolute Monarchies (Don't remove those entries without broad community consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.180.69 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those bastards definitely eliminated your contributions and spit on your person and work... Why has Wikipedia to be so bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.5.245.50 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May they all burn in hell for all eternity, because they have rejected the Glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 King James Version Only). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.88.53 (talk)

The Nations to be added are, among others: 1. The individual Emirates of the UAE (or even the U.A.E. itself according to the "Forms of Government Map") 2. North Korea 3. Bahrain 4. All hereditary dictatorships (there should not be a separate "hereditary dictatorship" page, I recommend both articles to be fusioned) Signed 190.5.245.50 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain is not absolute, but given that dualistic (half-constitutional, not to be confused with Dual) monarchies are rare now in the world, maybe a section on dualistic onarchies should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.147 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If not, what are the un-authoritarian absolute monarchies? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki: It depends on the definition of "authoritarianism".

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sheikh humaid ruler of ajman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Portrait of Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed Al Qasimi.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, North Korea considers itself to be a republic but it behaves like an absolute monarchy. It has a track record of three authoritarian leaders from the same family, one following the other, and one can reasonably expect this line to continue... [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rickyrab2: There are loads of similar systems in the world.

Did Andorra cease being an absolute monarchy earlier than 1917 ? And what about Liechtenstein ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.244.147 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absolute_monarchy&oldid=1106381228

I rest my case. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? What is your case? Have you read the cited source? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor provided content to a sentence without regards to the source in question. Notice source 4. and where it is placed. It is completely unrelated and in a completely different section.

And yes, I have read the source, where there is not a single mention of a "limited constitution". If you will continue questioning me I suggest reading the source yourself. Humanwaveattack666 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Absolute monarchy originally emerged in Europe after the social upheaval of the Black Death and Renaissance" Could Someone clarify the above statement? Doesn't absolute monarchy exist before social upheaval? 2405:800:9031:4555:1:0:F3F:CD44 (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

guide my gov man's Gossip about me idont want no one boy is freind of boss. And block.adoption.because poeples make fraud for adoption but idont know why because Iamstill alife why poeples force to fraud me so idont want anymans in my life all are the same and Gauteng we not coming because we not safe with my son and no man's in my life single life onyl 41.116.46.107 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my uncestours telling me about magic before going because Ian.not safe to anybody they do what they like in my power man's idont want them.hoy want kill my kids they see vision of murder my two sons Bruno and asanda both so boy his not allowed to my life and boss and others please all man's are uin one roof 41.116.46.107 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]