Monarchy

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines monarchy as a “state under monarchical government” where a monarch is a “sovereign with title of king, queen, emperor, empress or equivalent.” Although this definition has the merit of describing popular usage in the English language, it is readily apparent that it is indeterminate. It amounts to saying that monarchy is what monarchs do, and it leaves open what other titles might be equivalent (in the masculine forms) to king or emperor.

Etymology—and the classical Greek origin of the word—offers an approach that initially seems more determinate: Monarchy is the rule of a single person. This can be contrasted with aristocracy—the rule of the “best” or the “elite”—and democracy—variously the rule of all the people or the “ordinary” people. However, common usage in English and several other languages has come to invest the idea of monarchy with at least the additional criterion of hereditary acquisition. In fact, the hereditary principle lies at the heart of the popular image of monarchy, even though some of the most notable monarchies in history, including the Roman Empire and its supposed successor the Holy Roman Empire were, at least nominally, nonhereditary, the latter being elected by seven “Electors,” most of whom did acquire their right of franchise through the hereditary principle. The contemporary Malaysian monarchy is rotated among 12 provincial sultans, normally for a 5-year term, and each new incumbent must be ratified by parliament. It would be easy to argue that many modern monarchies, often incorrectly—or at least confusingly—called “constitutional” monarchies where the monarch is the head of state but does not wield executive power, are much less like monarchies in the Greek sense than is the papacy or a regime such as that of the Haitian dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, who caused himself to be declared “president for life” in 1964.

Thus, the question of how many monarchs have survived into the 21st century is not a straightforward, factual one as it might first appear. The answer depends partly on whether separate monarchical traditions within the same state are distinguished, the obvious example being England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Principality of Wales, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the States of Jersey within the British Isles. Some dependent territories of the United Kingdom offer similar counting problems, and there is the comparable case of a federated multiple monarchy, such as the United Arab Emirates: Is it one monarchy or seven? The answer would also depend on whether you include nonstandard and nonhereditary forms of monarchy such as the papacy, lifetime dictators, or republics with a local monarchical element, such as acknowledged tribal leaders within some African states. It is not normally assumed that the answer depends on the extent to which a monarch has any executive power; the United Kingdom, where the monarch has possessed powers that have been small and diminishing since the 17th century, and Morocco, where King Mohamed VI determines much policy, are both considered to be monarchies to the same degree. Nor is it considered relevant that in many cases the continued existence of the monarchy is assumed to be dependent on the popular will. In most countries that are monarchies but have democratically elected governments, it would be accepted that a referendum on a transition to a republic might be held and that in the event of a vote for such a transition, it would occur peacefully. The Greek monarchy was finally abolished as the result of a plebiscite in 1974, while in Australia in 1999 the change was rejected. However, the assumption that such a change could occur “merely on account of the number of votes”—to borrow a phrase from a monarch (Queen Victoria in her Diaries)—might be thought to erode the nature of monarchy in its original sense.

...