Talk:Popular monarchy

Untitled

One ought to note that Louis XVI became "King of the French" under the constitution of 1791. It would require messing around with the whole article, though, so I'm not sure how to go about it. john 01:52 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I will see if I can get it in to the article. ÉÍREman 02:03 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I think Queen Elizabeth II is both. If I recall, her formal title in Latin is thus (English above, Latin (which emphasizes the point) below):

Queen Elizabeth the Second, by God's Grace Queen of all the Britains, Defender of the Faith. -- Elizabeth II Regina, Dei Gratia Omni Britannia, Fidei Defendere.

IIRC British coinage used Britt:Omn:Rex prior to the present reign. This is obviously "of the Britons" not Britain.Alci12

Now, the question would arise: If Anglicanism and Catholicism reunified (which until recently was predicted within another generation or two by some), would the Monarch be granted the title of Defender of the Faith by the Pope? -Penta 15:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that is where the Deo Gratias title came from in the first place- The monarchs just kept it after the Anglican Church was split off.

Indeed, infact it was given (ironically, in hindsight) to Henry VIII by the Pope because of Henry's counter-reformation book, In Defense of the Sacraments, written before the conflict which would lead to Henry's break with with the Church. Ddye 17:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As Royal titles are stated at the beginning of each new reign by the ROyal Styles & Titles act - her style is parliament's will irrespective of what any present or future Pope might offer.Alci12

King of the Hellenes

I removed the reference saying that Hellenic Republic comes from the former king's title. Hellenic Republic simply means "Greek" republic, but is not anglicized (Greece is appropriately called Hellas everywhere except the English-speaking world). Likewise, contrasting King of the Hellenes with King of Greece is mixing translations, but I'll leave it since it follows the custom in English. Ddye 17:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ehm... No, Greece is called Griechenland in German, and actually, very few languages actually call Ελλας "Hellas"... Check the interwiki links for Greece, you'll see. —Nightstallion (?) 20:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And Grecia in Spanish, and la Grèce in French (if I remember well)... Go learning languages before making claims of knowledge... --euyyn 01:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So what's the difference?

Is the difference only in the name? Or has it any (political?) consequences? Either way, the article should state it. --euyyn 01:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, when Otto of Denmark became King of Greece, one of the provisions the Europeon powers (Britain, France, Russia) had was that he could not take the title "King of the Greeks". The reason was because there were a good number of Greeks still in areas under Ottomon rule and they didn't want to piss them off. So apparently there must have been some sort of power behind it.--Kross^Talk 07:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

King of Sweden

Before the current "King of Sweden" Carl XVI Gustaf, the title was "By the Grace of God King of the Swedes, the Goths/Geats and the Wends". Which is interesting enough to note. --87.194.118.205 (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tribal titles

I don't think King of Scots should be on the list. It is merely a continuation of an ancient title back when kings didn't rule over countries but a collection of the same people. The Kings of England were the King of the Anglo-Saxon (later English). There is also the King of the Goths, King of the Franks, and King of the Vandals. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Do all the examples apply to the opening definition? Are there references to show that?--Utinomen (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't German Emperor so named because they did not rule all of what had been the been the German nation (i.e because Austria was a separate state)? Isn't King of Albanians so named because of the claim to territory outside of Albania (e.g. Kosovo)? Isn't Croats and Scots becase originally the naming convention used to be that all Kings were named as ruler of 'named people' rather than the ruler of 'land of the named people', as King of the English became King of England none which had anything to do with reference to any popular mandate?--Utinomen (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Original Research

This article is presenting an argument based on an essay by Kingsley_Martin in the The_Political_Quarterly journal. As this article is not 'Kinglsey Martin's views on the subject' but purports to be a general article this clearly seems to be WP:Original. --Utinomen (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the No original reseach noticeboard--Utinomen (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found the article, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1936.tb01608.x/full it seems to be more about modern British republicanism than medieval popular monarchy. I could only see the abstract though, however I did not see where it claims that a monarch is popular based on the style. I do not doubt that the style of the Louis XVI was change to reflect the idea of a popular monarchy, but there seems to be no correlation between monarchies styled thus and the level of democracy. There are plenty of styles including by the will of x (x being the people, nation republic or constitution etc.) but oddly are not included on this list. Of course popular monarchy could be used to refer to monarchs the rule a people, and the opposite would be a territorial, and the change reflecting the change from ruling a people group whose territory was changing, to ruling a territory with set borders and multiple people groups. Most importantly, can we find any other source, perhaps one by a real historian. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

agree, this entire page is based on a misconception based on a random idiosyncratic article published in 2005. Not encyclopedic. Should be merged into a more general discussion of styles or titles taken by monarchs throughout history. --dab (𒁳) 19:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

it's even worse, the article was already in place without reference when the Martin article was added more or less as decoration (with a wrong date, 2005 for 1936) by an IP editor in 2010. [1] I really don't see much that is salvageable here. --dab (𒁳) 19:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

German Emperor and by the grace of God

Doesn't the title Emperor of the Germans indicate a popular monarchy? Also, the style by the grace of God, indicates the opposite of a popular monarchy. is there any actual difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That would seemingly depend on whether you accept that there is such a thing as 'popular monarchy'. How about the Byzantine title of Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans: and does not the Roman Emperor rule by the will of the people, is that not a popular mandate if there ever was one? However, I can't imagine that anyone seriously imagines that the people were actually sovereign in the Roman/Byzantine Empire.--Utinomen (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsar of all the russias

What's this doing here on the list? In russian it is "государь всея руси" which means that the holder is a ruler of the entire territory of Rus'. "Rus'" is a collective noun to all russian lands in medival times. It has no connexion to "king of belgians" etc whatsoever. --217.12.244.82 ArthurArthur(talk) 07:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)