Talk:Absolute monarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Criticism
2 Hutt River Province Principality
3 James I & Charles I
4 Add Hoppe to Theories and History?
5 Redirect from Royal autocracy
6 Vatican City not Legitimately a "Monarchy" in the Context of This Article
7 Fixes

[edit] Criticism

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Hutt River Province Principality

Shouldn't Hutt River Province Principality be added to the list of absolute monarchies? effeietsanders 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] James I & Charles I

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)

[edit] Add Hoppe to Theories and History?

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)

[edit] Redirect from Royal autocracy

Ive created the page Royal autocracy, and redirected it here. Im not sure how common the term is, but at least it got 2,100 google hits, so I thought it might be a good idea to create a page for it.

However, are the terms Royal autocracy and Absolute monarchy the same thing? As a novis, I would say that they match, but there might be slite differences between the meanings of the words that could justify an own page for Royal autocracy.

Comments?

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

[edit] Vatican City not Legitimately a "Monarchy" in the Context of This Article

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)