3 ms·
Not a 'monarch', but a 'sovereign' would be a better fit.
by valarauko 4y ago
Not a 'monarch', but a 'sovereign' would be a better fit.
- JAlexoid 4y agoSingle Ruler for life is still a monarch. The Pope is a monarch in Vatican. Monarchy is not necessary hereditary. And replacing monarch with sovereign, doesn't change the fact that it's a monarchy.
- sofixa 4y agoYep, one of the most popular monarchies, the Holy Roman Empire, was an elective monarchy (mostly theoretical after the Habsburgs took over, but still).
- School-Cotton 4y agoMonarch is not a precisely defined term. It usually (though not in the case of popes) also requires that the holder be part of the country’s traditional aristocracy or nobility. Lifetime heads of state of regimes issued from modern revolutions (North Korea or Iran, for example) are not usually considered monarchs. I guess the only real definition of monarch is social and cultural: someone who claims to be one and is broadly recognized as such.
- caf 4y agoAre not the Cardinals the "traditional nobility" of the Vatican?
- sofixa 4y ago> It usually (though not in the case of popes) also requires that the holder be part of the country’s traditional aristocracy or nobility. Not really. Reza Khan was just a colonel in the army before the coup that later established him as Shah of Iran. Osman of the Ottoman Empire and his descendants for a very long time had no aristocracy or nobility to speak of, only temporary (land reverted to the Sultan at death) land owners.
- IncRnd 4y agoA monarch is literally a sovereign head of state.