Okay. So the UAE is an admittedly weird case, but I'd argue that "Emir" is technically more correct than what you have here.
I 100% agree that de facto the President, as head of state, is a hereditary (monarchic) position. But de jure it's actually an elected position (along with that of Prime Minister). The elections are held every 5 years within the UAE Supreme Council.
The weird part is that the Supreme Council only has 7 members: the leaders of the 7 constituent Emirates, who are Emirs (hence: "Emirates"). An Emir is a hereditary position and so meets the qualifications for being ruler of a monarchy.
In practice, every election has been unanimous, with the Emir of Abu Dhabi being elected President (and the Emir of Dubai being elected Prime Minister). It's tacitly understood that this will be the case, and it would be a huge scandal (with maybe fatal consequences?) if the vote weren't unanimous.
But on paper, an Emir is a monarch and the President is elected.
I mean, I'd certainly be ok with accepting "president" as a type-in (and maybe even display the answer as "Emir or President" or something along those lines, I dunno?). But "President" as the actual/only answer doesn't feel quite right to me.
Monarchy doesn't have to be hereditary by definition. Elective monarchy is a thing (other example is Vatican City). The rulers or Emirates, so-called Emirs, as you pointed out are only local monarchs (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-sovereign monarchy) and this quiz is for sovereign states monarchs.
The confusion with the UAE monarchs is that they decided to use the title most associated with a republic. But it's just a title, assumed by a monarch, an elected monarch.
> Monarchy doesn't have to be hereditary by definition. Elective monarchy is a thing. (other example is Vatican City)
Ok, that's totally fair. But I'd argue it's still not the same thing. Once the Vatican sovereign is elected, they hold that position for life (or until they voluntarily choose to relinquish it e.g.: Benedict). But there's no fixed term for the sovereign.
However the term for the UAE Presidency is fixed; at 5 years. Then an election is held and, on paper, someone else is eligible to be voted President.
Again, I'm not arguing that the President isn't de facto a lifetime position, meeting all the requirements of being a monarch. Of course it is. But on paper, it really doesn't feel like one to me.
Otherwise, where would you draw the line between a monarch and just a regular, uh, "non monarch" head of state? If you have a different answer I'm all ears. But if you don't like Emir because it's non-sovereign, then I'm not wild about including the UAE at all.
I could be mistaken, but I think that what's going on here is that the Pope (or Supreme Pontiff) is the head of the Catholic Church, but that office isn't technically the head of the Vatican State. The name for the latter office is indeed the Sovereign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vatican_City#Executive).
In practice, the two positions are held by the same person, but they are different offices, and the names of said offices are different.
I mean, it's definitely a subtle distinction, but yeah.
I 100% agree that de facto the President, as head of state, is a hereditary (monarchic) position. But de jure it's actually an elected position (along with that of Prime Minister). The elections are held every 5 years within the UAE Supreme Council.
The weird part is that the Supreme Council only has 7 members: the leaders of the 7 constituent Emirates, who are Emirs (hence: "Emirates"). An Emir is a hereditary position and so meets the qualifications for being ruler of a monarchy.
In practice, every election has been unanimous, with the Emir of Abu Dhabi being elected President (and the Emir of Dubai being elected Prime Minister). It's tacitly understood that this will be the case, and it would be a huge scandal (with maybe fatal consequences?) if the vote weren't unanimous.
But on paper, an Emir is a monarch and the President is elected.
The confusion with the UAE monarchs is that they decided to use the title most associated with a republic. But it's just a title, assumed by a monarch, an elected monarch.
Ok, that's totally fair. But I'd argue it's still not the same thing. Once the Vatican sovereign is elected, they hold that position for life (or until they voluntarily choose to relinquish it e.g.: Benedict). But there's no fixed term for the sovereign.
However the term for the UAE Presidency is fixed; at 5 years. Then an election is held and, on paper, someone else is eligible to be voted President.
Again, I'm not arguing that the President isn't de facto a lifetime position, meeting all the requirements of being a monarch. Of course it is. But on paper, it really doesn't feel like one to me.
Otherwise, where would you draw the line between a monarch and just a regular, uh, "non monarch" head of state? If you have a different answer I'm all ears. But if you don't like Emir because it's non-sovereign, then I'm not wild about including the UAE at all.
In practice, the two positions are held by the same person, but they are different offices, and the names of said offices are different.
I mean, it's definitely a subtle distinction, but yeah.
Although the quiz setter Lixyx has another quiz titled Historical Monarchical Titles, where that would seem to fit in perfectly.