I think DrWatson was just wondering if it fitted in this category because there are two co-princes and it's therefore a form of diarchy instead of monarchy.
I agree. Since the description explicitly states "technically speaking", Andorra should not be there as it's a diarchy, which can be considered an oligarchy, but for sure not a monarchy, as there is no single head of state.
Certainly does. I think Andorra may be the only remaining dyarchy in the world - not a monarchy. Pedantic I realise, but that's kind of what this website is about :-)
The pope is a separate title from the king of Vatican City, I believe, as, possibly, is the title of Pontifex Maximus. They are just always held by the same person, who is generally referred to by his role as the pope of the Roman Catholic church
see https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/vatican-city-explained
Elective monarchies used to be pretty common. It is basically how tribal Germanic societies worked, and it continued for centuries into the Middle Ages and in some cases the Early Modern Period. Probably the best known elective monarchies in history were the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Never would have guessed Vatican City, but fortunately it is the only European country that comes after the UK alphabetically, so it was implied by the UK being the second to last answer. :-)
Why the word "still", in the title? It's very suggestive, even though I fully recognize that the number of monarchies is less than a few centuries ago.
Fully agreed. As somebody who lives in a constitutional monarchy that was once a republic (the Netherlands), I wouldn't want to switch back if I could. I don't think there's a better system of government than a constitutional monarchy in which the monarch has no political power, but does take care of all the ceremonial parts of the job as head of state. Doesn't make a country any less democratic (because the monarch has no political power), but it does mean that your head of state is politically neutral, and can thus actually represent the entire country, instead of just their own voter base.
the constitution of the vatican city says for the pope of the holy see to be the sovereign of the vatican city, and states that the vatican is an absolute monarchy. nothing about the vatican is theocratic, since the vatican and the holy see are 2 different entities.
Because the most of the monarchs do not have absolute power but instead are head of state/symbols of their country while the actual judicial, legislative, and executive powers are given to another entity such as a democratically elected parliament. These powers are usually outlined in the country's constitution, but the UK and some other countries do not have a single constitution but instead a series of laws that together act as a constitution.
How often have monarchies actually been dictatorships though? The last king of England to have absolute power, as far as I'm aware, was John, up to 1215 when he signed Magna Carta. I don't think anyone seriously says England became a 'technical' monarchy at that point.
England was a pretty big exception. There’s never been a true absolutism, but it’s very clear that most if these countries on this list are not led by their monarch
Jon: from c. 3000 BC - 1688 AD virtually all of them were either absolute dictatorships or at the very least gave executive authority to the monarch. Quite different from having a monarch as figurehead.
Yes, I understand that - I just don't think it stops them from being a monarchy, the etymological meaning of the word notwithstanding. I realise it gives the word rather a circular definition, but it does seem to be the normal understanding of the word today.
form of state: monarchy
see https://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/vatican-city-explained