Talk:Abolition of monarchy

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of Sierra Leone#Early independence (1961–1978)|Sierra Leone]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Did I get "1999" right when writing about the decision not to abolish the monarchy in Australia? What happened in Spain? I know that the monarchy there was restored when Franco died, but when was it abolished? Michael Hardy 23:30 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

The Spanish Republic was set up in 1931.

"Those of Romania, Albania, Italy, and China were abolished in the aftermath of World War II." Err, no, the Chinese Republic was established in 1912, if I recall my history correctly (President Dr Sun Yat Sen)

"That of Ireland was not abolished when Ireland became independent of Britain in the 1920s, but was abolished later [when?]." 1949, despite the country having also had a president since 1938. -- Arwel 23:35 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

There should probably be some mention of The Finnish monarch Väinö I of Finland. If for no other reason than as a curiosity.

Oletteko tyytyväinen? -- Ruhrjung 11:18 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

coup d'etat or revolution

It seems the term coup d'etat doesn't quite do justice to what occured in 1917 in Russia or 1979 in Iran, among others, that toppled centuries old monarchies. Should this distinction be made visible? Amirak 07:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Vietnamese Emperor was restored shortly after the 1945 abdication. He was deposed in 1955. Homagetocatalonia 0:24, 25 August 2005 (GMT)

Charles I

He ran a "modern law-based monarchy" ??? User:Morwen - Talk 10:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Hong Kong because it was not a Commonwealth Realm and did not have its own monarch

Fiji

I dont think Fiji should be included in this section, after 1987 the republic was declared but the monarchy was never declared nor in its true sense considered abolished. The Queen in 1998 was declared to be still the Paramount Chief by the Fiji's Great Council Of Chiefs, which is also why her effigy and standards are still on the national currency, flag and most public property. The President of Fiji who can only be selected from hereditary chiefs making up the Great Council of Chiefs, therefore would have take precedence after her when she is in the country. Fiji is very unusual as a republic in this sense.

It still remains a fact that Fiji is officially and factually a republic. —Nightst a llion (?) 20:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

princely states

the current listing on the princely states, suggesting they were all gone by the time Hyderabad got absorbed in 1950, seems inaccurate to me. Jammu and Kashmir continued to have its Maharaja until at least 1952 (and wasn't fully absorbed until some years after that). The Pakistani princely states generally lasted even longer - Bahawalpur and the Baluchi ones weren't abolished until 1955, the ones in the Northwest Frontier until even later - the 60s or 70s. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem practical to list all of the princely states. Perhaps we should do something like "*most Indian princely states, 1947," and then have separate entries for the ones abolished later. john k 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is also Sikkim which wasn't abolished until about 1970.Eregli bob (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was in 1975 & that it should be listed since it was a protected nation till that time it became an Indian state. I'll add it as such. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor error

The Kingdom of Romania has been abolished on 31th December, 1947 -with the proclamation of the republic, one day after the abdication of the last king. In short the monarchy ended in 1947 and not in 1946. Bbenjoe 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted & corrected. That-Vela-Fella 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why only 20th century?

It seems to me that abolished monarchies of the 19th century, at least, would be well worth mentioning here - France, the Two Sicilies, Hanover, and so forth. john k 15:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been done this way to begin with since it's more recent. If you're willing to do one, then go ahead with the data for that time period.

Although I had noticed those done in the same year may not be put in alphabetical order by nation, but by the date within the year... hard to tell offhand. Might not matter really, since it was that year anyway. That-Vela-Fella 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa

Why have you deleted it from the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.122.126.22 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend the assertion that Samoa was ever a monarchy, never mind before the death of the Malietoa.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a former professor of law, specialising in constitutional law, I'd say Samoa was not, post independence, a monarchy. The fact that there was a transitional arrangement, whereby the first joint heads of state were the paramount chiefs (for life) is not evidence it was a monarchy. It was a republic from its creation. There were peculiar - or particular - cultural aspects, such as only matai voting franchise until 1991, and an interim chiefly head of state. But it was and is undoubtedly a republic Ncox001 (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia

It was not a communist revolution that put an end to the monarchy of Cambodia in 1970, as stated, but the anti-communist Prime Minister Lon Nol, who had the King deposed by the National Assembly on March 18 of that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlugg (talk • contribs) 19:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading Current monarchies that were abolished and then restored, the article lists the Cambodian monarchy twice, in 1975 and 1993. Only the latter restoration is strictly correct; the monarchy was not restored in 1975, although the former King, Norodom Sihanouk, did become nominal head of state at that time. This is how Wikipedia's article on him describes what happened:

When the Khmer Republic fell to the Khmer Rouge in April 1975, Prince Sihanouk became the symbolic head of state of the new régime while Pol Pot remained in power. The next year, on April 4, 1976, the Khmer Rouge forced Sihanouk out of office again and into political retirement.

Richard Lugg (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani States

As mentioned earlier, the Pakistani Frontier States, Dir, Swat, Chitral and Amb, retained their status as one of suzerainty to Pakistan until 1969, when they were formally merged with the Noth West Frontier Province. The titles and priviliges of teh rulers were abolished in 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.187.29 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Japan

Should the Empire of Japan should be included in 1940 section? The empire was defeated in World War II and renamed "Japan" Aquitania (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is a constitutional monarchy with the emperor as the de-facto head of state. Cfagan1987 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind 'de facto', de jure, according to the constitution.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro

It was not a referendum, but a so-called "Gran national assenbly", whose legality is widely disputed that abolished Kingdom of Montenegro. Also, it's highly questionable which flag was used at the time (at least, coat of arms on flag is needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.12.85 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Rwenzururu

The Kingdom of Rwenzururu was restored in Uganda, as a subnational monarchy. The former king, Charles Mumbere, returned after nearly three decades and crowned again. Now he is a king once more, as a cultural symbol with not actual political power. Since the Goverment of Uganda recognises him as the king, I say the Kingdom of Rwenzururu should be included in the list of restored monarchies. I think I'll try to do it myself, if there are no objections, and nobody else does it. Thank you. Bbenjoe (talk) 14:39, November 17 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.50.225 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21st century

I removed the following statement from the lead:

The twenty-first century has already seen several monarchies abolished, usually by peaceful means in a referendum.

First of all, only two monarchies have been abolished in the 21st century so far -- Samoa and Nepal -- not "several". The status of Samoa as a monarchy vs. a republic is complex and I wouldn't be able to explain it myself, but the cause of Samoa's de facto abolishing its monarchy (to the extent it had one previously) was due to the death of its king (the O le Ao o le Malo), not to a referendum. Nepal, on the other hand, definitely had a monarchy until they abolished it, but it was the Nepalese Constituent Assembly that abolished the monarchy with no referendum involved. So zero monarchies have been abolished by a referendum in the 21st century so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India

Why is India on this list in 1947? When it became an independent Commonwealth realm, it kept the same monarch it had previously. India did abolish its monarchy in 1950 and the listing for India in that year is appropriate, but I don't see how Indian independence in 1947 had constituted the abolition of a monarchy before that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically; British India 1858-1947 was just a British territory.(the title 'Emperor of India' was really just a part of the British Royal Style) But you are correct in saying India 1947-1950 was an independent, sovereign monarchy (the Dominion of India) and thus the monarchy of India should be regarded as abolished from 1950. But India before 1947 wasn't a monarchy any more than the Falkland Islands or Anguilla are today. The status it held then was similar to; but not exactly the same, as a Crown Colony, and colonies aren't independent states by definition (being merely dependent territories of a colonial power) and as such don't have monarchs.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, India definitely should not be on the list for 1947; if it wasn't a monarchy of its own before then, it couldn't have had the monarchy abolished in that year. It should only be on the list for 1950. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agreed :)

A reply for that is that the level of independence Bavaria had is same as that of Hyderabad. Either chop off all the German states and just keep Wilhelm of Germany or add the complete list of 700 Indian states. The concept here is they are in a sort of subsidary alliance with Britain which controls their foreign policy and everyhing else is managed by the state itself.

The difference being that the German Empire 1871-1918 was a sovereign state. The British territory in India before 1947 was not. My point being that there wasn't a separate 'Indian monarchy' before 1947, just from 1947-1950.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentic issue

Abolition of monarchy#20th century to present focus on Europe instead of the world; see unreliable sources [1] and [2] for a focus on the world. —User 0 0 0 name 03:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samoa (again)

I would dispute the claim that Samoa was ever a monarchy, never mind before 2006. The fact that the first two holders (and those since) have been traditional hereditary chiefs is of little consequence: the Constitution does not require the Head of State to hold any of these chiefly offices, it is just convention that they have been up until now (and there is no reason a non-chief could not be elected, according to the Samoan constitution. For these reasons, I think Samoa should be removed.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antitennoism - against the Tenno (Tenno means: Emperor of Japan)

Shouldn't the Netherlands also be on the list of restored monarchies as the Dutch Republic is literally mentioned as a significant abolition of monarchy? The Stadthouderschap was an elective monarchy, yes, but it wasn't national and it was only provisional in places for when the actual monarchs (counts, lords, dukes, Etc.) could be restored, so it was closer to that of a regency than a monarchy, which meant that the Oranges weren't monarchs, especially since their positions were often vacant. In fact, the Dutch Republic was a republic for centuries before it became a monarchy again. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti Kingdom

The article also includes an example of the Ashanti Kingdom being abolished, but it became a British protectorate and it remains a monarchy within the Republic of Ghana. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the British monarchy were abolished, would the other 14 continue?

Concerning the realms with Elizabeth II as monarch, within the Commonwealth of Nations. One wonders, if the British monarchy were abolished? would that bring about the immediate end of the other 14 monarchies-in-question? Or, do each of them continue to exist. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only United Kingdom that dosen't have an actual written constitution. The other 14 countries have each their own costitution, that defines the role of the monarchy, and the line of succession is the same in all 15 countries. I suspect, in the highly unlikely event that the monarchy was suspended in Great Britain before any suspension had taken place in any of the other countries, that the rightfull monarch could settle in that of the 14 countries that would be most interested in housing the royal family? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering, as maybe it could be clarified on this page. As for where would the 'royal family' move to? Your guess, is as good as mine ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat doubtfull, that a hypothetical question of this sort would fit a description within the content of this article? Personaly I find it of little interest to point out, how various independent nations would react in a situation like this. I would find it much more interresting if someone could point out, what would be the probable effect on the relation between Great Britain and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (the Bailiwick of Jersey & the Bailiwick of Guernsey), if Great Britain abolished the monarchy? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is appropriate to include this discussion as it is speculative. The page is actually about cases were monarchies have ben abolished - and for that reason I think the section "Australia (monarchy kept after referendum)" should actually be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of Kingdom of Kurdistan (1922-1924).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial phrasing

There is some discrepancy in how some monarchy abolitions are presented in the summary table that may reflect political biases.

Under Nepal, it say "Decision of the parliament and without consent of the people of Nepal, as a referendum was never held." whereas under Barbados it says "Abolished its monarchy through a decision by the country's politicians without a referendum being held.". In both cases, a body of elected politicians made the decision without a specific referendum on the question of monarchy, but the phrasing in Nepal's case implies that it was carried out in a less democratic way than in the case of Barbados. 2A00:23C7:BB35:201:35BF:177F:AE79:A773 (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]