Talk:List of current monarchs of sovereign states

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of current monarchs of sovereign states is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on January 14, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 26, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
February 18, 2011Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

New version[edit]

Any opposition to, or comments on, the new version? The diff is here. The "subnational monarchs" have been moved to a separate list. Nightw 05:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs[edit]

Add missing Cook Islands and Niue. Greetings.Cêsar (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no separate crown for these. Nightw 09:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link should changed to be to the Realm of New Zealand, because currently it links only to New Zealand and the RNZ crown relationship is equal for the three - NZ, CI, Niue. Alinor (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMOM[edit]

Is SMOM some kind of elective monarchy (like the Holy See)? (see also here). Alinor (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some sources listing it as one, then we can add it in prose at the end of the list. Nightw 07:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFL-related review[edit]

The list was recently pulled from a TFL spot pending further review. I have done at least some reviewing (of the sources avaliable online) and have come up with several concerns. Only one is for close paraphrasing (what was intended to be checked), but I've run into a few reliable sources concerns that escaped scrutiny from us reviewers during the FLC process. When checking them more thoroughly, the problems become apparent.

  • The one close parahrasing instance I found in the lead was at the end of the second paragraph. Article: "while the European practice of using distinguishing Roman numerals for rulers has been applied below where typical, in most cases these are not actually used according to local custom." Ref 9: "Although it is common to see the use of distinguishing Roman numerals for rulers, these are not actually used according to local practice." Most of that is basically word-for-word, and it concerns me. Note that the review I conducted was not all-encompassing; it excludes the book sources and the notes (I'll try to review the notes at a later time).
  • While reviewing, I noticed that Royalark.net (used in refs 9, 22, 28, 30, 31, 43, 46, 55, 56, 60, 66, 70, and 91) looked like somebody's personal webpage. I'm no expert on the topic, but the site didn't seem that reliable to me. I looked around and was able to find Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103, which has a discussion that indicates negative feelings about the site. The fact that such a regularly used source is questionable is troubling, to say the least. If we shouldn't use the source in a BLP, as the consensus says, why should we use it for anything else instead of something better?
  • The discussion above also says the Genealogical Gleanings site (refs 29 and 98) isn't reliable.
  • Ref 8 is somebody's personal coin site and not reliable at all.
  • Ref 12 (Catholic-Pages.com) is another personal website. Can we really find nothing more reliable about the papal election process? That seems like it would be one of the easiest things on this page to cite.

Considering that almost 20 refs are of questionable reliability, I think they need to be sorted out, in addition to the close paraphrasing instance, before this will be worthy of a spot on the main page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed the sentence up and I'm in the process of replacing the references. I'll give you a buzz on your talk page when I'm done. Thanks for doing the review. Nightw 14:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be all okay now. Nightw 15:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checked the changes and they all look good. The only other thing I want to do is spot-check some of the notes. Tomorrow's looking busy for me again, but I should have some free time on Monday to get this done. Thanks for your hard work to this point. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked some of the sources for the notes today and there were no close paraphrasing concerns. I did spot a couple other minor issues, though. First, ref 61 doesn't give the date of the first part of Prince Albert II's ceremony. It gives the month (July), but not the date. It would be good to find another source confirming that. Second, when I clicked on ref 80 it redirected me to the front page of The Times' site. May need a replacement for that link. Everything else looked okay to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a citation that confirms the date of the first part of Prince Albert II's ceremony. I have also fixed the link rot on the King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud reference. Neelix (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Neelix. Nightw 02:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no consensus to do so Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


List of current sovereign monarchs → List of current sovereign monarchies – Per the first sentence of the article A monarch is the person who heads a monarchy This is not a list of such people, or it would only have 30 entries. In enumerating a list of anything, one instance of the listed entity should not appear multiple times.

The default sorting of the countries in the list, and the placing of countries in the first column, make this clearly presented as a list of countries that fit a particular criterion. This has been slightly obscured by the recent splitting of the coregents of Andorra, which should be undone if this proposal receives support. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Kevin McE (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support proposal as made (i.e. on the condition that Andorra is re-merged if this is moved). As Kev has implied elsewhere, a list of current sovereign monarchs should technically only list Elizabeth II once. Moving the page strikes me as being preferable to attempting to do that. —WFC— 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We already have a list of monarchies. This has been a list of monarchs in its current format (by country) since its creation in 2007 as "List of current monarchs by country". It was promoted at FLC under that format. The purpose of the article is to list monarchs, not monarchies—the prose indisputably describes the type of office, not the form of government. There are countless incoming links from lists of office holders which would thereafter have no relevance (since the written content would have to be scrapped).
  • If there's a proposal to change the format in which it is presented ("sorting", "placement", etc—these are all presentation issues, not content ones) then that would be a more worthwhile proposal. But to suddenly switch the purpose of the list on the sole basis of formatting issues is tantamount to proposing deletion of featured content, overriding the original authors' valid (and obviously quality) work and starting all over again. Improve the lists that we already have, don't scrap it just because there's an issue with the format in which it's presented. Nightw 02:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But listing one person 16 times in a list of people is a matter of content, not of presentation. Kevin McE (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, instead of trying to address possible ways to fix this issue, you instead propose to change the title of the article regardless of all other content (thereby creating a whole bunch of new issues). Are you thinking straight? Nightw 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than seeking to be insulting, could you address the matter at hand. You claimed that it is not a matter of content: I presented one specific area in which it is. If it were not for the multiple realms under one succession, the question of distinguishing between a list of monarchs and a list of monarchies would not be an issue. It is precisely because of one monarch heading multiple monarchies that the situation arises. You implied yesterday that you would rather not see the multiple listing of ERII reduced to one: this seems to me the logical consequence of retaining that. So please discuss why you think that would not be suitable, rather than being condescending and insulting. I have not suggested scrapping anything, merely changing the title to something that more accurately describes the list itself. Changing the title does address the issue: there is no inconsistency in listing a person many times in a list of countries. The preamble should set context for what the list actually is, not for what it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I found your overall attitude to this to be condescending and insulting. I felt that we began, on ERRORS, to collaborate over what you felt was an issue—we began a discussion and despite you labelling my words as "nonsense" and others' reasoning as "incoherent", I took your arguments at face value and tried to address them, resulting in several changes. You then discontinue our discussion and lodge a move request to change the subject of the (featured) list completely. I don't know how you were expecting me to respond. Knowing that you frequently deal with main-page content and having been involved in several discussions together before, I can only assume you've either lost your marbles or forgotten how to collaborate. As I said, changing the purpose of the list will render about 95% of the content irrelevant or undue (and duplicate another list), so once you've closed this, I'll be happy to "discuss the issue" again, providing that this time you'll stop talking at me. Nightw 14:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not addressed the issue, nor demonstrated why the list is describable as a list of monarchs (defined by the article as the person who heads a monarchy) when the list is not a list of people. As to my comments, rationalisation of a change that militates against one of the stated reasons for that change is a purpose that is not expressed clearly or logically; difficult to understand and follow (my dictionaries definition for incoherent) and it was demonstrably (and demonstrated to be) nonsense to say that the only alternative was as you described. In what way is that "not thinking straight"? Kevin McE (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Night w. The body of the article describes monarchs not monarchies, and the table looks like it does too. Rennell435 (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The answer is in the first words of the article which defines "monarch". It is true that the first column of the table is "country", but the object is to list the current monarch. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But in that case, one person should not be listed 16 times. The preamble can always be rewritten to better describe the list. It is the nature of the list, not of the introduction, that defines the article. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Night w as well because monarch is clearly defined at the beginning of the article. I don't agree that just because a monarch is listed more than once that means the page needs to be moved, this is enrelated. Keep the page where it is. Outback the koala (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Co-prince does not appear to be a personal title[edit]

Copying a previous conversation from the archive of NightW's talk page and mine: Initial response was in response to this edit. Posted here now as the assumption that it is a personal title was reposted today


Can you add a reference to [1] please? I don't really doubt it but FL standards and all... Nightw 12:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how does one source an absence of something? The issue is that nowhere in the sites of the Andorran government, nor that of the national paper or the national broadcaster is it ever used as a personal title: you will not find Co-Prince Nicolas or Co-Prince Joan anywhere [unless preceded by "el", which renders it as an adjective rather than a title (a clarification I omitted in February)]. I would have to turn the question around, and ask for the sources for using those phrases. The position holders are referred to consistently as the french co-prince (Catalan does not capitalise nationality indicators) and the episcopal co-prince. Kevin McE (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get about 3000+ hits on Google for "Copríncep Nicolas Sarkozy", including about 7 from govern.ad. Plus about 12,000 and 6 for "Copríncep Joan-Enric Vives". In most cases though it seems to be preceded by "el" or some other conjunctive (like here). In other cases it seems to be written as a straight up title (like here). I know it's not much but with the claim being so adamant it's enough to make me slightly inquisitive. Especially given the current (though contentious) verifiability, not truth policy. The style of Sarkozy's office (according to his rep office's website) seems to be His Excellency, the French Co-Prince (Catalan: S.E. el Copríncep francès), which does make it less personal. Nightw 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those google searches don't exclude a very high proportion of instances in which the phrase is broken up by a comma, and do include such examples totally devoid of grammar, sentence construction and understanding of another language as "President Bishop of Urgel Coprince Nicolas Sarkozy Coprince Joan E.V. Sicilia". The evidence that Co-Prince Nicolas Sarkozy (the name given in the article before my edit) with that pattern of capitalisation) is correct is very scant. I didn't see it so much as an "adamant claim" as a sensible explanation as to why a pair of entries was so clearly different from the others in this regard. Kevin McE (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Thanks for the responses. Nightw 04:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal standards v. national coats of arms[edit]

In reply to the following edit summary:

Excuse me? You clearly know nothing about heraldry then. National arms of any monarchy are Arms of Dominion and are thus the monarch's arms at the same time... [2]

...At the same time, they are also everyone else's. While a heads of state may be the armiger of a coat, it also (in most cases) represents the nation, government institutions, and in some cases the military. They rarely, if ever, represent the head of state exclusively. It does not make much sense to me to display national coats of arms in this list; it is not something that I would expect to see as a reader. Is there any other reason for not displaying standards beyond "not all the monarchs have standards, but they all have arms" (because we can't display all the arms either)? Nightw 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true, but the only reason we can't display all the arms is because there aren't enough suitable images (as in: there aren't enough images that have the right licensing so they can be displayed); not because any of the monarchs are not armigerous. By contrast; not all of the monarchs have Royal Standards. Personally; I'm happy to go with whatever consensus is reached on here. If the standards are to return; I'm not too fussed either way; although I would query the inclusion of the arms of Pope Benedict XVI (although as can be seen on the page on Arms of Dominion, the Popes are an exception as regards this-their personal arms are theirs and not also the arms of Vatican City.)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we definitely want the list to remain about the monarchs, rather than their domains. Nightw 03:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, would you support a re-formatting such that it is presented as a list of monarchs, with their domains as a subsidiary column, rather than a table defined by domains? Kevin McE (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A true list of monarchs[edit]

I have made a version of the table, currently in my sandbox, which is more genuinely a list of monarchs. It does not repeat any monarch 16 times, which is the key difference between a list of monarchs and a list of monarchies.

Changes required by reconfiguring:

  • place name of monarch as first column
  • loss of sortability,
  • re-ordering (I have placed the "odd case", UK and Commonwealth Realm at the top, and the rest alphabetically by realm)
  • removal of the list of Australian/Canadian/New Zealand monarchs, but these were only ever subsets of list of British Monarchs, which remains in place.
  • transfer of links to Monarch of Foo, where Foo is a Commonwealth realm, to another column.
  • changes to the explanations of the table, in prose and table.

Other changes made:

  • distinguish between states and realms: more appropriate for UK and New Zealand.
  • link the two houses that are both part of Saxe-Coburg Gotha in the same footnote.


I believe this is far more what the article calls for, and that slight loss of utility is justified by the concept of presenting a true list of monarchs. There is coding still in place which is redundant in an unsortable table, but it does not affect the reader, and frankly, I've spent enough time toying with it for tonight. Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-No; it would not be accurate at all because the list at present does not 'repeat the same monarch sixteen times'-the positions that the Queen of the UK holds as regards each of the commonwealth realms is completely constitutionally separate from each other -it's just that the Queen in a personal union-but personal unions are nothing unusual; and in fact were more common in the past (the most recent case outside the commonwealth being the King of Denmark being simultaneously King of Iceland until 1944.) It's no different to the President of France being at the same time Co-Prince of Andorra (albeit the President of France is not a monarch whereas the Co-Princes of Andorra are)-the monarchs of each of the commonwealth realms(who just happen-through the 1701 Act of Settlement-to be the same person.) are separate legal persons from each other (due to the 1931 Act of Westminster and the re-patriation of their respective constitutions and the various Royal Titles Acts); and as such are treated separately. The Queen of Australia; for example, is a different monarch from the Queen of the United Kingdom; but the actual; physical person who holds both offices is the same person (a difficult legal distiction to make; but there is one nonetheless). Treaties for example on behalf of Australia are worded in right of 'the Queen of Australia', as are declarations of war, and the Australian Constitution gives the Queen of Australia different powers to ones the Queen of the United Kingdom is given in the (unwritten; I hasten to add) British Constitution; and so on. In the hypothetical situation that; say, Greenland were given complete independence from Denmark and the Greenlanders decided to keep the Danish Queen as their Queen (likely in my opinion should Greenland become independent); then a hypothetical (assuming she held that title in right of Greenland)'Margarethe II, Queen of Greenland' would also be listed.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely different from the co-regency in Andorra, and I can't believe that you consider them to be the same. You are evidently aware of the difference between co-regency and personal union, and trying to draw a parallel between the two is patronising.
A personal union is defined as "the combination by which two or more different states have the same monarch ..." (not the combination by which the monarchs of two different states are one person, which would define in favour of your argument). A monarch is defined as a person: a personal union involves multiple monarchies, but one person.
To state that "The Queen of Australia; for example, is a different monarch from the Queen of the United Kingdom" is wrong. You could of course say "The Queen of Australia; for example, is a different role/position from the Queen of the United Kingdom", and that would be met with full agreement, but we are discussing monarchs, and therefore people.
If the personal union becomes untenable, then the monarchies remain (if each country chooses for them to), but the union would be dissolved: one or other country would need to appoint a new monarch. Equally, in your hypothetical Danish scenario, Margarethe would become a monarch over two realms, and the post holder in two monarchies, but would not become two people, so would not become two monarchs.
Of course Australia has the liberty to grant whatever powers it will to the holder of that country's monarchy: it is a sovereign state. That impinges in no way at all on the issue at hand.
There are currently 31 monarchs reigning over 45 extant sovereign monarchies in the world; the disconnect in numbers between monarchs and countries is explained by the fact that the sixteen Commonwealth realms ... are separate realms of one Sovereign in personal union; and one other monarchy, Andorra, ...
Of course, if you provide reliable sources that explicitly state that EIIR is 16 monarchs, or defining personal union in a form akin to the bracketed, italicised version above, I will withdraw, but until then, I believe that you have failed to distinguish between monarchies and monarchs as defined in WP:Reliable Sources. Kevin McE (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin. Sorry, I didn't see this before. When we had the FLC discussion, sortability was asked for by several participants and I do agree that it is useful (I use it often myself and I can definitely see how it would be useful to readers). As long as combining different sets of rows renders that useless, then my vote would be to keep them separated. But if, hypothetically, it were possible to combine certain rows... I have no problems with combining the name and even probably the house and succession rows, as they're justifiable (the person is the same and the succession should be the same). But while they're certainly in a personal union, they're not in a constitutional union; the offices are separate, so combining the title and type is a bit confusing. I don't really have any concerns with shifting the monarch column to the leftmost, as long as the items are still sorted by the realm column, as I think that's the easiest setting for readers to find the row they're looking for. Nightw 19:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utility is nice, but secondary to fulfilling purpose. The purpose is to be a list of monarchs: if we can't have ideal functionality because of the nature of the subject matter, so be it.
I'm fully aware that it is not a constitutional union, that is why each relevant constitution/monarchy is linked. It is in the current version of the list that title and type are confused, not mine (for Commonwealth realm, at least.) Kevin McE (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this were indeed a list of people, rather than offices, I would agree with you. But it's not. For the purposes of this list it doesn't matter that certain offices happen to be shared by the same person. Is there also a problem with listing certain people several times on List of current heads of state and government, a well-trafficked list that has existed in the same format for many years? Nightw 02:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And so we return to the crux of the issue: is this a list of monarchs or of monarchies? If it is a list of offices, it is a list of monarchies, and you should have supported the page move. The article defines a monarch as a person, so it is (or at least should be) a list of people. I cannot see any logical consistency in rejecting the new table and retaining the current description. Kevin McE (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No... an office is not a country. The fact that some offices are shared by the same person should not make a difference to how we format our lists. I'll ask again: is there also a problem with how we present all our other lists of heads of state, lists of presidents, etc. Nightw 20:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a list of offices, that would be the case, but this claims to be a list of monarchs, not of monarchical offices. Your position is inconsistent and illogical. Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the objections have cited sources or wikipedia policies, nor have they had a response to my responses, so applying suggested change. Kevin McE (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have you, and there are firm objections to your proposal. Reverting back to version as it was reviewed by the community. Nightw 20:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited a Reliable source that states that there are 31 Monarchs: where is your source stating that there are 45? Wiki relies on Reliable sources, not self-contradicting definitions. Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 30 names on this list, so I'm not sure who the 31st in their list is. Perhaps Leka II, their patron? There are quite clearly 45 monarchical offices. WP:CALC. Nightw 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine: if that is your contention, move it to list of monarchical offices and their current incumbents: that is not the same as a list of monarchs. If not, you are being inconsistent and illogical. If you bothered to read that source, it was clearly written before the declaration of a republic in Nepal. I have provided a source saying there are more monarchies than monarchs: you have not provided a source saying that there are more monarchs than monarchies, and yet that is what this list claims. Errors elsewhere in Wikipedia do not justify them here. Kevin McE (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they do. The fact that the method which you've perceived as an error is used all over Wikipedia means that it has been clearly established as a customary convention. If you had bothered to read that essay you've linked to, you'll note that it's about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; not about citing conventions as persuasive precedents. Nightw 20:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list is apparently going to be on the Main Page on Monday. Why don't we wait for others to comment here before deciding on anything? Nightw 20:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you want a list of countries to be presented as a list of monarchs? And the territories over which they reign to be misrepresented? Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And are you in favour of combining the Windsor and Belgium footnotes or not? Your edit was inconclusive. Kevin McE (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one to be confused by this so far. In the many years of Wikipedia listing heads of states by country, there has not been any confusion on the many, many lists that do so. Were it so evidently erroneous as you say, a reader would have pointed it out somewhere by now. As I said above, I have no objection to shifting the monarch column to the leftmost as you suggest. I will not support removing the sort ability. Nightw 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Nightw 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anomiebot was clearly confused by it: I doubt anyone else saw the confusion. Kevin McE (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you still want to misrepresent the territories? Kevin McE (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's my 10 cents:

I agree with Night w. Perhaps the title of the article is a misnomer; as far as international relations and sovereignty are concerned; the fact that each of the commonwealth realms has a monarch who is the same person is wholly irrelevant. The Queen of the United Kingdom can quite legally go to war or conclude a treaty with the Queen of Canada; just like she can with the Queen of Denmark (and in legal terms btw; they do, declarations of war and treaties as regards monarchies are carried out in the name of the monarch)-and before you say 'they can't go to war with each other'; yes they can. The King of India and the King of Pakistan (both of whom were the same person, George VI) were at war with each other during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan War. Likewise, during the 1983 Invasion of Grenada; the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda, the Queen of Barbados, Sthe Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of St. Lucia and the Queen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines wwere simultaneously at war with the Queen of Grenada; and at the same time Elizabeth II was condemning the invasion of Grenada in her roles as Queen of the United Kingdom and Queen of Canada. What you are missing is the fact that; although the physical person sitting on the different thrones of the commonwealth realms is the same person; legally they are different legal persons and separate sovereigns who are fully capable of entering into diplomatic relations with each other as they would be were they not in a personal union.

Here is the text of the Contonou Agreement;

http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community_organs/epa_unit/Cotonou_Agreement_&_Lome4_agr05.pdf

-in which, amongst others (including various other monarchs), the parties involved are 'Her Majesty the Queen of Tuvalu'; 'Her Majesty the Queen of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea', 'Her Majesty the Queen of St. Lucia', 'Her Majesty the Queen of St. Kitts and Nevis', 'Her Majesty the Queen of Grenada', 'Her Majesty the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda', and 'Her Majesty the Queen of Belize'; all of whom are separately mentioned, and are the same person. But; they are all clearly different legal persons; because, if they weren't, they wouldn't be able to enter into a legal agreement with each other.

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/procedures/legislation/legal_bases/documents/accord_cotonou_revise_2010_en.pdf -Here is the 2010 revision of the Conotou Agreement. The Conotou Agreement is an agreement between the European Union and the the Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP), originally signed in 2005. The United Kingdom is a member of the E.U., and various members of the ACP are commonwealth realms.

Not only is ' Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' mentioned as one of the agreeing parties (in respect to the European Union, of which the UK is a member), in respect to the ACP; the Queens of Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia (as well as )are all mentioned separately as agreeing parties. The concept of 'legal person' is a legal fiction; but it is a concept that exists nonetheless. The Queen is separately 16 legal people by virtue of the separate 16 offices (and titles) she holds; and as such is perfectly capable of declaring war on herself, concluding a peace treaty with herself, entering into a treaty with herself, and ceding the territory of one of her realms to another, in right of any of the realms she is (separately) Queen of, and with the hypothetical situation as regards Denmark and Greenland; the same would be true there for Margarethe II. (It certainly was true for her grandfather Christian X when Denmark and Iceland were in a personal union and he was King of Iceland and King of Denmark at the same time.)

Do you want me to pull out the text of any other treaties to illustrate my point?

""You are evidently aware of the difference between co-regency and personal union, and trying to draw a parallel between the two is patronising." -Yeees; but the person who is President of the French Republic is simultaneously one of the Co-Princes of Andorra; right? I wasn't comparing a co-regency to a personal union; I was pointing out the fact that one of Andorra's Co-Princes is also Head of State of France. Please don't tell me I'm being 'patronising' when you've totally missed the point of what I'm trying to say.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh; and as regards the House of Windsor and the House of Belgium; although they both patrilineally descend from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the 1917 Orders-in-Council which created the House of Windsor removed the designation of 'Duke/Duchess of Saxony' and 'Prince/Princess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' from the members of the British Royal Family, as well as removing the inescutcheon of Saxony the various members bore in their arms See here (text of the original Order-In-Council):

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/prince_highness.htm#German_titles_1917

Furthermore; HM the Queen declared in 1952 that her children (who; according to the 1917 Order-In-Council, were not members of the House of Windsor, because they were not descended from Queen Victoria in the direct male line) as well as herself would be 'known as the House and Family of Windsor':

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#Apr_9_1952


Thus, (as direct-male line descendants still exist of George V's who are members of the House of Windsor-namely, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and their respective families) it would be incorrect to describe the House of Windsor as being 'part of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha' (because legally; it isn't) or 'descended agnatically from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha', because the part of the House of Windsor that descends from HM the Queen do not descend in the male line from that House; they descend agnatically from the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg branch of the House of Oldenburg.


The Belgian Royal Family; whilst likewise removing the Saxon inescutcheon borne on their arms, did not legally renounce House membership of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; simply (and quitely) changing the name to 'de Belgique' in 1921.

Furthermore; the 1917 House Law of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha specifically excluded anyone who are members of the ducal house who are nationals of a foreign state lose their right of succession for themselves and their issue when their home country wages war against the German Empire". (which applies to both the Belgian and British branches of the family)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGSachsen-CG.htm#1917

Of course; until the decease of the present Queen of the UK; there is still an agnatic descendant of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the British (and other) throne. Same goes for the King of the Belgians, but I don't know whether combining the footnotes is the right thing to do.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a monarch is a legal personage, not a person: the entire lead needs rewriting, and that should happen within the next 5 1/2 hours before this inconsistent and illogical article is featured on the main page.
And still no willingness to sort out the misrepresentation of territories? Kevin McE (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Removing the reference to people in the opening should fix that. I'm not sure what you mean by misrepresenting the territories. Could you clarify please? Nightw 20:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same issue that I explained at the top of this thread, and included in my monarch centred list of monarchs which you have rejected. I'm disappointed that you haven't paid enough attention to follow it.
The territory under the Queen of the United Kingdom is not restricted to the state of the United Kingdom (but includes Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories), and the territory headed by the Queen of New Zealand is not restricted to the state of New Zealand (as it also includes the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency ). The error in the current text could be resolved, as in the rejected table, by changing the column header from State to Realm. Kevin McE (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do apologise for making you elaborate, that must have been awfully difficult for you. I've done the change. Nightw 23:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why in God's name the Emperor of Japan was removed from this list is beyond me, . . . ."[edit]

The answer is very simple. The Emperor of Japan was removed from this list of sovereign monarchs because, well, he is not a sovereign monarch. Under the current Constitution of Japan, "sovereign power resides with the people" (Preamble); the Emperor is a symbol of the State "deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power (Article 1). In his treatise on the Constitution of Japan, Professor Matsui describes this as the "first fundamental principle of the Japanese Constitution" and writes that "it is abundantly clear that it is the people who have sovereign power in Japan."[1]

This is important both for accuracy of this page and to maintain historical clarity for anyone studying about Japan. The historical contrast is with the Meiji Constitution, which specifically established Imperial sovereignty in Article 4, and this issue was at the heart of the back-and-forth between the Allied Occupation and Japanese leaders during the process leading up to the enactment of the 1947 Constitution.[2] It is also central to current politics of constitutional reform in Japan, though even the proposed LDP draft would retain popular sovereignty.[3] If more radical revisionists accomplish constitutional revision so as to restore imperial sovereignty, then the Emperor of Japan should be added to this list. But until then, in anyone's name, the Emperor of Japan should not be included here.

AprilInParis (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other monarchs on the list are not the possessors of national sovereignty vis-á-vis the people either (see the first amendment of the Constitution of Luxembourg, for example). As much as I understand 'sovereign monarch' in this context means monarch of a sovereign nation, therefore its opposite is a non-independent (sub-national) monarch (e.g. the nine Malay monarchs), not the monarch of a country where sovereignty resides with the people. ZBukov (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZBukov writes: "monarchy and popular sovereignty aren't mutually exclusive, sovereign monarch means monarch of a sovereign country, not monarch possessing the sovereignty instead of the people". That explanation seems linguistically incongruous. I would think a 'sovereign monarch' means more obviously a monarch who is empowered with a nation's sovereignty, end of story.

In any case, that explanation is also inconsistent with the definition currently at the top of the article: "A monarch is the head of a monarchy, a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled by an individual who normally rules for life or until abdication.... Monarchs may be autocrats ... or may be ceremonial figureheads who exercise only reserve power, with actual authority vested in a parliament or other governing bodies...." So the article's definition posits that monarchs listed plainly rule, while the Emperor of Japan does not rule over any polity and does not exercise even "reserve power." Art. 4 of the Constitution of Japan makes this point entirely clear: "The Emperor ... shall not have powers related to government." He might be called an emperor and have great pomp and circumstances surrounding him, but he doesn't fit into the list here. AprilInParis (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I concur with ZBukov that it is often the case that monarchs are not "sovereign", I do not think that the problem here is in your interpretation as much as it is in the title of this article; "sovereign monarch" is ambiguous. Either it is redundant or it refers to what ZBukov described: a monarch who reigns over a "sovereign" nation or people, rather than a monarch who exercises, de jure or de facto, sovereign power. There are historically many examples of monarchs who ranked or were styled as "sovereign", but whose authority was subordinate, for instance the kings (of, e.g., Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony and Wurttemberg), who reigned under the German Emperor until 1918. There are still those who are ranked and titled as kings whose authority is cultural rather than territorial (e.g. Kingdom of Buganda, Kingdom of the Zulus, the Queendom of the Rain, Kingdom of the Maori, etc). The King of Sweden is another example of a monarch who no longer has any constitutional authority, but remains, like the Emperor of Japan, the nation's Head of State in a crowned republic. Indeed, one could argue that is de facto and to some extent de jure the case for all of Europe's current monarchs except possibly those of Liechtenstein and Monaco. What all monarchs share, including Japan's, is that they reign: whether absolutely or consitutionally, independently or dependently, culturally or politically, a monarch is the highest-ranking person in the realm and his/her position has a hereditary component (either a fixed order of succession or a dynasty from which the monarch must be selected). Perhaps this article should be re-named? FactStraight (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AprilInParis, if you think that the Emperor of Japan is the one monarch who should not feature on this list, then please explain how the first amendment of the Constitution of Luxembourg would be different (it says: "National sovereignty was transferred from the monarch to the nation"). And please also explain the following sentence from the Government of Sweden article: "the Swedish Monarch is no longer vested any formal executive powers at all with respect to the governance of the Realm". And please give your opinion on who is the head of state of Japan, which - according to the Wikipedia article at least - is a constitutional monarchy. ZBukov (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Shigenori Matsui, The Constitution of Japan: A Contextual Analysis, Hart Publishing, 2011, p. 29, emphasis added.
  2. ^ Shoichi Koseki, The Birth of Japan's Postwar Constitution, Westview Press 1997, (Moore trans.).
  3. ^ In Japanese, here: https://www.jimin.jp/activity/colum/116667.html; translation available here: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Lawrence-Repeta/3969.

United Arab Emirates a monarchy?[edit]

Could someone please explain to me how the President of the United Arab Emirates could be a monarch? I know that the rulers of the individual emirates are monarchs, but the title of Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan related to the country as a whole is 'president' (while being Emir of Dubai). I would think that if the founders of the UAE would have wanted to establish a federal monarchy (like the one in Malaysia) than they would have granted the federal head of state a monarchical title, which 'president' clearly isn't. The fact that Khalifa is the son of the previous president does not make it a monarchy, because this is also the case in Syria, Togo, Gabon, North Korea and the Democratic Republic of Congo and those and undoubtedly republics. And President François Hollande is not a relevant parallel either, because his title related to Andorra is Co-Prince. So do you guys have any ideas as to why the President of the UAE would be a monarch? ZBukov (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea[edit]

Why North Korea not include ? --Erik Fastman (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea is officially a republic. If we add the DPRK, we have to add Syria, Cuba, Togo, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as those republican heads of state inherited their positions from their fathers or brothers. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HH Ankit, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

Hey guys, I believe some of you are simply deleting this entry on the list based on misinformation spread by sources that were previously considered reliable but have turned out to be nationalist propaganda and pr campaigns in relation to Jammu and Kashmir. There have been numerous recent breakthroughs on information the long time war torn state. The fact is now that Ankit is now the sovereign Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Let me address the concerns of the editors who have been deleting information, without reading the sources, especially the recent legal judgments. So first to address the concerns of editor Jwkozak91. Jammu and Kashmir is now on that List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia, you had mentioned. That list was not complete when you shared it. You mentioned the United Nations too, so here is a source to an article from last week in the National Herald that states the United Nations listed Jammu and Kashmir as an independent state. Further it is important to read the sources that lead up to this UN listing this month, such as this recent judgements by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 2015, "In a landmark ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has said that the sovereignty of the state remains “legally and constitutionally” intact and cannot be challenged, altered or abridged." This source of the court judgment should have been enough init self to appreciate the Jammu and Kashmir is indeed sovereign, and if it had a monarch should be included on this "List of current sovereign monarchs." Which in fact it does. As the court ruling goes on to declare, "The sovereignty of the State of J&K under the rule of Maharaja, even after signing of Instrument of Accession and in view of framing of its own Constitution, thus ‘legally and constitutionally remained intact and untampered." Thus the sovereignty of the state is attached to the monarch. Now the editor Kevin McE stated "A claim of Sovreingty that is not recognised by anyone other than the claimant is not relevant for the purposes of such a list" (sic) However this is an opinion and an incorrect one for that matter. As the claimant has indeed been recognized by numerous media publications and sources internationally, nationally and locally from where the claim originates. Including this article लंदन का मेयर बनने की दौड़ में डोगरा महाराज (Dogra Maharaja in race for Mayor of London) in the Dainik Jagran, the largest read newspaper in India, and named as the most credible newspaper source in India in a survey commissioned by BBC-Reuters. They story has also been in the Huffington Post India, in the financial City A.M. newspaper in London, on television on ITV News, and BBC. Further in this case the sovereignty of the Maharaja has already been recognized by Great Britain by section 7 of the India independence act. Thus a change in the sovereign head of state would not require the need to re-recognize the state, if the previous treaty was not canceled. So when Ankit, inherited the titles, they would have been his to announce. Now the important cultural requirement would be for the new monarch to announce himself to the nation too, this was of-course done by the press nationally and internationally. Now at this point Ankit, could have been challenged by a local source. Or a counter claim could have been made by another royal family member. However, there is no source of this happening, in fact the media are quite supportive of him. Inheriting sovereignty for a monarch is a bit like inheriting property. You don't need anybody else to recognize your rights to inheritance, if it's not disputed by a family member, it's not for third party's to judge. You do need to update your name on the property register. Now for a sovereign Monarch there is no such thing as a register, as they are the register being sovereign. So announcements through the media and journalist records are the means to do so. Now some will ask but what about the heirs of Karan Singh, the crown prince who abdicated prior? Well none of the heirs are recoded to have made a claim or challenge Ankit. How could that be? It's simple once again due to the law and history. As Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim majority state with a Hindu royal family, the royal family allied with India. This meant in 1947 Karan Singh himself signed as a cabinet member of the Indian National Congress Party, the 26th Constitutional Amendment of 1947, which barred all Indian citizens from legally holding royal titles. Ankit exceptionally was sent to the Great Britain in 1989, due to the security threat posed to his life from the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. Ankit then became a British citizen this meant his Indian citizenship was automatically terminated due to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. In terms of recent historic happenings to strengthen Ankit's royal claim is the fact his father a royal prince, Bhim Singh took over the reigns of the royal Dogra clan, following Karan Singh's abdication, through his political party the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party founded in 1982. This was at the hight of the Islamic terrorist insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Ankit's father then won the election from Udhampur for the Indian parliament, the seat held previously by Karan Singh. So that is the reason most probably why Ankit made headlines in India's biggest papers with his inheritance of the sovereign title despite giving statement from London. I mean try announcing yourself the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, and send out a press release and see who will publish it. So in fact Ankit's inheritance is recognised by multiple reliable sources as the sovereign Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact by the logic used by editor Kevin we could remove all mention of India, Pakistan or China in relation to Jammu and Kashmir, as no one but those states recognize their own claim. However, we need to be neutral on Wikipedia, if we represent the views of India, Pakistan and China, then on this list it is most appropriate to represent the unchallenged sovereign monarch of the state too. Further it is not up to the UN or the USA who should be the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir as in the end it is a local issue of culture, history and law. Further it is not the realm of Wikipedia editors to go against sourced information, or play a role based on opinion in deciding who the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir is, or censoring the information while leaving claims by India, China and Pakistan here. Otherwise this becomes another type of unsavoury imperialism. I appreciate that this maybe ground breaking information, hard for many to digest, and my draw strong reactions form some. Yet by the sources it is most clear and certain, thus it must be included on such list. As that is the prerogative of Wikipedia to be bold and fair in the pursuit of the freedom of speech and information. Even if it may change the world. Wait, especially if it may change the world. JuneKennedy (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1.) Why is Ankit living in London, UK and not in Jammu and Kashmir? 2.) What organized armed force does Ankit control to challenge the armies / police forces of Pakistan, India, and China stationed in Jammu and Kashmir? All the other monarchs in this list have indirect or direct control over organized armed forces to enforce their rule over a defined territory of Earth. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Well the reason Ankit is the sovereign monarch of Jammu and Kashmir is because he is living in London, UK. This is what I was explaining earlier, according to the sources he was sent for his security to London due to his Hindu royal family's Panthers Party fighting Islamic terrorists in Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir. While Ankit has both Hindu and Muslim supporters judging by the authors of the articles written about him, Ankit might now even be killed on either side of Pakistan or Indian occupied J&K for what he is saying by either the Indian nationalists who do not wish to accept J&K as a sovereign state or by the Islamic militants who may not like the idea of a Hindu king ruling over them. There is also comparable historic precedent for this too, such as the example of General Charles De Gaulle who was based London in WWII while France was under Nazi occupations. Also comparable to Peter II's Kingdom of Yugoslavia in exile at Claridge's hotel in London during WWII. Peter's son Prince Alexander was even born in London at the time, and still was considered heir to the throne despite the country's law stating eligible heirs must be born on Yugoslavian soil. Charles II is also a comparable example who returned to rule England from exile aged 31, interestingly the same age as Ankit when he was coronated and his claim first hit the media in 2015. The power of Ankit's claim is actually better amplified by Ankit's presence in London. As India and Pakistan only occupy less than 43% of the territory each, Ankit is hence the neutral and independent party over the entire sovereign area of J&K, as his inheritance of the sovereignty is based presently on the peaceful application of law and history which would continue to be recognised by treaty by all other states involved with J&K unless laws were passed to end treaty. Where as India, Pakistan and China based their claim on armed force and violence that has found no resolution for 70 years now and even creates risk of a nuclear war that would destroy the ozone layer. Also greater power in the specific legal and historic nature of his inheritance are exercised better from being in London. This also becomes more apparent when reading, researching and digesting the news and historical sources better. First there is the long history between the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir and the UK as being close war time allies in both WWI and WWII. The preceding Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari also served as a member of the British War Cabinet with Winston Churchill at 10 Downing Street in London during WWII. Also it was by the efforts of the first Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir that the Sikh empire was defeated and Britain was able to exercise supremacy over the sub-continent, and also aided Britain in putting down the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Jammu and Kashmir was forged as a state by the Treaty of Amritsar with Britain in 1846. So it makes sense for Ankit to be in London, considering the war time situation of J&K today. Then London and the UK are important in clearly demonstrating Ankit's freedom from the 1971 26th constitutional amendment of India, by which all other prominent members of the Royal family are barred from holding the sovereign title. Further all other members of the Royal family remained in India and also choose to be loyal to it and it's republic according to the sources I found, thus no one else has made a counter or competing claim. So as Ankit became a British citizen his Indian citizenship was terminated according to Indian laws that do not allow dual nationality and so the 26th amendment of India stopped applying to Ankit. He was then legally able to inherit the royal sovereign titles where ever he may have been based. Interestingly despite having his Indian citizenship terminated Ankit is still recognised as an independent Royal subject of Jammu and Kashmir by India by the partial Instrument of Accession, by which the preceding Maharaja Hari retained sovereignty and also by Article 370 passed later in 1950 by the Indian parliament. Hence India by it's laws not by the propaganda of it's politicians, still continues to recognise J&K and it's subjects as sovereign by treaty. That's why J&K is the only state with Indian army presence to have it's own flag, constitution and property rights. Pakistan actually too still recognises the sovereignty of the Maharaja by the Standstill Agreement they signed with the Hari in 1947, hence Pakistan's occupied area is called Azad (Free) Jammu and Kashmir. I know it's confusing with all public relations, spin and propaganda used later by both governments for decades during war time efforts, but neither nation has passed any law of annexation over J&K. Also for whatever reason all the actual source information was kept suppressed until recently, so while it is an historic case, it is also a breaking story about the freedom of information which may potentially lead to a fair and neutral resolution to this potentially apocalyptic nuclear conflict that according to the noble peace prize winning body International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, could mean the "end of human civilization" with 2 billion people killed from a resulting nuclear famine. Thus the sovereignty of the Maharaja continues to be legally intact despite his sate being occupied, as even both occupying parties legally recognise it. It's perhaps a unique example in history, that Ankit is already the sovereign monarch under such circumstances, but none the less that's what the legal and historic sources demonstrate as happening. Further neither India nor Pakistan have passed any law of annexation over J&K till date, as for example Russia did recently with Crimea. Also there are issues of "bad faith" in the application of treaties by both India and Pakistan relating to the beginnings of the conflict and occupations, this article in the BBC by Victoria Schofield is most enlightening on the issue. So sources out of Delhi and Islamabad cannot be considered reliable and trustworthy in this case with the new and previously suppressed information emerging now. Thus Ankit being a royal family member from Jammu and Kashmir could be now considered one of the the most reliable sources coming out of London especially in a recorded British political context. JuneKennedy (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2.) This is a great question. I thought about this a fair deal while researching this fascinating and unique legal case. The fact that Ankit is also a British citizen, has engaged in the British political process as a candidate and political party leader even given statements and calls on record to the British army, has significance considering Britain's role in the begging of the conflict, Lord Mountbatten is the actual signatory on the treaty still in force between India and J&K, and of course the war time history of alliance between J&K and the UK. In theory and by the histories mentioned above Britain would have some responsibility towards Ankit and Jammu and Kashmir, especially as he is engaged in the political process now in the UK too. Matter of fact Ankit is candidate for parliament in the general election today from the Cities of London and Westminster constituency using the title The Maharaja of Kashmir on the ballot paper. So by this it can seen to some extent that Ankit is already actively seeking command of the British army democratically. I agree it's an unique example in history, but it has merit. Also Ankit is the heir to the political party founded by this mother Jay Mala and father Bhim Singh, this party had once won all the seats in the Udhampur district the Northern Command headquarters of the Indian army, so his family would be well known to the Indian army and it's officers too. This coupled with the fact that Ankit is a direct descendant of General Zorawar, known as the "Napoleon of India" also means Ankit has some cultural influence over the Indian army which could potentially grow in time, it is after all an unresolved and ongoing armed conflict. A conflict that has already lasted 70 years, so maybe it may take Ankit a further 20 years perhaps to gain this command but the possibility and action has already begun and been reported in the news. Further last year in December, Ankit contested the Richmond Park by-election using the title Maharaja Jammu and Kashmir as was reported by the Hindustan Times, one of the most read English broadsheet newspapers in India. Here Ankit wished to reunite India and Pakistan, as a solution to the war in Jammu and Kashmir. So through spreading a media message of unity Ankit may not even need an army. I suppose his first duty as a sovereign monarch in such a war time situation, would be to bring peace to his sovereign state with or without an army. According to the sources Ankit is also a trained artist from the California Institute of the Arts, and thus his methods applying media and art may not require an army at all to end the conflict for his state, which it appears he is attempting do, even tough the task is monumental. After all the conflict for Jammu and Kashmir now in it's 70th year is one of the world's oldest ongoing wars, if not the oldest. So perhaps art maybe more powerful in finding a peaceful solution now where all armies and nuclear arsenals have continued to fail. But in the end who are we to judge a sovereign monarch in a war time state? What is for sure is Ankit is eligible legally inherit the sovereign title of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and is trying something to bring peace to his sovereign state, and greater International awareness of a potential nuclear conflict which that has been reported in reliable sources internationally now, as tenacious as it might sound on first impressions, and thus merits inclusion on Wikipedia and on this list. Even though it may be an explosive and potentially disruptive information discovery. That is what the forum of Wikipedia is for after all, for instances such as these. JuneKennedy (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a further point to question 2.) While having an armed force is convention to being a sovereign monarch it is not a requirement by law as such, and in delving deeper into the theory of sovereign duty, the role of the sovereign's armed forces are for the security of his/her subjects, so if a sovereign monarch has others means by which to conduct this duty, then that would be the sovereign monarch's prerogative. Thus it would not negate being sovereign by simply not possessing an army by such legal and cultural theory. JuneKennedy (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I will read all that one day, but do not have time to right now.

What matters for the article now is encapsulated in the first sentence therein: "'A monarch is the head of a monarchy, a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled by an individual who normally rules for life or until abdication'". Ankit does not currently hold such a position. You may believe that he is a rightful monarch who is unjustly prevented from ruling over that "state or polity" by some injustice: there are those who would say that the same is the case for the thrones of countless countries that are now republics, areas that have been absorbed into other countries, or for members of dethroned dynasties, and they are not going to appear on this list. (Edit: many of these, including Ankit Love, are included at List of current pretenders, which seems perfectly correct. This is not a judgement of what should be, but of the facts as they stand, which is what an encyclopaedia is governed by.)

The idea that inclusion here is justified by your unjustified addition of the territory to another list bears so little merit I will say no more about it now, except to inform you that I am heading to that page to delete it.

You clearly do not have consensus to add this here, and I cannot envisage the situation by which you will achieve that unless either the geopolitical situation there changes, or at least one of the words 'current', 'sovereign' or 'monarch' changes its meaning. Desist. Kevin McE (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin you have no consensus and you are acting alone. Your argument is backed with no facts nor sources, you are just making individual statements, and you have admitted to not even reading the argument prior to deleting reliably sourced information. It's the UN secretariat that listed Jammu and Kashmir as an independent country last week. Which I believe is a more reliable source than India, Pakistan and China in this matter. The fact is that Ankit is a "sovereign," "current" "monarch" according to not me, but independent reliable new sources and histories which you once again wish not to examine either. Your individual opinion and admitted rushed behaviour is not supreme over judging sovereigns. How aware are you of the conflict, dispute and it's history? Have you researched it deeply as I clearly have. I think not, I don't believe you have expertise on the specifics of Jammu and Kashmir to pass such generic judgments. Can you please also let us know who's claim you believe to be sovereign over Jammu and Kashmir? Further the information you may have picked up on face value in the past may have been aggressive PR by India. Consider this list of sovereign monarchs, every major religion is represented apart from Hinduism. Is that not strange, especially considering India's 26th constitutional amendment of 1971 that attempted to abolish all 500+ monarchs in India, perhaps this was the tip of the iceberg of a PR effort by India's Soviet allegiance during the Cold War to suppress histories and facts that are now finally coming to light. JuneKennedy (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"'It's the UN secretariat that listed Jammu and Kashmir as an independent country last week'": Blatant lie. One list included J&K among "Countries/Geographical areas". If you cannot distinguish between that designation and sovereign independent state, you really should not try to take part in such a discussion. And you have been reverted by two people, so you do not have consensus, but if you want to take this to 3O, feel free. Kevin McE (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least we agree that the United Nations listed Jammu and Kashmir separately on it's list of "Countries/Geographical areas" in 2017. Now we have to consider does this also mean that it is a sovereign country or perhaps even sovereign geographical area? To resolve this, let us go to the source of this court judgement by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court from 2015.
The court ruling by justices MA Attar and AM Magray states, "The sovereignty of the State of J&K under the rule of Maharaja, even after signing of Instrument of Accession and in view of framing of its own Constitution, thus ‘legally and constitutionally remained intact and untampered'... the citizens of State of Jammu and Kashmir have their own Constitution and their sovereign character which cannot be challenged, altered or abridged.'"

I believe with the combination of these two legally charged happenings, that this is then conclusive, that Jammu and Kashmir is a sovereign state. Further as the court stated "under the rule of Maharaja," I then believe that it's monarch is still the current sovereign head of state. Whether it now be a sovereign "country" or sovereign "geographical area," that is an academic issue, as the word sovereign in international law takes paramountcy in regards to independent statehood. Who are we to judge the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir? I feel it would be a most political act peppered with the vestiges of colonial and imperial belief to say Jammu and Kashmir is not sovereign now, after their highest court has ruled that it is.
Also the only one previous editor User:Jwkozak91 that you claim consensus by, had reverted the article only before this debate reached the talk page. After I presented my argument here, he did not perform any further reverts, instead he rightly started asking questions to understand this absolutely unique case in history of sovereignty in international law better, and he had then left The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir on this List of Current Sovereign Monarchs. After this debate on the talk page commenced, thus far I have been reverted solely by you.
You have not answered my previous question either yet, if you believe the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to be erroneous in judging it's own sovereignty, who do you then believe to hold the sovereignty of the country/geographical area called Jammu and Kashmir, now listed separately after the sovereign state of Jamaica and before the sovereign state of Japan by the United Nations? Intriguingly, both the current sovereign monarchs of Japan and Jamaica are on this list. JuneKennedy (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a further note, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was recognised in the UN debate that led to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, and he has never been renounced by the UN till date. Thus if Jammu and Kashmir has remained a sovereign state, the office of the Maharaja as monarch continues to remain current by international law and perspective too, until a conclusive resolution to the contrary is reached. JuneKennedy (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of current sovereign monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II's Birth column[edit]

Is there a way we can simplify Elizabeth's Birth section? Having 1926 repeated 16 times, isn't necessary. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a Monarch[edit]

A prince, by definition, is a monarch, whether elective or hereditary, as mentioned in the introduction of this article. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta article is marked with the category Monarchies of Europe. The first link under the governance section, of the SMOM article, leads to List of Grand Masters of the Knights Hospitaller, which states His Most Eminent Highness as monarch, and is labeled with the Monarchies template. Both the Bishop of Urgell, and the Pope are included as monarchs on this list, and so should the Prince of SMOM. Death Star Central (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the difference lies in the fact that the SMOM is not a sovereign state (it does not claim statehood), so its Grand Master, while retaining characteristics of a monarch, is out of this list's scope (although this case could be mentioned in passing somewhere). The Pope and the Bishop of Urgell are both sovereign over actual territory, which are recognised as states in the United Nations. Other supposed "monarchs", such as the Prince of Sealand, are obviously excluded as well. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Prince of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign monarch. The United Nations, recognises SMOM as “a sovereign subject of international public law - whose government is in Rome.” SMOM has permanent observer status at the United Nations, and maintains recognised embassies in over 70 countries. The SMOM passport is recognised by over 100 countries. The Prince of SMOM is included on the List of current heads of state. Thus the sovereign monarch of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, should be included on this List of current sovereign monarchs, in full proper format, to assure that this list is just and authoritative in respect to international law. Death Star Central (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is founded upon definitions that are open to interpretation, and so there does seem to be a case to be made for this historical oddity. (In the interests of disclosure, I consider the status given to an elitist religious self selecting collective like this absolutely disgusting, but that should not affect our dealing with facts). The self definition of this article in its opening sentence refers to "a state or polity", so Ravenpuff's main point seems moot. One wonders what the thinking was in introducing that into the opening: it would open the list to all sorts of entities, even if not quite as far down the plausibility rankings as Sealand.
However, contentions made by DSC need challenging too. The term 'prince' clearly does not by definition indicate a monarch: the most obvious of many examples is the Prince of Wales. Wikipedia does not have a widespread consensus of treating SMOM as equivalent to a sovereign state, and it is rather disingenuous to abridge the name of the list that you mention as including him, and omitting to mention that it is essentially an annex to the main list that includes him. I would also challenge to what extent the position can be described as a sovereign monarchy, in the strict definition of either term, if the previous incumbent's resignation can be demanded by the head of another entity. Kevin McE (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taken out of context, “Prince,” is widely known as a popular music artist. In specific context of this article, and under heading of this SMOM sub-section, the title of prince as head of a sovereign entity, is a sovereign monarch. The Prince of Monaco, Prince of Liechtenstein, Co-Princes of Andorra, and Duke of Luxembourg are all noted on this list, as sovereign monarchs. France wields greater influence over Monaco, including right to lawfully abolish it’s monarchy, if the prince does not produce heir. As highlighted in the Monaco succession crisis of 1918. The selection of Andorra’s co-princes is under influence of Vatican and French state. On the List of current heads of state and government, under section of “Other entities,” His Most Eminent Highness Fra’ di Sanguinetto, The Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, is listed as “Head of state,” with his Grand Chancellor von Boeselager listed as “Head of government,” alongside the only other entry in that section, the European Union. Every monarchy on this list, could be considered an “elitist religious self selecting collective.” Death Star Central (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be balanced and neutral on this, and invite and analyse good discussion, but your reply does not make that easy. You did not pay due attention to the example that I gave that 'prince' does not necessarily mean monarch, instead introducing a blatantly spurious example. Your assertion about the House of Grimaldi ceased to be true 16 years ago, any any flaws in the claim of Monaco to be considered sovereign would have an impact only on the appropriateness of the inclusion of Monaco on this list, and would warrant a separate thread: the actual recent fact of forced resignation of the leader of SMOM is the evidence of lack of sovereignty that needs to be considered here, but rather than do so you have attempted to divert attention. Your final sentence is frankly ridiculous: which of the countries listed do you believe to be "an elitist religious self selecting collective”?
Nevertheless, this opening of the list to 'polities' might make possible a separate list of groups with autonomy that might be monarchies. Kevin McE (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would more or less agree; the scope as expressed in the lead probably needs to be tightened a bit, with a separate list with such "monarchs" or "monarchies" created if need be (which I think would be a dynamic list in any case). I do note in passing that the SMOM is featured in the List of current monarchies article; the question, I think, should be on whether it should remain there. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is supposed to be a "list of monarchs of sovereign states", and the monarch of the Order does not reign over any of the entities on the List of sovereign states. Perhaps it would help clarify if we renamed the article? -- Beland (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So moved. -- Beland (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking[edit]

It would be nice to link from the list to articles on the monarchies themselves, like Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Not sure if this should be its own column or replace the links to country names, or what. It's weird that the titles in the "Monarch" column are linked to lists of past monarchs; maybe this should move into a separate column as well? -- Beland (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra?[edit]

How could a co-monarchy exist? It would mean a single person who rules over everything of which there are two. Add to that both of these co-princes aren't monarchs themselves. One is elected temporarily by general election and the other is chosen by heads of a religious faith. Neither of these men can wield power in Andorra without answering to Both the parliament of Andorra and their own respective organizations. There is no meaning of the word monarchy that applies to this situation. The position is not hereditary. They don't have over arching power. And there isn't just one of them. They aren't even called kings or emperors. They're called princes, like the old meaning of the word prince before it because commonly, "the son of a king". The word prince used to mean the principal of a principality, royal or not. 100.34.110.98 (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Andorra does not belong to this list, as it is clearly not a monarchy. It could be discussed whether it is a diarchy (two monarchs), since in our own wikipedia article about monarchy we define it as "a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication". Neither co-prince of Andorra qualifies, since the president of France is democratically elected every four years and the bishop of Urgell can be replaced at any time by the Pope. --RR (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Key and Column Headers[edit]

No succession column even though mentioned in Key,
Heir/Heiress Presumptives are also under heir apparent column. column header should be changed or heir presumptives should be marked. Chamika1990 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Elizabeth II's[edit]

Wouldn't it be better to have Elizabeth II listed once, instead of 16 times? GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Togo, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo[edit]

A user asked why North Korea isn't featured, since it has a hereditary system and the response was, "then we'd have to add Syria, Cuba, Togo, Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo as well", but why aren't we adding those along with North Korea, since they have hereditary power passing. ReaIdiot (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Africa. a kingdom is a kingdom.[edit]

There are Kings that rule a district, not a country. Examples: African kingdoms. Wikistallion (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

or province. whatsoever. have their own units for everything. but they are just a province, not a state. Wikistallion (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are on List of current constituent monarchs and its subpages. CMD (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Aga Khan as a sovereign Monarch. Historical treaty with Portugal and decades long recognition by other heads of states[edit]

@ User:Chipmunkdavis I see you deleted by entry on this list pertaining to Aga Khan IV with the reasoning that "Fatimid Caliphate is in no way a current state", this I believe is incorrect, can you give any facts to qualify this statement of yours? The Aga Khan entered into a treaty with Portugal, that gives his state a seat there, much akin to the the Vatican in Italy. This was the source in La Croix "Lisbon as the Holy See for Ismaili Shia Muslims" further Aga Khan is recognized by many heads of states, including Elizabeth II, Queen of England who hosted his diamond jubilee celebration and he is the only person that she has recognized with the title "His Highness" which is reserved for kings, as covered in this article titled Who is the Aga Khan and why is his Diamond Jubilee being celebrated?. He was also recognize by Canada with the Prime Minister invited Aga Khan to address both houses of Parliament in 2014, a transcript of that speech can be found on the following link to this Canadian parliament website. As you can see in the list of his honors he has received recognition from Bahrain, Canada, Comoros, France, India, Iran, Italy Ivory Coast, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morroco, Pakistan, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Tajikistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, and Zanzibar. With about 15 million population belonging to the Imamate that pay tax as well, the entry of Aga Khan I believe sincerely belongs in this list. Death Star Central (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A better characterisation of what I did was to revert an addition, rather than delete a long-standing entry. That source does not support the idea that the situation is equivalent to that of Vatican City. Giving up sovereign territory in Lisbon would be absolutely huge news. There is no such news, because it has not happened. Various honors, titles, and so on are irrelevant to the question of statehood. Honors to an individual do not create a state. Even if Aga Khan is to be considered a monarch, this article is not a list of monarchs, but of monarchs of states. The article List of sovereign states covers the entities that are considered for this article, which does not include global religious orders (not even the Sovereign Military Order of Malta). CMD (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CMD have you actually read the article, and the agreement. Just because it was not front page news where you live does not mean it did not happen. Perhaps you should write a complaint to your news companies, if you feel this should have got more coverage. But Portugal did legally recognize Aga Khan's Ismaili Imamat. Here a link to the legislation on Portugal's DRE website a couple key points in that legislation include "The Ismaili Imamat and its assets shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and execution within the scope of its official activities," and " The Imam shall be granted the following prerogatives: a) Ceremonial diplomatic treatment accorded in Portugal to foreign High Entities;". Also in that list of Sovereign state above Northern Cyprus is also listed, which is not a United Nations member and only recognized by Turkey. So that list clearly needs an update with the Ismaili Imamat to be added there. The facts are the facts here, pointing to other incomplete lists does not validate ignoring clear legislation and references here. Please do wait for other editors to have a say before reverting or deleting the content. It's meant to be based on facts and consensus, which I feel I am outweighing you on here. Death Star Central (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this guideline here. If you want to add something, and it is reverted, it is your responsibility to get consensus before re-inserting. It does not work that you add something, and then it can't be deleted until everyone agrees. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that your argument for inclusion consists of original synthesis, That is, you are gathering up a number of sources to create an argument that doesn't exist in any of them. Do you have a reliable source that ;
A/ Specifically describes whatever it is in Portugal as a state?
B/ Describes Aga Khan as head of that state, in a form described in the lead of this article?
Without this, I'm afraid you don't have much of a case. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emir of Afghanistan[edit]

Should the Taliban emir, now the effective head of state of Afghanistan, be included in this list? Comments welcome; I am aware the Taliban gov’t does not have much official recognition but it IS a reality now. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only if reliable sources refer to them as the monarch of Afghanistan. CMD (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei[edit]

Brunei gained independence from the United Kingdom on 1 January 1984, so the Sultan's reign as a "sovereign monarch" starts from 1984 not 1967. Peter Ormond 💬 09:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The title of the page is clear, and Brunei was not a sovereign state prior to 1984. 2A00:23C8:4380:3D01:E09E:7774:8226:1DF (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles[edit]

The Commonwealth section needs a whole revamp. I added Charles at least but I'm not skilled enough to change everything Nintentoad125 (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating dates[edit]

The length of the reigns of the monarchs hasn’t been updated since February 21st, 2023. Before that, it was updated daily. Could someone do something? 2601:603:4D00:E600:51A9:FE82:ABEE:39E8 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How’s a president a monarch?[edit]

Talking about the UAE. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a monarch as ruler of Abu Dhabi, and is elected by the other monarchs to serve as the national head of state. RS still consider him a monarch in this role because only one of the monarchs can be elected president. It’s not open to the general population. He is an absolute monarch over Abu Dhabi, and a constitutional monarch nationally. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 82.36.70.45 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_current_monarchs_of_sovereign_states&oldid=1205866748"